|
11 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM (#2259665) Subject: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos I've predicted the barrage that will start growing if Obama continues to forge ahead state by state as he has done recently. Seem the entrenched right-wing extremos decided to start the band playing at the highest levels: "Appearing today on Fox News Sunday, President Bush laid into Sen. Barack Obama, claiming he would "attack Pakistan" and "embrace" Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said when asked if there had been a "rush to judgment" about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." Bush added he doesn't think people know enough about Obama -- but wouldn't comment on why, if that's the case, so many are supporting him. In fact, Obama has not advocated either for attacking Pakistan or embracing Ahmadinejad. Obama has said that the U.S. should be willing to strike against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country's president Pervez Musharraf refuses. Obama also said during a debate last year that he was willing to meet with leaders of Iran and other U.S. rivals without preconditions, although he did not commit to doing so. Obama's chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has also criticized Obama for his remarks on Pakistan and for being willing to meet with foreign leaders. Obama's campaign responded this morning. "Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation," said spokesman Bill Burton." (Huffington Post) As one who has greatly profited from the proiscuous deployment of falksehoods and slanders and defamatory rumours as a tool of politics, President Bush undersatnds, he believes, the power of a good black PR line. But he may not understand what happens when a black PR line gets clearly disproved by someone. It blows up in the face of he who promulgates it, and makes the promulgator look like an ass. Not something Bush has to fear. He's already got the tee-shirt. In any case, this is an early example; there will be more. You can document them here, if you are interested. I am sure Hill will be hit with some of the same, but I expect that to be less hydrophobic than the ones directed against Barack, for some reason. Just my humble opinion. A |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:12 PM (#2259676) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: MarkS Sure. And the Republican candidate will be "Borked." Business as usual in the political circus. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM (#2259680) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ebbie "...Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. But Barack Obama doesn't need any foreign policy advice from the architect of the worst foreign policy decision in a generation," Go, Barack! MarkS,have you actually looked at Bork's record? |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:19 PM (#2259688) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Rapparee Here's another little something from your "HP", Amos. It's just one example of why I despise Certain People: ...In the 2000 South Carolina Presidential primary Bush surrogates circulated stories that McCain's five years as a POW had made him "mentally unstable," gave him a "loose screw," that he "committed treason while a POW" and "came home and forgot us." The stories also called McCain "the fag candidate," called his wife a drug addict, said McCain "chose to sire children without marriage" and had "a black child" (the actual wording of that last smear from the flyers and e-mails that circulated is not printable here). And when McCain responded by asking whether this kind of smear campaign showed that voters should think twice about trusting Bush, saying Bush was "twisting the truth like Clinton," Rove was able to turn that against McCain¸ by accusing McCain of "going negative." Unlike Rove and Bush, McCain hadn't understood the value of attacking with surrogates.... |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:19 PM (#2259690) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC Of course President Bush would attack the one candidate in this race who opposed his disastrous war in Iraq from the start. People don't seem to make the distinction between "from the start" and "at the start". The first of these is not true about Obama, the second is. He opposed the war in the beginning (when he was not in a position to vote on it one way or another), but he supported it later on with his votes to fund it. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM (#2259696) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D Tom Toles, Washington Post cartoonist, has explained Bush's situation very well this morning. Obama is very careful to qualify his plans and to be pretty clear about why. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:33 PM (#2259702) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D *sigh* ....I am really, really tired of comments...from ANYONE... equating specific votes with 'support' of the war. Political opponents use this tactic ever day, asserting that X "voted for" some position, when perhaps all they were doing was choosing the lesser of two awkward choices...like avoiding depriving the troops of supplies. This means I am very much in favor of strict controls about what kind of irrelevant riders & amendments can be added to bills...especially funding bills. It is time we allowed Senators & Congressmen to actually VOTE for precisely what they believe in. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:49 PM (#2259721) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos I agree -- I have frequently asserted that the biggest increase in government sanity for the lest invested effort would be a simple "clear and unambiguous domain of relevance" requirement for any part of a given bill, that it must be germane to the topic and purpose of the whole, only, and no extraneous topics or purposes may be included. It would blow the pork business into a cocked hat, forcing it to restructure itself somehow, which of course it somehow would. A |
|
11 Feb 08 - 03:52 PM (#2259725) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: McGrath of Harlow I can't imagine that being attacked by Bush would be too likely to do Obama any harm at all. On the other hand I imagine McCain is may be a bit disquieted by the latest threat, when Bush said "I'll be glad to help him if he is the nominee". That's all he needs! |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:12 PM (#2259745) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC A vote to fund the war is a vote for the war, because if Congress refused to fund it there would be no war. It's as simple as that. Had Obama rally opposed to the war, her would have refused to fund it. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:23 PM (#2259759) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Rapparee No, Carol. Congress never should have given Bush permission to conduct military operations in the first place without a formal declaration of war and should have revoked that authority last year at the latest. THAT'S where the gutless wonders come in. Providing the money to feed and arm the troops which were (in my opinion) unconstitutionally committed to combat is supplying my neighbors and yours with what they need to stay alive. Providing the authority to do commit them in the first place was wrong. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:33 PM (#2259768) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC Kucinich had a plan to use the money that had already been appropriated, to bring the troops home, which would have been the only legitimate way to support them. Obama could have gotten on board with that plan, and he didn't. Obama did not oppose the war, or support the troops either, with his actions. He voted to continue a war that could easily have been stopped without depriving the troops of what they needed to stay alive. This is not opposing the war, it's supporting it. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:47 PM (#2259786) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: KB in Iowa I don't mean to be flip CarolC but how was Kucinich going to get W to go along with his plan? W is still the C in C. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:54 PM (#2259793) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Peace '"I certainly don't know what he believes in," Bush said when asked if there had been a "rush to judgment" about Obama. "The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad."' This is a statement from G W Bush. I mean, I would listen to what he has to say. He's never lied to the population, would he? |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:56 PM (#2259795) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Peace Or even "has he?" |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:56 PM (#2259796) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos Not knowingly. But he lies to himself very convincingly, and his self is dumb enough to believe those lies. A |
|
11 Feb 08 - 04:59 PM (#2259798) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC He would do it by telling Bush that he would not receive any more funding to continue the war. Pelosi could do this right now, if she really opposed the war, by not allowing any more funding bills to be brought to the floor. The head of the budget committee could do the same thing by not allowing any funding bills to leave committee. That's how the Vietnam war was ended. Congress refused to fund it any longer. If we waited until presidents were willing to end wars, even Democratic ones, they would never end. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 05:19 PM (#2259822) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Rapparee I thought the fall of Saigon had something to do with the end of the VN war..... |
|
11 Feb 08 - 05:37 PM (#2259845) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D "Kucinich had 'a plan'.." right...and almost NO one thought his plan was workable as stated. Our folklore society used to meet in a Unitarian church with an ideal location, but we had to rent it and conform to their rules...how tedious! So a friend of mine proposed (with tongue very much in cheek) that 2-3 hundred folkies join the church, vote to sell it to FSGW for $1, then rent it to THEM.....great 'plan', huh? Might not have gotten very far at a board meeting. Kucinich is right that we should end the level of involvement in Iraq and begin getting the troops out of there, but he simple doesn't fathom the logistics and time schedule and other details which need to be considered. It is for situations like this that the phrase "having a tiger by the tail" was coined. Being 'right' is nice, but knowing HOW to be right is more important. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 05:47 PM (#2259854) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC The fall of Saigon didn't necessarily have to mean the end of the war. It happened at the same time that Congress defunded the war, so perhaps it looks like the fall of Saigon caused the end of the war. President Ford did attempt to persuade Congress to provide more military funding for the war after the fall of Saigon. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 05:52 PM (#2259863) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC "Kucinich had 'a plan'.." right...and almost NO one thought his plan was workable as stated. This is opinion. My opinion differs from yours. My opinion is that almost no one in Congress really wanted to end the war (war being the gravy train for politicians that it is, after all, even for Democrats). It worked for the Vietnam war, and it can just as easily work for the Iraq war, if the members of our government have the will to make it happen. History provides us with this lesson. If they don't make it happen, it's because they don't want it to happen. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 06:00 PM (#2259868) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Peace The Kucinich 12-Point Plan for Iraq Google that if you want to read his 12-point plan. Of course, in typical fashion, the ball gets dropped off to the UN. What's new? |
|
11 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM (#2259885) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: artbrooks As I recall, all of the US and allied troops were out of Vietnam long before the North Vietnamese invasion and the fall of Saigon. Congress refused to increase the military aid package for that fiscal year, so the South Vietnamese army basically had no rifle ammunition, no bombs to drop on the tanks coming south on QL-1, and so forth. I suppose one could say that Congress ended that war - by handing a military victory to the North. Quite an example to emulate. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 06:51 PM (#2259906) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D "My opinion differs from yours." indeed... "My opinion is that almost no one in Congress really wanted to end the war..." Oh,my...that degree of cynicism is kinda sad. I simply can't believe that. I heard too many impassioned opinions otherwise. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 07:08 PM (#2259913) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC That's not true, artbrooks. The evacuation of US forces from Saigon was ongoing right up until the day the city fell to the North Vietnamese. The war was not winnable, and millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians had to be killed before the US could learn this lesson. The Vietnam war was never about the spread of Communism. Ho Chi Minh and his guerillas were trained and funded by the US Office of Strategic Services during WWII. After the war, while the French and Chinese were fighting over who would have Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh repeatedly pleaded with the US government to help them gain their independence. We refused and sided with the colonialists. The Vietnam war was a war of independence from colonialism. Had we been willing to help the Vietnamese win their independence, the Vietnam war would never have happened. But nevertheless, as a war of independence from colonialism, terms like "handing a victory" to anyone at all are not really relevant - the war was unwinnable. We will find that Iraq and Afghanistan will provide us with similar lessons as Vietnam did. As with our foolish belief that the Vietnam war was about Communism, our rhetoric about the Iraq war, as well as the war in Afghanistan, that those wars are about the spread of radical Islam, is just as foolish. They are wars in which imperialist powers of the West are trying to impose their will upon the peoples of the Middle East. The peoples of the Middle East will fight this until we bankrupt ourselves so utterly that we, as an imperialist power, will go the way of the Soviet Union (as it appears that we are well on our way to doing). |
|
11 Feb 08 - 07:11 PM (#2259917) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC Oh,my...that degree of cynicism is kinda sad. I simply can't believe that. I heard too many impassioned opinions otherwise. It's not cynicism. It's realism. Follow the money. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 07:24 PM (#2259930) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: artbrooks The last US soldier, except for the Marine guards at the embassy, left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. The last Marine left on the last helicopter out, on April 30, 1975. |
|
11 Feb 08 - 10:03 PM (#2260029) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC Congress halted funding for the war in 1973, so I was in error when I said that the fall of Saigon happened at the time that the Congress halted funding. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 01:25 AM (#2260116) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Riginslinger "Had we been willing to help the Vietnamese win their independence, the Vietnam war would never have happened." If we'd even have helped France try to mainain control over it, we would have been better off than we were. The US chose the worst of all scenarios. Once France pulled out, what sense did it make for the US to fire the conflict up all over again? |
|
12 Feb 08 - 07:33 AM (#2260232) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: GUEST,Guest It never ceases to amaze me how many True Blue voters keep insisting "their side" is against the war. As Carol points out, both sides in Congress, including Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton, are pro-Iraq war. They voted for it, and they continue to play this devious and depraved "I support the troops" game to maintain their cover. John Edwards was at least honest about his early support for the war, and owned up to it AND SAID HE WAS WRONG TO SUPPORT IT. He didn't, unlike Clinton, try and weasel his way around it by blaming Bush. Or like Obama, lie and completely misrepresent his voting record since coming to the Senate. Kucinich was the only true anti-war candidate who opposed the war from it's inception. But ending the war will take a Congress full of John Edwards--willing to stop voting for it every time a vote comes up, under the lame ass excuse of "supporting the troops". |
|
12 Feb 08 - 07:41 AM (#2260236) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: GUEST,Guest And don't even get me started about how the mainstream anti-war movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party. I saw plenty of that last weekend at the national conference of anti-war activists here in the Twin Cites, planning their protest for Republican National Convention. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:20 AM (#2260415) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos Oh, Gigi, we don't have to worry about gettin' you started, honeychile... A |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:35 AM (#2260437) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D GGs political views seem to me to be like many folks religious views. They get locked into a basic set of assumptions (whether proven or not!), and thereafter analyze every situation in those terms. I tried to point out above the many variables that determine how a member of Congress 'votes', and why a voting record is NOT always a clear indicator of basic beliefs and opinions....but some folks NEED a simplistic way to describe anyone they disagree with. When WILL they learn what Occam's Razor really means? |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:50 AM (#2260450) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos When it slices them in the butt, I reckon... A |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:56 AM (#2260456) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk The Democrats got a majority in 2006 in Congress because the public wanted them to end the war in Iraq. That was very clear. Once elected, they made no serious effort whatsoever to end the war. To the contrary, they continued authorizing funding for it and supporting it. If you want to end a war, you cut off the funds that are keeping that war going. Shortly after that occurs, the troops start coming home, folks, because they must! Because without money, the war effort cannot be sustained. It's not a question of "not supporting the troops", because the troops don't STAY in the combat zone if there isn't money to maintain them there. The Democratic Party had the power to end that war after 2006. They never used it. They are complicit in supporting the war. Among the very few politicians not complicit in supporting the war are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, both of whom have clearly opposed it from the start. Those two have been resisted most strenuously by the ruling establishment in the Democratic and Republican parties and the media. Guess why? The ruling establishment RUNS the Democratic and Republican parties, and is in favor of continuing a USA occupation of Iraq with an eye toward a possible attack on Iran, and with an eye to controlling the marketing of Iraqi oil reserves, and with an eye toward maintaining permanent American military bases in the central Middle East. The rhetoric in the media doesn't mean shit. The Redemocrapublicant machine (the Duopoly) has shown no inclination to get out of Iraq, but they'll tell you whatever you want to hear...just like in 2006. They'll dangle the "end the war" worm on the hook and see how many of you will bite. Of course, there is only one worm, and you're hungry, right? Well, there are two worms on two hooks, but you get hooked just the same. Will Obama turn out to actually honor his committment to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 18 months? Possibly.... (got my fingers crossed for that slim chance)...but my guess is that "the situation will change" in some way that supposedly requires him to keep them in longer...meaning much longer... My guess is that the powers that be will not let Mr Obama honor his promise once he is president. I may be mistaken. I hope so. Miracles can still happen, I suppose. Given the choice, looking at these 2 dangling worms you are going to have to choose between on voting day 2008...I would still vote for Obama (if he runs), or for Hillary (if she runs), because to swallow another Republican worm after the last 8 years of gagging on them would be just beyond even thinking about. I laugh at the thought of the Democratic Party machine giving any serious consideration to ending the USA's wars in the Middle Eastern region. They will only end those wars when they are facing utter irredeemable disaster and there is simply no viable WAY of staying there any longer. Why? Because of the oil, that's why. Because of who controls the marketing of the oil. It has very little to do with any war on "Terror"...but it has much to do with employing terror against anyone who resists the imperial policy. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 01:02 PM (#2260522) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC I tried to point out above the many variables that determine how a member of Congress 'votes', and why a voting record is NOT always a clear indicator of basic beliefs and opinions You make it sound like it has to be complicated, Bill, and the fact is that it really doesn't have to be complicated. I agree that members of Congress are often presented with difficult choices about how to vote because of things like riders. But when it comes to war, the choice is very simple and very clear. For instance if a rider to fund school lunches is attached to a bill to fund the war, the Congressmember can vote against funding the war, and then introduce a new bill, separately from the war funding bill, to fund the school lunches. If a member of Congress votes to fund the war, he or she is supporting the war. If he or she didn't want to support the war, war being about killing large numbers of people and all, he or she would absolutely find ways around voting to fund it. It's really that simple. Obama did not do this. He voted to fund the war. If he believed that the war was wrong, he would have stood up for his beliefs and voted against funding it. In the absence of acting on what he says are his beliefs, anything he says is rhetoric at best, and lies at worst. The members of Congress did it before with Vietnam, so we know it can be done. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 02:06 PM (#2260581) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk The problem is that any politician who had had the guts to oppose funding that war from the beginning would long since have been marginalized and shut out by the main party power blocs in Congress...by both of them. As with Kucinich. As with Ron Paul. (the other Republican pols were laughing when he stated plain and obvious truths about the war in those debates!) Such people who buck the establishment can get a lot of help from the ordinary public and from private individual donors...but NOT from the party machine or the big lobbyists who control most of the campaign financing. So if you were a politician with any real hopes of getting the backing you needed from the party machine to get elected president farther on down the road, then of course you would not vote against funding the war. To do so would be to write your own obituary as a viable presidential candidate. So to have voted against funding the war would have taken immense courage and a determination to stick to your principles even if this would basically destroy your political career. That's a bit of a conundrum, don't you think? The people who most wish to change things are the people who cannot afford to act on principle unless they are prepared to be shut out by the powers that be. That's the position Kucinich is in, and the position Ron Paul is in. To a much lesser extent, it's the position Edwards is in. If Obama wanted a realistic shot at becoming president, he pretty well HAD to vote to fund the war, seems to me, and the same goes for Hillary Clinton....regardless of what they really believe! That's how the game is played on Capitol Hill. You either vote with the Big Machine for war...or you get marginalized and shut out of the Big Game called "Election 2008". So what the heck are they to do? This doesn't change the fact that the Democrats could have acted as a united party and brought that war to an end after 2006...if they were not run by the corporate interests who don't want the American occupation to end. What does Obama really think about ending the war? Who knows. But will it make any difference in the end to the corporate-run policy? Again, who knows? If he does intend to honor his promises, he had better watch his back...and have plenty of security people around him whom he can trust implicitly. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 03:47 PM (#2260724) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC It definitely is a problem. And it is further compounded by the fact that they will have to continue to do as they're told once in office if they want to stay in office. So what's the point of even voting? Why not just acknowledge that even they (the politicians) are just puppets and have no real power to carry out their promises? Why bother to even make promises? The only reason I can think of is that they just want the job for the prestige and the money. They certainly don't represent the voters. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 04:05 PM (#2260743) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: McGrath of Harlow "...they will have to continue to do as they're told once in office if they want to stay in office." In the American system that only applies to a President who is unwilling to risk not being re-elected, and even that only applies during the first term. (Leaving aside the possibility of assassination, or the more remote possibility of impeachment.) |
|
12 Feb 08 - 04:50 PM (#2260781) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D It seems to me, Carol & LH, that you are just proving my assertion by defining certain terms so that your opinion seems obvious. I flatly do not agree that 'Democrats could have ended' this Iraq nonsense that easily. They DID introduce several bills..which were voted down. It takes **MORE** votes than they had to cut off funding OR simply withdraw. If they DID manage to cut off funding, the missing funds would not have 'simply' caused everyone to hop on a plane home...it would have compromised the safety of the troops during attempted withdrawal. Many experts have said so....you don't change it by just stating the opposite. I guess we'll just have to disagree. I want it ended as badly as you do....it is the damned **REPUBLICANS** who have kept this mess going by lying to us and themselves about 'progress' and the 'surge'. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 04:54 PM (#2260791) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk What's the point of even voting? Well, I do it because it's more fun than not voting, I guess... ;-) Besides, one can always hope. "Do they just want the job for the prestige and the money?" I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think that a good many candidates come to believe that they can make a difference if they get into office. Still, once they get there, it's not easy. They will have to fight against the incredible inertia of the $ySStem and all the special interests that run it. Here's an interesting example from history: Emiliano Zapata was Mexico's most idealistic and popular guerrilla commander during the lengthy Mexican Revolution against Huerta's federal military government forces. Zapata had himself grown up as a peasant in the State of Morelos, and his heart was with the poor people. He fought to redistribute the land from the wealthy to the people who actually worked the land. He became tremendously popular in Morelos, because he always kept to his ideals. He wouldn't sell out. Well, Zapata finally attained military successes that put him in such a strong position that he was able to enter Mexico City, and he was made the President of Mexico...for a brief period. It was brief because Emiliano Zapata discovered that he simply could not get his orders carried out by the bureaucrats on down the chain of command. He could not carry out the reforms he wanted to because the system in Mexico was so corrupted that he couldn't work through its various levels of officials. Those embedded in the system were sure that Zapata would sell out, with the right inducements, and would work with them, keeping up a superficial appearance of being a "man of the people", whilst selling the people out to the entrenched interests. He refused to do that, but he was stymied at every turn by his bureaucracy, and he could not find enough educated people who shared his ideals to replace them...it would have meant replacing thousands of officials at various levels. Accordingly he became disgusted and he voluntarily gave up the Presidency, basically told them all to go to hell, and went back to Morelos, where he continued leading the revolutionary armies and defending the State of Morelos against attacks from outside its own borders. He was assassinated there within a few years by being lured into a trap set by federal government soldiers (their commander had contacted Zapata, saying he wanted to switch sides and join the guerillas...this had happened before on various occasions, but this time it was a trap). So that put an end to the most honest revolutionary in Mexico. A man that honest and capable could not be allowed to live in a country run by a corrupt and entrenched elite. I would suggest that it is almost that difficult and that dangerous for an honest and idealistic man or woman to lead the USA government out of the morass it is in and to institute genuine reforms and changes in basic policy. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 08:58 PM (#2260965) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ron Davies There's a good chance we won't have to force the Bush regime to withdraw from Iraq--it looks likely the Maliki government will be falling soon--so much for what all parties agree was the actual goal of the "surge". "National reconciliation" is DOA. And there's no way the US public will stand for meekly signing up to support whoever the Iraqis come up with next. All Bush's eggs are in Maliki's basket. And he knows it. And so much for McCain's chances in the fall. If this happens there is no way anybody will be able to justify anything remotely close to the troop deployments we now have in Iraq. The vast majority of the troops will come home. 12 Feb: AP: The speaker of "Iraq's fragmented parliament threatened Tuesday to disband the legislature, saying it is so riddled with distrust it appears unable to adopt the budget or agree on a law setting a date for provincial elections." "Disbanding parliament would prompt new elections within 60 days and further undermine" Maliki's "shaky government, which is limping along with nearly half of the 40 Cabinet posts vacant." |
|
12 Feb 08 - 10:29 PM (#2261039) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC In the American system that only applies to a President who is unwilling to risk not being re-elected, and even that only applies during the first term. (Leaving aside the possibility of assassination, or the more remote possibility of impeachment.) Yes, but they all want that next four years, so most of their behavior in the first four years has that goal in mind. I flatly do not agree that 'Democrats could have ended' this Iraq nonsense that easily. They DID introduce several bills..which were voted down. It takes **MORE** votes than they had to cut off funding OR simply withdraw. If they DID manage to cut off funding, the missing funds would not have 'simply' caused everyone to hop on a plane home...it would have compromised the safety of the troops during attempted withdrawal. Many experts have said so....you don't change it by just stating the opposite. You're totally wrong about it taking votes to make it happen. It requires no votes whatever. As I said before all that would be required would be for Pelosi to refuse to allow a bill on funding the war to be brought to a vote, or for the chairman of the appropriations committee (I think I said 'Budget' before, but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect) to refuse a bill on funding the war to leave committee. It's as simple as that. However, in the absence of the will to do this on the part of those two people, if enough members of Congress simply refused to vote for a bill to fund the war, it wouldn't pass. It is not necessary to introduce any bills to end the war or to get any votes at all to approve ending the war. Anyone who tries to make you believe that a bill and/or votes is necessary is lying to you. And I would suggest that they are lying to you because they don't want the war to end, and they need to mislead the voters to keep the war going. Interesting story, LH. You're right, there are definitely people who don't serve in government it for the money and prestige. But anyone who gets anywhere near close to the presidency in this country knows he or she has to play the game by rules established by people who are not the majority of the voters in this country. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 10:34 PM (#2261044) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC Forgot to address this bit... If they DID manage to cut off funding, the missing funds would not have 'simply' caused everyone to hop on a plane home...it would have compromised the safety of the troops during attempted withdrawal. Many experts have said so....you don't change it by just stating the opposite. All you have to do is say 'bring them home with the money you've got now'. It got the troops home from Vietnam. The proof is in the pudding. They didn't just get left stranded over there. I expect the 'experts' to whom you refer are just making excuses because they don't want to bring the troops home. It was done before. It can be done again. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:10 PM (#2261071) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: LilyFestre Ah nuts. I thought this was a review of a kayak. Darn. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:21 PM (#2261078) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: artbrooks The withdrawal of troops from Vietnam started in July 1969. The last combat units left in November 1972. That process took nearly 3 1/2 years, and a great deal of the equipment was left behind, both because it would take too much additional time to repatriate it and because much of it was too beat up to be worth bringing back to the States. The last of the military advisers left, as required by the Paris peace accords, in March 1973. The Case-Church Amendment, which forbade further US involvement in Southeast Asia, was passed in June 1973, three months after that. I have been unable to locate any record of a Congressional mandate that required US withdrawal from Vietnam, and I have some difficulty imagining President Nixon not vetoing one if it were presented to him. Nor can I find any record of an effort, successful or otherwise, to remove monies for the Vietnam War from the Federal budgets for the late 1960s and early 1970s. I'd appreciate any assistance, such as a legal citation or bill number and date, that would help in locating this data. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:49 PM (#2261100) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk The speed with which an occupying military force leaves a country generally depends on the degree of urgency... For instance, the Germans left France (unwillingly) in quite a brief period. They had no choice. The last Americans in Saigon when the city fell left about as fast as they bloody well could when it came to it. My point being: an army can leave slowly...over several years...or quickly...in a few months, a few days, or even in some cases in a matter of 24 hours. It just depends on the sense of urgency, that's all. I would think that a sensible period of time for withdrawing US troops from Iraq under most forseeable conditions would be about a year to a year and a half. Maybe 6 months if they really pushed it. But you see...the bosses don't want them to leave Iraq. Invaders don't usually leave unless they are... 1. kicked out by superior force (as the Germans in France) or... 2. they find it's simply too unprofitable to stay (as the USA in Vietnam). |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:10 AM (#2261127) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ebbie Obama said something the other day that is food for thought. Paraphrased, he said that the US may have to be a force in Iraq for some time but that does not mean that they have to be inside Iraq. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:42 AM (#2261141) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC I'll work on it, artbrooks. Paraphrased, he said that the US may have to be a force in Iraq for some time but that does not mean that they have to be inside Iraq. What does this mean? That we will keep bombing Iraq even if we don't have boots on the ground there? Well, that would be just lovely. I'm sure the Iraqis will be happy to know this, and I just know it'll save the tax payers a lot of money. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:50 AM (#2261153) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ebbie Chill. He was talking about assisting the Iraqui security, I believe. Besides, remember I paraphrased. You can look it up to see precisely what he said. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 03:52 AM (#2261182) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC Perhaps you could have said that (about assisting Iraqi security) in the first place, instead of paraphrasing, and then there would have been no need to try to guess. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:11 AM (#2261281) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos It is odd and peculiar, and possibly a good sign, that this thread has wandered so far from it's topic. A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:16 AM (#2261285) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: GUEST,Guest Now I'm sure most posters to this forum are loathe to admit this, but there were three forces for change that forced the US to withdraw from SE Asia: the street protests organized by a movement of deeply committed dissenters making the country ungovernable, the mainstream media, and the anti-conscription movement. Yes, there I said it--the mainstream media. They beamed lots and lots of pictures home that turned the tide against the war: My Lai massacre, our children being killed and wounded, Vietnamese children being killed and wounded by our children, Buddhist monks self-immolating in the streets of Saigon. The mainstream media isn't showing the world those pictures anymore. Which makes the 100 year war theory such an enticing possibility. And the street protests--Kent State was the high watermark that exposed the true nature of Nixon's & Hoover's 'law and order' campaign. But there were also political assassinations galore in that era that contributed to people's sense of uneasiness about government excesses and overstepping their bounds. Finally, guys just stopped reporting to their draft offices and showing up for induction. If you lived in a big urban area, you could easily just not show up, and it would take them a LONG time to find you. Or towards the end, you had the ability to work the system by filing for conscientious objector status, which dragged out the process too. The government's involvement in pulling out of SE Asia was Henry Kissinger's involvement in the 'secret' peace talks to allow Nixon to claim 'peace with honor'. Which dragged the war on endlessly and needlessly. Obama/Clinton/McCain. Pick your poison, but none of them will end the war, at least in a first term. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:32 AM (#2261295) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: GUEST,Guest Additionally, none of the three candidates will do squat to restore our civil rights, investigate and prosecute the corruption that is at it's worst since the Gilded Age. None of that will happen. What will happen is they will continue to govern on behalf of the wealthy elite, for the wealthy elite. Because that is the type of government Americans keep voting for in election after election. So, y'all get the country you deserve. While True Blue Dogs here are loathe to admit it, them voting their way makes them every bit as culpable for Bush/Cheney as True Reds voting theirs. Because the electoral system in the US is deeply fucked up, and the two party system is tyranny. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM (#2261355) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos YA know, Janet, if you had a program of specific suggestions, plans for improving things, and such, rather than the armwaving histrionic phrases you seem to gravitate toward, you'd get more positive responses. A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM (#2261370) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: KB in Iowa Images of "Buddhist monks self-immolating in the streets of Saigon" did not help end the war. The incident to which I assume you refer took place on June 11, 1963. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:24 AM (#2261418) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Greg F. Providing the money to feed and arm the troops ... is supplying my neighbors and yours with what they need to stay alive. No, getting them the hell out of harm's way is what they need to stay alive. I've never understood the mentality - or lack of it - that maintains MORE need to die so that those that died previously didn't "die for nothing". Sorry, but they died to no useful purpose. Get used to it. Bring the survivors home. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:35 AM (#2261433) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ron Davies "None of them will end the war" in the first term. That may well depend on what happens with Iraq's own government, as I've pointed out. If the Maliki government falls, the troops will come home, aside from in "Kurdistan" where the population actually wants us. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:41 AM (#2261444) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos There is a sigfnificant number of Iraqis in Baghdad who do want us there and are getting used to the idea we are not there to dictate to them, but to drive out insurgents. This aspect of our operation over there is perhaps underreported since the violence makes better sound-bites, but it is reported by folks in country. This does not in any way lessen the stupidity of beginning that operation in the first place. A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM (#2261447) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Charley Noble Ron- Unfortunately for the Kurds, our government will probably abandon them, again, so as to maintain better relations with Turkey. There is no way that McCain will withdraw from Iraq unless there is total victory or total defeat. He did not favor going in but he's too bonded with the military to advocate anything but continued occupation. I do believe that Obama will make a good faith effort to negoitiate a withdrawal, if he can find anyone to meaningfully negoitiate with. And if Clinton were able to win the General Election, I doubt if she would want us to be continuously mired in Iraq but it would probably take her longer to complete the job. Tough job, whichever way it goes. But so was Vietnam. Charley Noble |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:45 PM (#2261497) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ron Davies Charlie-- The US will not abandon the Kurds. It's evident why: they have oil, lots of it. It so happens that they also want us to stay in Kurdistan, for the reason you cited---to deter any possible Turkish invasion. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:49 PM (#2261501) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ron Davies And if the Maliki government falls, there will be chaos in Iraq--again. At that point the US public will finally say: enough. And there will be nothing Bush can do---the troops will come home--aside from in "Kurdistan". |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM (#2261513) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk That's what worries me about McCain. I don't think there is any possibility of achieving total victory in Iraq (from the USA's point of view, I mean...). On the other hand, I don't think McCain would settle for anything else but total victory, unless he was absolutely forced to by the situation deteriorating so badly both at home and abroad that it paralyzed his government. Either way, you'd be looking at a very bad situation. Guest, your post setting out the reasons for why the USA finally pulled out of Vietnam is quite correct: the protest movement in the streets of America, resistance to the Draft, and the fact that the mainstream media turned against the war and put images in front of ordinary Americans that turned a majority of them against the war. The mainstream media were more liberal and much more independent at that time. They are now in the pocket of a very few wealthy controllers...a monopoly, basically...and journalists have now been "embedded" into the very power structure which carries out the war. That is an extremely bad situation. To my mind, it strikes a close parallel to how Hitler and Mussolini managed their national media in the 30's and 40's. So you have a compliant media...and that results in a mostly passive public who are certainly restless now, but they are not committed enough to really undertake an effective mass protest movement in large enough numbers to change government policy. The powers that be, those who plan war policy, learned a lot from Vietnam. They have made sure never to let the US media loose in that fashion again. As for the self-immolation of those Buddhist monks in Saigon, it DID make a big difference. It was one of the key events that helped bring down Ngo Dinh Diem's government...and it would be remembered long after. It was one among many different incidents that gradually destroyed people's faith in that war. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:07 PM (#2261523) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC It's not necessary to keep our troops there to protect either Bagdad or Kurdistan. A true multinational force (not a coalition of the coerced) could do this, and they would do it if we ended our occupation of Iraq. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:16 PM (#2261529) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk Correct, Carol. And that is exactly what should be done. But that would not allow the USA to control the way Iraq sells its oil (in which currency, for instance), and it would not allow the USA to maintain American bases in Iraq as staging points for further possible wars...such as with Iran. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:23 PM (#2261540) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Riginslinger If Bush could have gotten a multinational force into Iraq, don't you think there would be one on the ground now? The US made that mess, and it seems to me like the rest of the world thinks it's the US's place to fix it. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:33 PM (#2261551) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: CarolC If Bush could have gotten a multinational force into Iraq, don't you think there would be one on the ground now? No, absolutely not. They don't want to be a part of the US' illegal occupation of Iraq. They would help try to bring order there after we ended our occupation, though. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM (#2261552) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk The USA can't fix it. They are an invader. Invaders must leave some day. Then the local people, eventually, will fix it themselves...or they'll continue messing it up...but that's their business, after all, isn't it? Would Americans want the Chinese to come in by force, occupy America, and "fix" what's wrong with the place? I don't think so! Until most Americans become willing to recognize that other people don't like being invaded and occupied any more than they would, they are not going to get the point. Example: I have always had a certain sympathy for the South in the Civil War. Why? Not because of the slavery issue, that's for sure! They were dead wrong on that one. No, because of the fact that the South, as a society and region, was being invaded by the North. The South didn't want to take the North over and change their way of life. The North DID want to take the South over and change their way of life...and that didn't mean just ending slavery, not by any means. It meant wrecking an entire traditional society and plundering it. For that reason, I sympathize to a great extent with the Southerners who fought a losing battle to hold back the overwhelming forces of the much more populous North in that war. Invaders are like people who break into someone else's house to murder and to steal. Invasion is a criminal act. There are always ways to negotiate with a neighbour, ways to eventually arrive at agreements. Those who invade another country are not interested in arriving at any agreement...they are interested in taking by force that which is not theirs, simply because they believe they have the strength to do it and that no one can stop them. That is what a criminal believes. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:30 PM (#2261600) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos I dunno, Little Hawk. We could cross-pollinate, as has often happened following invasions in Europe. A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 03:05 PM (#2261631) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Riginslinger If we depend on cross-pollination, how many generations would it take? |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:28 PM (#2261770) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Richard Bridge Surely LH the South unlawfully purported to secede from the union because it did not accept the democratic legitimacy of anti-slavery legislation. It was not "invaded". It was part of America and the government used troops to enforce the law. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 07:02 PM (#2261805) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Bill D seems to me the South still HAS their "way of life"....minus slaves. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 07:14 PM (#2261812) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk Yes, Richard, I understand that argument. But had you been a Southerner in the 1860's, you would probably not have seen it that way. In those days people's first loyalty tended to be to their home state. The Southern States decided in their own legislatures to secede. Secession was therefore 100% legal in their terms...and there was also a prior historical precedent in the Declaration of Independence that stated that the American people have a right to cast off anh form of government that is not representing them fairly. That's like a divorce. Either partner in a marriage can decide to leave the marriage. They have that right. Does the other partner then have the right to bludgeon them into insensibility in order to maintain the marriage? I don't think so. Amos - Yeah, the cross-pollination thing can certainly happen if the invasion that occurs also involves immigration of great numbers of outsiders into a country or region, and if they win the war. This happened when Whites came into North and South America. It happened when the nation of Israel was created in 1948. The War in Iraq is not that kind of invasion, however. Ordinary Americans are not emigrating to Iraq in order to live there, and why would they? They are simply occupying it as a military and business presence. That kind of invasion eventually fails, because the local people will kick the foreign presence out one day, when they have the strength to. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 09:46 AM (#2262215) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Greg F. Sorry there, LH, but you've got a hopelessly garbled, confused & fanciful view of the the Ante-bellum south (and North), and of the American Civil War, its causes, conduct & aftermath. I was going to launch into a necessarily lengthly correction- but decided it was too heavy a task & likely wouldn't accomplish much. Perhaps if I find time, I'll post a bibliography of factual works on the period. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 10:07 AM (#2262226) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Richard Bridge Perhaps, on the invasion front, we should consult Machiavelli? |
|
14 Feb 08 - 12:35 PM (#2262346) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk But, Greg, I have barely begun to discuss the matter! (grin) I also don't have the time, but there is a great deal more I could say about the root causes for that war, specially as regards various economic issues of the time and issues of proportional representation in Congress and how that translated into political power.... As I say, if I had the time... To put it very briefly, the South felt that they were being politically disenfranchised and marginalized by the more populous North, because of how voting works in the USA House of Representatives, whose membership is proportionate to population in the various states. This led gradually to a seemingly irreconcilable schism between North and South. Then there was the slavery issue, a hot moral issue with tremendous propaganda possibilities, and that naturally exacerbated the divide further. Then there were various issues relating to industry and commerce. One could easily write a 10,000 word essay on it, I should think, because it was a damnably complex situation. It was made worse by the fact that there was a good deal of arrogance and pugnacity on both sides of the aisle, as it were. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 12:41 PM (#2262353) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos Especially since the topic of this thread has nothing to do with the Civil War at all!! You banderlogs. A A |
|
14 Feb 08 - 12:52 PM (#2262365) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk The word is "bandar", not "bander". Bandarlog. It means a band of monkeys. "Bandar" is the East Indian word for "monkey". One can find it in Kipling's marvelous tale "The Jungle Book". |
|
14 Feb 08 - 12:53 PM (#2262369) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: McGrath of Harlow Banderlog = that's really quite a good word for people who drift threads. Not quite sure why, but it sounds right. (And I know it comes from the Jungle Book where it refers to baboons or monkeys.) |
|
14 Feb 08 - 01:16 PM (#2262388) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Ebbie Using Google you get a lot more hits with 'banderlogs' than 'bandarlogs'. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM (#2262400) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk Perhaps you do. Nevertheless, I believe the Hindi word is "bandar". Well, since it is simply a phonetic translation from another language with a completely different scipt, I suppose one can theoretically spell it any way one wants to... |
|
14 Feb 08 - 01:29 PM (#2262402) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk Here it is.... Bandar-log The word "log" it turns out, means "people" in Hindi. Bandar-log means "the Monkey people". |
|
14 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM (#2262444) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Donuel Yes we all know how Congress can cause votes to be misinterpreted. BUT Face it! Hillary weaseled when it came to the Iraq war. She continues to weasel. Barak's stand is cut and dry. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 02:10 PM (#2262452) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: McGrath of Harlow Not to be confused with bandersnatch - though I suspect that's where the "bander" spelling comes from. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 02:48 PM (#2262481) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Amos I think a Bandarsnatch is the female of the species, IIRC. The Bandarlogs are the ones who pelt pedestrians with fruit and jeer maliciously at them. (Yes, I AM saying this with a straight face, but just barely.) A |
|
14 Feb 08 - 02:55 PM (#2262485) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Little Hawk Yes, it must be tremendous fun being a Bandar-log, specially in India, because the monkeys are considered sacred there (because of Hanuman, Krishna's monkey-god companion) and they get to do whatever they damned well please. They have become a tremendous nuisance in New Delhi and other cities and communities. |
|
14 Feb 08 - 07:40 PM (#2262699) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: McGrath of Harlow Here's a fine reoresentative of the bandar log |
|
14 Feb 08 - 09:05 PM (#2262752) Subject: RE: BS: Swift Boats 2008 from the Top Down From: Charley Noble Too much information for my tiny brain. Can't we just go back to calling each other flaming assholes? Cheerily, Charley Noble |
