Rahm Emanuel wants you!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2008
Rahm Emanuel wants you!
202
Sat, 11-15-2008 - 3:43pm

From a 2006 interview on his mandatory civil service plan...


I think he had it at 18, but we were saying

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 3:11pm

Let's see,


1) Clinton didn't propose we invade Iraq. No matter how hard you try, you'll not find a request to invade.


2) When the proposal WAS made, it was made by the Bush administration. Remember Colin Powell's presentation?


An urging to do something and an actual vote to go to war are 2 different things. Did the Democrats muck it up too? Yep. And now they need to find a way out. We shouldn't have gone over there. PERIOD.

The 3 Day

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 5:56pm

Let's see, 1) Clinton didn't propose we invade Iraq. No matter how hard you try, you'll not find a request to invade.

Of course not. Clinton also didn't ask for sanctions. Clinton, like Bush, was faced with a problem that had a historical context. When Clinton had to deal with Hussein, he didn't start over from square one...he reviewed what had not worked and escalated the policy with military strikes and a call for regime change. Similarly, when Bush had to deal with Hussein, he was forced to escalate the policy as well and effectively eliminate the threat.

>>> 2) When the proposal WAS made, it was made by the Bush administration. Remember Colin Powell's presentation?

Of course...and?

>>> An urging to do something and an actual vote to go to war are 2 different things. Did the Democrats muck it up too? Yep. And now they need to find a way out. We shouldn't have gone over there. PERIOD.

Well, while I appreciate your 20/20 hindsight and national security expertise, apparently the President, the Congress, the UN and our allies disagreed with your assessment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 6:04pm

>>> What would you like a proposed solution on?

The scenario I posed to you.

>>> How many Saudis fought in Iraq? Syrians? There were forces from several countries, but there was nowhere near the support of 1990.

Who cares? The US doesn't defend it's national security by consensus.

>>> There was zero need to attack. None.

Again, I appreciate the military and national security expertise of the left, but the President, the Congress, the UN and our allies all disagreed with your assessment.

>>> And when they decided to do it, completely bungled the plan by ignoring the Powell doctrine.

The "Powell doctrine" is one man's opinion, not a fact, law or mandate.

>>> War does mean failure, it isn't glorious as some like to believe.

War is not a failure...it's a tactic.

>>> What in bloody hell is glorious about seeing someone get their brains blown out?

There is something glorious in fighting for a cause or to defend your family or country or way of life.

>>> The right got its arse kicked in the last two elections precisely because it went after a reckless idea and brought the country with it.

Um...no...the Congressional elections were not a mandate to end the war. Americans want to WIN the war...Dems want to lose.

>>> If you wonder why you are suddenly looking at a government of liberals, look no further than a mirror.

I thought it was because the folks who voted for Democrats weren't very well informed?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 6:06pm

Ah... what threat? See any threatening notes from Saddam after that resolution? See any missiles fly our way? I seem to recall the Iraqis saying they would allow inspectors back in. Sorry, none of that supports an invasion. Not one ounce of it.

LOL! It all supports an invasion...as demonstrated by the fact that AN INVASION HAPPENED!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 6:11pm

>Really? I hadn't heard that either Clinton or Bush had been convicted of perjury...oops, Clinton was, but it had nothing to do with Iraq or WMDs.<

>>> Last time I checked, Clinton wasn't calling for an invasion of Iraq.

Of course not...that would have been jumping the gun a bit, wouldn't it? Besides, Clinton was a "point and shoot and hope for the best" kind of guy instead of a "get the job done" kind of guy, wasn't he?

>I don't know...do ya think the fact that we haven't exhausted a decade on every other option could be a consideration?<

>>> And how many DECADES have we exhausted in Korea?

Are you suggesting we invade North Korea?

>So you believe that not defending our national security in order to save money will ensure our national security? LOL!<

>>> I believe that borrowing money to fund the invasion of a country that was not a clear and present danger to us is ALSo a national security risk. And so does George Will.

Iraq was a clear and present danger and borrowing money doesn't create a risk...it mitigates one.

>Hmmm...so you're saying that we have to make Afghanistan a "safe place"...when it's never been a "safe place" before we can address Iran's nuclear threat or Russia's saber rattling?<

>>> Are you proposing that we should start WWIII? Or perhaps revive the bad old days of the cold war?

No, I'm proposing that the US defend itself vigorously when necessary.

>Giving our enemies free rein to do whatever they want, because we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, doesn't sound like a very good policy to keep the country safe.<

>>> And rather instead that we fight two wars, on two fronts, not effectively fighting either of them, not completing our goals at all, is a good image to present to our enemies?

We could nuke 'em.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 7:25pm

Not all the information in the hands of the CIA made it to Congress.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 7:29pm

The scenario I posed to you.


I missed it.


Congress and the UN didn't have the truth. Hell, Colin Powell didn't have the truth!


And war most certainly represents failure. People claim WWII was a noble war, and it too is repleat with failure prior to.

Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 7:31pm

Yeah... and the Germans invaded Poland on pretext. We escalated in Vietnam on pretext.


The fact that there was a war justifies nothing - an administration that planned this from the get go had it lined up, looking for an excuse.

Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 7:40pm

>Similarly, when Bush had to deal with Hussein, he was forced to escalate the policy as well and effectively eliminate the threat.<


What threat? Hussein, we've found out, didn't have WMDs. And now, Iraq is a MORE dangerous place for us because we eliminated a guy who hated Islamic extremists more than he hated us. Now, Iraq is fractured and unlikely to be secure for DECADES.


>Well, while I appreciate your 20/20 hindsight and national security expertise, apparently the President, the Congress, the UN and our allies disagreed with your assessment.<


Actually, Congress HAS gone back and gone "oops." They've already seen that 1) they were fed false data gleaned from an unreliable source and 2) the proofs in the pudding. No WMDs. Nothing. Nada. Just a lot of Hussein's bluster.


And 4000 or so American lives lost.


And where were the UN forces in this? Oh yeah, not supporting our decision to invade Iraq. And where are most of our allies? Pulling their butts out of Iraq as quickly as they can.


Patrocles, the senior G. Bush did the right thing. The junior Bush made a HUGE error that has cost American lives needlessly.


Interfering in a sovereign nation's internal affairs is rarely a good idea. We are not a safer nation for having invaded Iraq. And the current

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 7:49pm

>Are you suggesting we invade North Korea?<


I'm saying that North Korea was/is a more evident danger to us and the region than Iraq was, and we've managed to not invade a nation that DOES HAVE NUKES. So why was a nation without WMDs so much more of a threat than a nation with WMDs (in fact, a nation that was testing delivery systems off the coast of Japan at one point.)


>Iraq was a clear and present danger and borrowing money doesn't create a risk...it mitigates one<


Perhaps you don't understand the dangers of high national debt. I really don't have time to give an extensive education to you on economics. Short form--ever increasing national debt is very bad.


Oh, and again, Iraq wasn't a clear and present danger. No WMDs. Just a lot of bluster from a crazed ruler who turned out to be a lion without teeth.


>No, I'm proposing that the US defend itself vigorously when necessary.<


Invading a country that hasn't attacked us, in fact could not attack us, isn't defending our borders friend.


>We could nuke 'em.<


And they could nuke us right back. That's what MAD stands for--Mutual Assured Destruction. Or have you forgotten that Russia still has nukes, and N. Korea has nukes, and Iran probably has nukes, and India has nukes, and Pakistan has nukes. We ain't the only nuclear power on earth now.


Sandy

Pages