Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Strongly supportive of gay rights.
Believe strongly in the separation of church and state.
Less supportive of affirmative action than most college students.
Less likely to be concerned about the environment than most college students.
Less likely to believe in basic health insurance as a right than most college students.

Scarry, so did I. Makes me believe that you just like to argue.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
First, I started with the observation that the military runs toward the GOP, so you're preaching to the choir. Second, that said, there are a lot of minorities in the military, and it's not clear that anyone has ever studied how they vote. If you can point to something empirical on this, I'd like to see it, but if you're just blowing smoke out your ass as per usual, that's fine because we probably generally agree. Enlisted men and women are probably more conservative than their non-uniformed peers, but are probably less GOP-aligned than the officer corps.

First you say the military is more GOP aligned, then I agree with you, then you tell me that if I cannot find empirical evidence backing up my statement agreeing with your assertion that the military runs toward the GOP that I am blowing smoke out of my ass as usual.

You crack me up (and not in a good way).

[sgtclub]

I haven't seen anybody post this, nor any columns on it, so I think it is actually an original thought, but my take on Iraq is that the Iraqis have let us down. I cannot believe that no prominent Iraqi has stood up and united the 70% of Iraqis that are thrilled by our actions there to take a stand against the "bad guys." IMHO, they are cowardly ingrates that don't deserve freedom because they are not willing to fight along side us for it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
First you say the military is more GOP aligned, then I agree with you, then you tell me that if I cannot find empirical evidence backing up my statement agreeing with your assertion that the military runs toward the GOP that I am blowing smoke out of my ass as usual.

That latter was just about enlisted men and women. My point was more cultural, and less about how the military actually votes.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't seen anybody post this, nor any columns on it, so I think it is actually an original thought, but my take on Iraq is that the Iraqis have let us down. I cannot believe that no prominent Iraqi has stood up and united the 70% of Iraqis that are thrilled by our actions there to take a stand against the "bad guys." IMHO, they are cowardly ingrates that don't deserve freedom because they are not willing to fight along side us for it.

I heard or read a commentator comparing how the Afghanis have stepped up to the plate to join in the rebuilding/security effort much more than the Iraqis have.

I agree that, with the exception of the Kurds, the Iraqis have failed to do their part. I suspect that some of that is the result of the Shia uprising post-Gulf War I, which we encouraged and which they paid for dearly. The Sunnis by and large benefitted under SH so it isn't surprising that they haven't welcomed us. The Kurds are doing their part. So I think it is the Shia that have not done their part, but after what happened after the first Gulf War, it is hard to condemn them for it.

From what I have read, the Shia's give 20% of their income to the Shia clerics and that it is the Shia clerics who have the power to control and lead the Shia masses. If anyone can be faulted, the Shia clerics can. The Sunni clerics you can fault, but if we expected the Sunni clerics to be on our side, we were not too bright. I don't think we did.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't seen anybody post this, nor any columns on it, so I think it is actually an original thought, but my take on Iraq is that the Iraqis have let us down. I cannot believe that no prominent Iraqi has stood up and united the 70% of Iraqis that are thrilled by our actions there to take a stand against the "bad guys." IMHO, they are cowardly ingrates that don't deserve freedom because they are not willing to fight along side us for it.

If we're so interested in democracy, why did we fly Chalabi and his militia into the country and subsidize them? Notwithstanding that he may be nuts, why did we give Chalabi a seat on the governing council, but exclude Muqtada? Why have we given the Kurds a veto? Our media is long on self-congratulation, and short on reporting the things we've done that could lead Iraqis to be suspicious of our motivations. If you really think that 70% of Iraqis are "thrilled by our actions," you are spending too much time reading RNC press releases.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That latter was just about enlisted men and women. My point was more cultural, and less about how the military actually votes.

You will argue over anything with a Rep poster. We are agreeing.

Here is a cite, but the author doesn't list where precisely they get this number of 3-2 Rep voters in the enlisted ranks. Moreover, the author says there are laws barring the polling of soldiers on this topic. Unless he was only saying that it is illegal for the DOD to do a poll, I find that outrageous if true and unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...ace-wells.html

Trying to suss out the voting patterns of the military, and the ways in which their professional frustrations and satisfactions spill over into politics, has always been a murky, Kremlinology-like game. The Department of Defense, which since 1955 has had an office designed to promote voting among the military and track participation rates, does not keep statistics on how many soldiers vote Democrat or Republican, though it does know that they vote at slightly higher rates than average Americans. And ever since shortly after World War II, when academics first became numerous and frisky enough to want to poll soldiers, there have been laws making it illegal to do so. Scholars who study the politics of the military rely on what scraps of data they can assemble, and then, squinting, try to understand a pattern. They look at surveys of the political attitudes of high school seniors, cross-referenced by whether the students plan to go on to college, to work, or to the military. They note those national opinion surveys which ask participants whether or not they are veterans. They rely on the non-political surveys of the social and cultural attitudes of the military. They scan absentee-ballot returns in search of discernible patterns of military voting. Mostly, they talk to soldiers in the field and develop, over the course of their careers, anecdote-driven, rough senses of how soldiers are likely to vote. But the consensus view seems to be that the military as a whole votes Republican by a margin of slightly less than 2-to-1, with enlisted men and women Republican by 3-to-2, and Republicans outnumbering Democrats among officers by 8-to-1. (Thankfully for Democratic partisans, there are 15 times as many enlisted men as officers).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If we're so interested in democracy, . . . Why have we given the Kurds a veto?

We don't have a democracy in the US. We have a representative republic in which sparsely populated states like Norht Dakota have two senators and densely populated states like CA have two senators. When the voters of North Dakota have more representation in our bicameral legislative branch than the voters of California, how different is that from giving the Kurds a veto.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't either ND or SD or both have 2 senators but only one House member because their population is so small? You could argue that is anti-democratic because a voter in ND/SD has more influence in the leglislative branch than a voter in CA. We don't have a democracy in the US if by democracy you mean proportional representation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
We don't have a democracy in the US. We have a representative republic in which sparsely populated states like Norht Dakota have two senators and densely populated states like CA have two senators. When the voters of North Dakota have more representation in our bicameral legislative branch than the voters of California, how different is that from giving the Kurds a veto.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't either ND or SD or both have 2 senators but only one House member because their population is so small? You could argue that is anti-democratic because a voter in ND/SD has more influence in the leglislative branch than a voter in CA. We don't have a democracy in the US if by democracy you mean proportional representation.

Thanks, but I took fifth grade too.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Thanks, but I took fifth grade too.

So then what is your point about criticizing the US for giving the Kurds a veto as this somehow being anti-democracy? I took it to mean that it does not result in proportional representation (which is true). Is your issue with the Kurdish veto something other than non-proportional representation? Please elaborate if I have misunderstood you.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't seen anybody post this, nor any columns on it, so I think it is actually an original thought, but my take on Iraq is that the Iraqis have let us down. I cannot believe that no prominent Iraqi has stood up and united the 70% of Iraqis that are thrilled by our actions there to take a stand against the "bad guys." IMHO, they are cowardly ingrates that don't deserve freedom because they are not willing to fight along side us for it.

A very big part of the admin's prewar CW held that the Iraqi people they would rise up and fight alongside us to liberate the place if we reached out a helping hand toward them, so I can see the basis for you saying something like this. I mean, I think it was fairly undisputed after a few years that letting Saddam fly his helicopters and mow down the Shi'a uprising was a bad move back in '91. The Monday morning QBs (including a comment I remember reading from Cheney, could be wrong) all seemed to say that after such a stunning and sudden defeat if we had just found a way to let the revolt's momentum grow a little bit it would have prompted the country to rise up and expel SH on its own.

I personally think it's not so much Iraqi cowardice as it is Iraqi opportunism, as they know somebody's going to have power when we finally go and they don't want to be on the wrong side of anyone who may wind up in the driver's seat. This sort of plays into Hello's comments about how it probably would have helped on the customer relations front to have the clear election framework and registration process going right away so people would know who to suck up to ahead of time (Sistani?) and who to ostracize (Sadr). But to be fair, that's not the easiest thing to do after you knock over country with surprising ease. All I know is that whenever I see Sadr on TV I get the Dating Game theme song in my head. Damn you, Daily Show.

I do wish we would have laid the risk of their, uh, "nonparticipation" off on the UN earlier on. I saw I today's paper that we're finally passing the official responsibility for putting together the interim government over to Brahimi. Now hopefully we can focus on restoring order and start developing the relationship between our troops and the non-American political leadership of the country. The non-Chalabi Iraqi leadership, that is, since Brahimi's earlier statements indicate he's for getting rid of him and the rest of the US appointed council. I think Chalabi's going to become like the liquor commissioner's nephew in Casino, where the US as the big-belt-buckled commissioner is going to be begging the new government's version of Ali "Ace" Rothstein to take him in. "We would consider it a personal favor if you did...."

On the bright side this development may increase the opportunities for anti-UN one liners and chuckling at all the ways Hank finds to misspell "Brahimi."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Scarry, so did I. Makes me believe that you just like to argue.

I was the same one. We're all pretty mainstream, other than Panda/Greedy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If we're so interested in democracy, why did we fly Chalabi and his militia into the country and subsidize them? Notwithstanding that he may be nuts, why did we give Chalabi a seat on the governing council, but exclude Muqtada? Why have we given the Kurds a veto? Our media is long on self-congratulation, and short on reporting the things we've done that could lead Iraqis to be suspicious of our motivations. If you really think that 70% of Iraqis are "thrilled by our actions," you are spending too much time reading RNC press releases.

Ty, the guy leading the uprising lost most of his family to Sadaam. His religion was essentially forbidden from celebrating its most important holy days by sadaam. On some very basic level, we should expect this guy to be on our side. I understand posturing for post war postion, but he has big time line-crossed. We should have included him in the governing council? Maybe, but if he has juice can't he get elected? I'm not the one always trying to blame Ty, at least not always blame us.

Ultimately, its a few tousand people, scaring the bulk of the country by random bombings of police etc. We really just need to get more real.

Can you imagine if some Shinto sect of a few thousand had been uprising in Osaka in '46 we'd be careful to listen to its concerns.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
other than Panda/Greedy.

Don't forget AG. He came out as foaming-at-the-mouth liberal.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty, the guy leading the uprising lost most of his family to Sadaam. His religion was essentially forbidden from celebrating its most important holy days by sadaam. On some very basic level, we should expect this guy to be on our side. I understand posturing for post war postion, but he has big time line-crossed. We should have included him in the governing council? Maybe, but if he has juice can't he get elected? I'm not the one always trying to blame Ty, at least not always blame us.

Sadr is a puppet of Iran. Given that the younger people in Iran are chaffing under the collar from the oppression of an islamic theocracy, the powers that be in Iran are very frightened at the prospect of a democracy/representative republic in nieghboring Iraq.

Sadr is not an example of the Iraqi's hating us. He is an example of an extremist islamacist controlled by Iran who is also an opportunist looking to seize power for his own personal reasons. Sadr is not representative of the Iraqi Shia. He is out for himself and is Iran's puppet. He is also a murderer.