Education Talk :: View topic - Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

Education Talk
Education Talk

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

Education Talk Forum Index -> Education Talk

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

The_Carpathia
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

After telling us that the Democrats didn't oppose the war...only the way it was being fought, General Petraeus was confirmed 95-2 in the Senate for the top command position over the Middle East. This is a blatant show of their hypocrisy and confirms (concretely) that military policy in Iraq will not change in the next President's term, regardless of who is elected President. If Democrats really objected to the direction of the way this war was being fought, they wouldn't have approved the top commander that made it so...indeed, this was the man who initiated and ran the troop surge. Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war was being fought. Further, as I said, they will not be changing the direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that command. Kenneth Clifton christiansuperhero.com

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

The_Carpathia
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

On Jul 10, 4:44 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

After telling us that the Democrats didn't oppose the war...only the
way it was being fought, General Petraeus was confirmed 95-2 in the
Senate for the top command position over the Middle East. This is a
blatant show of their hypocrisy and confirms (concretely) that
military policy in Iraq will not change in the next President's term,
regardless of who is elected President.

If Democrats really objected to the direction of the way this war was
being fought, they wouldn't have approved the top commander that made
it so...indeed, this was the man who initiated and ran the troop
surge. Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war
was being fought. Further, as I said, they will not be changing the
direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that
command.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Indeed, in this article...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379942,00.html

...Sen Levin says it is not wise to change the commander with all the
successes we have had there. This points out there are successes, in
this war. Further, it raises a question. If it is not wise to change
the commander, why would it be wise to attack and reject the Commander
in Chief of the same successes?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

The_Carpathia
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

On Jul 10, 4:47 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 10, 4:44 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

After telling us that the Democrats didn't oppose the war...only the
way it was being fought, General Petraeus was confirmed 95-2 in the
Senate for the top command position over the Middle East. This is a
blatant show of their hypocrisy and confirms (concretely) that
military policy in Iraq will not change in the next President's term,
regardless of who is elected President.

If Democrats really objected to the direction of the way this war was
being fought, they wouldn't have approved the top commander that made
it so...indeed, this was the man who initiated and ran the troop
surge. Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war
was being fought. Further, as I said, they will not be changing the
direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that
command.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Indeed, in this article...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379942,00.html

...Sen Levin says it is not wise to change the commander with all the
successes we have had there. This points out there are successes, in
this war. Further, it raises a question. If it is not wise to change
the commander, why would it be wise to attack and reject the Commander
in Chief of the same successes?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

One correction. While Sen Levin approved of Petraeus, it was Sen Byrd
that said we shouldn't change commanders.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

trey567
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

"The_Carpathia" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:defa6940-5549-4097-a0a2-377759ae5647@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:44 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Indeed, in this article...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379942,00.html

....Sen Levin says it is not wise to change the commander with all the
successes we have had there. This points out there are successes, in
this war. Further, it raises a question. If it is not wise to change
the commander, why would it be wise to attack and reject the Commander
in Chief of the same successes?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

---

so now they approve of General "Betray-Us"?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

MACK DADDY
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

On Jul 10, 2:44 pm, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Democrats overwhelmingly want to Impeach George Dumbya Douche and
Shlong Cheney, as well as put both those knuckleheads in prison with
Karl Rove.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Bob LeChevalier
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Sorry but it confirms no such thing. It confirms that Petraeus is
respected on both sides of the aisle for his military leadership.

The problem in Iraq right now isn't the quality of Petraeus's
leadership, it's the fact that we shouldn't be there in the first
place, that money and lives are being wasted for a nonexistent and/or
impossible goal (depending on which one it is this week). Petraeus
may be the most competent military leader there is to fight a lost war
for no reason

Quote:

If Democrats really objected to the direction of the way this war was
being fought, they wouldn't have approved the top commander that made
it so.

The buck stops in the Oval Office, not in Petraeus's office. He's
just following orders.

Quote:

.indeed, this was the man who initiated and ran the troop surge.

So?

Quote:

Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war was being fought.

Petraeus is making the most of a lousy situation. It is the
competence of his boss, and not him, that is at issue.

Quote:

Further, as I said, they will not be changing the
direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that
command.

Do you know how quickly the new Commander in Chief can order a new
commander to take over once he takes office?

He probably won't, since Petraeus's competence is not at issue. But
he could.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Bob LeChevalier
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

The standard of success for a military leader following orders is
different (and much more limited) from the standard of success for a
commander in chief fighting a war that the majority thinks was a
mistake, and which has no possible successful outcome.

Bush is a loser. Petraeus is not.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

The_Carpathia
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

On Jul 10, 9:50 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Quote:

The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Indeed, in this article...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379942,00.html

...Sen Levin says it is not wise to change the commander with all the
successes we have had there. This points out there are successes, in
this war. Further, it raises a question. If it is not wise to change
the commander, why would it be wise to attack and reject the Commander
in Chief of the same successes?

The standard of success for a military leader following orders is
different (and much more limited) from the standard of success for a
commander in chief fighting a war that the majority thinks was a
mistake, and which has no possible successful outcome.

Bush is a loser. Petraeus is not.

Sen. Levin and Sen Byrd BOTH say it is a bad idea to replace this
commander and attribute HIM with being the one responsible for our
current success...i.e. he is the one doing it this way.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

The_Carpathia
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

On Jul 10, 9:46 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Quote:

The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
After telling us that the Democrats didn't oppose the war...only the
way it was being fought, General Petraeus was confirmed 95-2 in the
Senate for the top command position over the Middle East. This is a
blatant show of their hypocrisy and confirms (concretely) that
military policy in Iraq will not change in the next President's term,
regardless of who is elected President.

Sorry but it confirms no such thing. It confirms that Petraeus is
respected on both sides of the aisle for his military leadership.

The problem in Iraq right now isn't the quality of Petraeus's
leadership, it's the fact that we shouldn't be there in the first
place, that money and lives are being wasted for a nonexistent and/or
impossible goal (depending on which one it is this week). Petraeus
may be the most competent military leader there is to fight a lost war
for no reason

You are disagreeing with Democrat leaders. Both Hillary and Obama,
not to mention almost all other Democrat leaders, say their objection
isn't with the war as much as how it is being run.

Quote:

Then, how would Petraeus, according to the Democrats, be the one to
credit for the "successes" we have had. If we shouldn't be there at
all, there should be NO successes....it shouldn't be seen as a success
to overcome troops we shouldn't be fighting...right?

Quote:

.indeed, this was the man who initiated and ran the troop surge.

So?

Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war was being fought.

Petraeus is making the most of a lousy situation. It is the
competence of his boss, and not him, that is at issue.

Further, as I said, they will not be changing the
direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that
command.

Do you know how quickly the new Commander in Chief can order a new
commander to take over once he takes office?

Not quickly at all. Again, you show your incompetence. There must be
cause in the military, which is not at issue here...as you confirm.
In fact, they had the opportunity...RIGHT NOW...to replace him and
chose not to do it. Thus, my point. They are validating the
commander, praising his success, and giving him a promotion to even
more command over the region. This isn't the actions of those that
disagree with either the war or the way it is being fought.

Quote:

He probably won't, since Petraeus's competence is not at issue. But
he could.

I renew my question. If it is not wise (according to Byrd) to change
the commander that gave us this success, why should we be attacking
and rejecting the Commander in Chief of those successes?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Bob LeChevalier
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

I do that rather more than you seem to realize. One reason why I do
not consider myself to be a Democrat.

Quote:

Both Hillary and Obama,
not to mention almost all other Democrat leaders, say their objection
isn't with the war as much as how it is being run.

Your unsupported opinion is noted and rejected as contrary to fact.

Quote:

If Democrats really objected to the direction of the way this war was
being fought, they wouldn't have approved the top commander that made
it so.

The buck stops in the Oval Office, not in Petraeus's office. He's
just following orders.

Then, how would Petraeus, according to the Democrats, be the one to
credit for the "successes" we have had. If we shouldn't be there at
all, there should be NO successes.

There haven't been.

But some do feel that anything that reduces the human carnage is a
relative success, as compared to what was happening before Petraeus.

Quote:

..it shouldn't be seen as a success to overcome troops we shouldn't be fighting...right?

It isn't.

And we aren't overcoming any "troops".

Quote:

Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war was being fought.

Petraeus is making the most of a lousy situation. It is the
competence of his boss, and not him, that is at issue.

Further, as I said, they will not be changing the
direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that
command.

Do you know how quickly the new Commander in Chief can order a new
commander to take over once he takes office?

Not quickly at all. Again, you show your incompetence. There must be
cause in the military,

Not when the president gives orders. Constitutional powers and all
that.

Douglas MacArthur and a series of Union generals in the Civil War come
to mind as historical precedents. All it took was an order, and they
were relieved of command. (There may have been reasons, but the
reasons were not essential and in the following example were not in
fact included in the order).
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/05/documents/macarthur/

It would be trivial to replace Petraeus in the same way. The reason
given could be as simple as "I have decided that a change in policy is
necessary, and I wish to have a commander that is not committed to or
identified with the old policy".

Quote:

In fact, they had the opportunity...RIGHT NOW...to replace him and
chose not to do it.

No, in fact they don't have that opportunity.

They can confirm or reject him, but they cannot appoint someone else.
Same with most other appointments by the president.

Quote:

Thus, my point. They are validating the
commander, praising his success, and giving him a promotion to even
more command over the region. This isn't the actions of those that
disagree with either the war or the way it is being fought.

Obviously you are wrong.

The fact that this is not the case would cause anyone with the
slightest intelligence to try to figure out what assumption you were
making that led to such a nonsensical conclusion.

Quote:

He probably won't, since Petraeus's competence is not at issue. But
he could.

I renew my question. If it is not wise (according to Byrd) to change
the commander that gave us this success, why should we be attacking
and rejecting the Commander in Chief of those successes?

Because we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. Bush's
decisions as CinC were horrible. That Petraeus executed those
decisions with military competence doesn't make the decision to have
troops in Iraq "successful"

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Wide Eyed in Wonder
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

On Jul 11, 1:22 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

Quote:

The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry but it confirms no such thing. It confirms that Petraeus is
respected on both sides of the aisle for his military leadership.

The problem in Iraq right now isn't the quality of Petraeus's
leadership, it's the fact that we shouldn't be there in the first
place, that money and lives are being wasted for a nonexistent and/or
impossible goal (depending on which one it is this week). Petraeus
may be the most competent military leader there is to fight a lost war
for no reason

You are disagreeing with Democrat leaders.

I do that rather more than you seem to realize. One reason why I do
not consider myself to be a Democrat.

Both Hillary and Obama,
not to mention almost all other Democrat leaders, say their objection
isn't with the war as much as how it is being run.

Your unsupported opinion is noted and rejected as contrary to fact.

If Democrats really objected to the direction of the way this war was
being fought, they wouldn't have approved the top commander that made
it so.

The buck stops in the Oval Office, not in Petraeus's office. He's
just following orders.

Then, how would Petraeus, according to the Democrats, be the one to
credit for the "successes" we have had. If we shouldn't be there at
all, there should be NO successes.

There haven't been.

But some do feel that anything that reduces the human carnage is a
relative success, as compared to what was happening before Petraeus.

..it shouldn't be seen as a success to overcome troops we shouldn't be fighting...right?

It isn't.

And we aren't overcoming any "troops".

Thus, their approval of him gives approval of the way this war was being fought.

Petraeus is making the most of a lousy situation. It is the
competence of his boss, and not him, that is at issue.

Further, as I said, they will not be changing the
direction of the war, since they just approved this man to run that
command.

Do you know how quickly the new Commander in Chief can order a new
commander to take over once he takes office?

Not quickly at all. Again, you show your incompetence. There must be
cause in the military,

Not when the president gives orders. Constitutional powers and all
that.

Douglas MacArthur and a series of Union generals in the Civil War come
to mind as historical precedents. All it took was an order, and they
were relieved of command. (There may have been reasons, but the
reasons were not essential and in the following example were not in
fact included in the order).http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/05/documents/macarthur/

It would be trivial to replace Petraeus in the same way. The reason
given could be as simple as "I have decided that a change in policy is
necessary, and I wish to have a commander that is not committed to or
identified with the old policy".

In fact, they had the opportunity...RIGHT NOW...to replace him and
chose not to do it.

No, in fact they don't have that opportunity.

They can confirm or reject him, but they cannot appoint someone else.
Same with most other appointments by the president.

Thus, my point. They are validating the
commander, praising his success, and giving him a promotion to even
more command over the region. This isn't the actions of those that
disagree with either the war or the way it is being fought.

Obviously you are wrong.

The fact that this is not the case would cause anyone with the
slightest intelligence to try to figure out what assumption you were
making that led to such a nonsensical conclusion.

He probably won't, since Petraeus's competence is not at issue. But
he could.

I renew my question. If it is not wise (according to Byrd) to change
the commander that gave us this success, why should we be attacking
and rejecting the Commander in Chief of those successes?

Because we shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. Bush's
decisions as CinC were horrible. That Petraeus executed those
decisions with military competence doesn't make the decision to have
troops in Iraq "successful"

Being that you admit to rejecting the Democrats, your words are noted
as irrelevant to this thread. Despite your ego, the thread wasn't
"Bob overwhelmingly approves of Iraq War Commander."

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Bob LeChevalier
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Democrats Overwhelmingly Approve of Iraq War Commander

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Being that you admit to rejecting the Democrats, your words are noted
as irrelevant to this thread.

My not being a Democrat is irrelevant, unless the whole thread is
irrelevant.

Come to think of it, since the topic has nothing to do with education,
and it is posted to al.education, the whole thread IS irrelevant.

After all, I haven't heard you swearing eternally loyalty to the
Democratic leadership. If my comments are irrelevant, so are yours,
so shut up.

For that matter, your quite negative misinterpretations of the
political opposition have rather less relevance to *anything*.

Quote:

Despite your ego, the thread wasn't
"Bob overwhelmingly approves of Iraq War Commander."

The thread is whatever people wish to talk about, usually inspired by
whatever they were replying to, despite your endless efforts to be
NetKop, when it suits your silly games, even while you ignore the
newsgroup structure and treat the education newsgroup as your personal
political and movie review and Christian proselytization forum.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Display posts from previous:

	Education Talk Forum Index -> Education Talk	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding Ring
Escort e accompagnatrice in Rimini, Reggio Emilia, in Riviera Adriatica, in Modena...
Australia Swingers Contacts
Yahoo SEO Talk
Make Your Own Website
Free phone calls to Poland

Long island Cleaning service
black mold
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
Janitorial Supplies
Hoover Vacuum Bags