Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:18:05 +0000 (UTC)
In article <uJ-dnaJYC-eXqm7bnZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SkippyPB wrote:
But the job is done. The stated goal was to bring down Saddam and
bring democracy to Iraq. Both have happened.
But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and
police force?
This is, I believe, called 'moving the target'. If the goal was to 'bring
democracy to Iraq' and 'democracy was brought to Iraq' then the job was
done. If the job was 'bring democracy to Iraq and insure that it remains
for (period of time)' then it was not stated as such; re-stating goals
after they've been accomplished is not, in my experience, usually
something done by folks known as 'honorable'.
[snip]
Of course - when all they hear are the Democrats saying that, after a
while they begin to believe it.
Oh no... are those Pesky Jews back to controlling The Media again? I
thought that in these days of modern time, with stuff like the Internet
and a free market in ideas, that people could hear whatever they looked
for.
[snip]
Not today, not tomorrow, not 50 years from now which is
how long we'll be there if current policies prevail. There must be a
political solution and that can't be driven by the US. Only Iraq's
leaders can drive that car.
Tell that to the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) - *they're*
the ones demanding timetables of the Iraqi government.
Ummmmm... didn't you just, a few paragraphs, ask if democracy can remain
over time? That seems to be demanding a timetable; does that make you a
Democrat or a liberal Republican?
The military is
there to help the process, and give them guidance. But, the legislation
is theirs, the voting is theirs, and the enforcement is theirs.
These seem to have been given to them, as noted above... and some say that
it is the military's job 'to kill people and break things', not to 'help'
and 'give guidance', as you say they are doing.
[snip]
Socialists in the Democratic Party? Where do you get this stuff and
how do you know they've always "hated" whose success and other stuff?
Just what are you talking about?
Where in our Constitution does it say that health care is a *right*?
Where does it authorize the Federal government to run something like the
Department of Education? Where is it written that it is the
responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who
don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service
that may have values to some Americans? Where are we authorized to pay
farmers *not* to grow things?
All this social engineering legislation, welfare, government health
care, is *all* socialistic.
Might it be asked where you found your definition of 'socialism'? 'Having
been influenced by Federal policy' is not, last I looked, in any
definition with which I am familiar; the ones I was taught used phrases
like 'collective ownership of the means of production' and 'government
administration of the distribution of goods'.
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: LX-i
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- References:
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: LX-i
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: SkippyPB
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: LX-i
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- Prev by Date: Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- Next by Date: Re: Rounding timings
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Iraq
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Iraq
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
