You want me to define extreme left ? Extreme left is being more left than the majority of democrats in congress. Good enough ? GUESS WHAT....... The majority of democrats in congress VOTED IN FAVOR USING FORCE AGAINST IRAQ. GET IT ? This debate is over. Move On.
This statement is just wrong. They did not vote "in favor of using force". They voted to allow the use of force if it is deemed unavoidable. There is a difference. The vote was actually intended to give more bite, more force, in our ability to negotiate for our intended goal. Our goal is NOT to go to war, but to achieve the disarmament of Iraq. Of course, I am sure you will argue with this. But fortunately, it matters not at all what you believe. NOBODY wants to use force against Iraq if it can be avoided. Except, of course, for guys like you and Dotslash, and the other armchair warriors. Thank God you have no say, and that people with actual brains, like Colin Powell, are making the decisions. As are the members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, as you seem to believe. It is about sanity and doing whatever possible to AVOID the use of force. There is a big difference between using the ABILITY TO USE FORCE as a means of deterrence and actually using force. MD
Where has anyone claimed we should undertake the immediate invasion of Iraq? I think you've been reading too many vvv/rs7 and other war revisionist's posts.
No my friend. All I did was point out the fact that they did not vote in favor of using force. And clearly that is what he (Mondo) said. Obviously he just did not understand what the vote meant. What it's purpose was. I assume you do understand. I may disagree with a lot of your positions, but I know you are intelligent. So I expect you to actually agree with me on this point. It is not about politics. It is about strategy. I think we all agree that the main objective is to disarm Saddam. Don't you agree? Don't you think that the tactics available to us are many, and we must use whatever will work most efficiently? If a threat of war accomplishes the ends we want, isn't that preferable to actually fighting a war? Why fight if we can accomplish what we want without risking American lives? I am certainly NOT saying that we should not fight if we can't avoid it. All I am saying, and I think every member of Congress would agree, is that if we can scare this maniac (Saddam) into submission, that would be just fine. And we already know the man is a coward. So it makes sense to exploit that. Just curious. What do you mean by "war revisionists"? MD
I think that is an erroneous assumption on your part. Here's mine: He simply left off "if neccessary" in his statement as that was obviously the condition of the entire idea from conception to voting. No one ever thought we were going to launch an attack immediately after it went through both houses.
OK, so we do agree. Leaving off "if necessary" really does change the meaning of the statement. I don't know if he just neglected to state it properly, or if he actually thought that the vote was in favor of using force. You must admit, there have been some rather bold and uninformed statements made in this thread. So if I made an "erroneous assumption", which I hope I did, there was basis for believing that Mondo could have construed the purpose of the vote as a mandate to use force. Anything is possible. I hope you are right though. MD
Construed? Check Webster's*, it is a mandate to use force. *"an authorization to act given to a representative"
A mandate to use force "if necessary". Why is this now being argued? I thought you agree. So why bother finding words to make my point seem wrong? Do you just always need the last word? What will satisfy you Max? Need I just agree that I am wrong about everything? And you are right? It didn't work for rs7, and I guess it would not work for anyone. So, OK. We should just send in the B-52s like Mondo said. We should carpet bomb the whole middle east. We should hate the "camelhumpers" because we are xenophobes, and they smell and they speak a funny sounding language and pray to the wrong god. While we are at it, we should deport anyone who speaks english with a non-American accent. Or maybe put them in concentration camps. Is this what you think? Tell me what I need to believe so we can be on the same page. Thanks, MD
I love the fact that you understand what it SHOULD be about. But that is not what it IS about. I have a relative who serves as a senator (democratic) and he loves to needle me about the fact that I do not agree with "The Real African American's Only Choice Party (his terminology)" position all of the time. Our recent conversations were definitely explaining to me that the voting was because (as he put it), "Our polling data showed" reasoning. Many times during our conversation he said, "We can't agree that way because the republicans would get mileage on XXX!" And his basis for doing what he does is, "So the democratic Party can show unity and get back what is RIGHTFULLY OURS!" When I ask him things like, "Rather than come up with the democratic legislation or the republican legislation, why don't you guys just adjust the little pieces of each others plans that you have a problem with?" There isn't enough space here to give you the range of reasons he gave for not doing that, but none of them have the public interest first. And I would love to think that fist shaking, saber rattling, foot stomping, teeth gnashing would do the trick too. But after ten plus years sneaking up behind him hollering BOO! just ain't getting it. And sadly now, USE of force might be the ticket. If he were a TRUE LEADER who cared about his peoples, long ago he would have seen the pain that the sanctions have caused them. He would have calculated that the resolve to keep them in place was there WORLDWIDE. He would have determined the simple answer was to move aside and let the people's good outweigh his own. With that said, please stop trying to show me the terror of America and discuss the terror that is Sadam. You advocate holding the sanctions line. So after fifteen more years of the Iraqi peoples living in squalor and screaming, "Death to the American Dog!" And the hatred increasing against us. And Sadam still sitting in the drivers seat. Would you say that the policy would be humane? Let's forget the bombs for a minute. How many years of the inspectors being thwarted would constitute them having done their job as best as they can? And while they can't evidence anything, they also will not say that they are sure that things are as they seem. Then what do you do? And remember, there would be fifteen or more years of additional starvation, death, suffrage, etc., in the minds of another generation of the Iraqi people. Just so's you knows!
You want to argue semantics, then we must. Words have to be understood with the same definition if you want to be "on the same page." Your statement was: "So if I made an "erroneous assumption", which I hope I did, there was basis for believing that Mondo could have construed the purpose of the vote as a mandate to use force." You have used the word "mandate" to mean that a military action does not need "if necessary" as a condition; "construed the vote... as a mandate to use force." Not true. Bush received a mandate, period, paraphrased in this manner by the media: "The resolution authorizes President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decides it is necessary . . ." Here's what you meant to say: "Mondo could have construed the purpose of the vote as authorization to immediately suspend diplomatic discourse and launch an attack." In any event, I don't think anyone here (except as seen in rs7/vvv's rambling dissertations) thought that it was without the "if necessary."