BF2S Forums Delivering on election promises...

Maybe the Democrats should have used it more as a way to get elected and they wouldn't have to worry about a presidential veto because they could overturn it.

The only traitors i see are those that foolishly follow Bush's mantra with regards to foreign policy -- and even worse those that build their opposition to the incoherent Bush mantra -- and yes this does include democrats

Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe?  The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice.  He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.   

The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half.  The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe?  The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice.  He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.   

The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half.  The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.

The most recent election resulted in a majority of the population of America voting for a party which supported this kind of policy in the middle east. Personally I don't agree with two party politics but 'them's the rules'. Bush will be going against the majority will of the people by vetoing this, i.e. he will be acting undemocratically.

But being elected as President does give him the right to veto anything...

CameronPoe wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The most recent election resulted in a majority of the population of America voting for a party which supported this kind of policy in the middle east. Personally I don't agree with two party politics but 'them's the rules'. Bush will be going against the majority will of the people by vetoing this, i.e. he will be acting undemocratically.

But being elected as President does give him the right to veto anything...

Yes it does, but using a veto should be a last resort not a first resort. The use of a veto is not exactly very democratic either (in relation to the exact definition of the word democratic).

If a veto wasn't democratic, a democratically elected president wouldn't have that power. There is nothing wrong with Bush showing that he is considering a veto to a policy. Its even better, since the policy can be further discussed before being voted, and maybe avoid the veto if a consensus is reached with the president. This is how the Presidencialism (sp?) works, opposed to Parlamentarism (sp?) used in the UK and other countries.

CameronPoe wrote:

... he will be acting undemocratically.

It's been said before, democracy doesn't work.

If Bush Vetoes it's time for impeachment vote.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe?  The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice.  He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.   

The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half.  The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.

The most recent election resulted in a majority of the population of America voting for a party which supported this kind of policy in the middle east. Personally I don't agree with two party politics but 'them's the rules'. Bush will be going against the majority will of the people by vetoing this, i.e. he will be acting undemocratically.

No problem, let him veto.........If Congress wants to go on record as pulling the plug on the troops they can do so with a 2/3 vote back in congress.

The real problem the democrats face is, they can not figure out how to NOT support the troops, without going on record as doing so.

Surely removing them from a zone of conflict is an extremely good way of supporting your troops?

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

No problem, let him veto.........If Congress wants to go on record as pulling the plug on the troops they can do so with a 2/3 vote back in congress.

The real problem the democrats face is, they can not figure out how to NOT support the troops, without going on record as doing so.

Surely removing them from a zone of conflict is an extremely good way of supporting your troops?

Actually, the troops thought Clinton was a coward and a spineless jellyfish for doing the same thing in Somalia.

Also if the democrats really really looked at such action as "supporting the troops" then the 2/3 vote should be easy to achieve and then this veto is really a non-issue, right??

Let congress vote on it and see who votes for this and who doesn't. Many of them talking shit about leaving Iraq will not actually vote to do so because it will be viewed as a slap in the face of our troops. the same scenerio as when all the loud mouth democrats speak out against the war yet continue to vote to fund it. They do not want to go on record as abandoning the troops no matter how bad they want to.

Not to mention the very real fear that as soon as we leave Iraq and a terrorist attack on the US orginates from there,  a lot of the democrats will have some tap dancing to do. Maybe they could join the bubbalo school of dance, for lessons

Ah, so if the democrats vote to remove the troops from Iraq the republicans will claim they're not supporting the troops to try to make people vote against them even though leaving them in Iraq obviously is endangering them further? Also if a single terrorist attack occurs on Americans in America as opposed to the vast number of terrorist attacks that are occuring on Americans that aren't in America then the democrats will get the blame even though the number of American casualties due to terrorism will have dramatically been reduced?

I'm still not appreciating just how good political spin must be in your country.

Stingray24 wrote:

Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe?  The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice.  He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.   

The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half.  The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.

Technically, he lost the first time, since the will of the people elected Al Gore.  Remember he had 500k more votes than GWB.  Then, the Electoral College voted for Bush.  The second time he won against a clown.

Fen321 wrote:

Okay, explain to me how brining home the troops whom have had more than 1 tour is a "slap in the face?" While i understand you not wanting to withdraw....wait no I don't actually what do you plan on achieving via having troops there? Seriously, this support our troops banter is pure hokum. If you can't get a real argument other than that then god help you you don't know what is going on then.  When you have the General in charge of the situation in Iraq STATING that we need a political resolution and that no matter how many troops you bring in for whatever time frame its not going to fix the situation.

Seriously i IMPLORE YOU to explain out in detail what the hell you mean by supporting our troops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You do realize that the military is the equivalent to the right hand of our country and the left hand is Diplomacy...........HOW once again HOW do you not support our troops by wanting to remove them from a situation that has of yet not made progress towards stabilizing the country in terms of political change.

Personally i see the change taking place within the parliament (Iraqi) as a very important step in ending the sectarian blood shed, but each time i hear the words support our troops i feel like reaching through this screen and shaking you violently to wake you up from this BS. Troops didn't pop into Iraq out of thin air or by their own choosing its a political decision hence why the hell is choosing to get them out (a political decision) in variance with supporting them!

To you and purefodder,

                             Here is how you support our troops:

1. Once you have committed them to battle (this includes the dems that voted for the war) you commit 100% your voice and your resources to the troops until the battle is one. You do not flip flop and speak at the very anti-war rallies that you committed troops to fight.

2. You do not tie the troops hands behind their backs and send them to fight. You let them bare the full potential of their arsenal to protect themselves and to ensure victory. If victory is not the goal why are they there?

3. a typical liberal philosophy, cutting and running is supporting the troops. This means we have left an entire country for the taking of the terrorists. If it was peace and prosperity the "insurgents/terrorists" wanted, they would join us in rebuilding the country from Saddam's tyranny. They have no interest in a peaceful stable Iraq. We fight them now and win, or we will all surely loose tomorrow.

4. This war can be won, if all countries joined together and refused to allow safe harbor to terrorists and their finances. Any country that refuses to do this, should be considered a terrorist state and thus an enemy to the world. Then, REAL sanctions imposed on those countries. It has come to this.

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Why is the will of the people you agree with the only one you're highlighting, CPoe?  The will of the people was also expressed by those who voted Bush in twice.  He's been elected President and as such, has the power to veto.   

The elected Dems oppose the surge, leaving the troops that are already there with less manpower than they need for another year and half.  The Dems are quite the "support the troops" group aren't they.

The most recent election resulted in a majority of the population of America voting for a party which supported this kind of policy in the middle east. Personally I don't agree with two party politics but 'them's the rules'. Bush will be going against the majority will of the people by vetoing this, i.e. he will be acting undemocratically.

actually, that's not exactly true. the most recent elections were not a nationwide election, like the presidency is for example. the most recent elections focused on congress, senate, and municipalities (which are of little concern to global politics, but im just trying to be complete)(and a lot of seats weren't up for grabs, i dont have the number in front of me, but there are really two congress and senate elections, every 2 years). Congress and senate is elected on a state level, seats for congress based on population, more or less, and senate a promised 2. so, even delaware gets 2 senators. so does alaska. both have populations a tiny fraction of my Illinois, yet have the same voice. to defend what the senate is saying as being a perfect example of the american voice is foolish at best.

As for congress, a lot of elections in this most recent go around were won or lost not because of national level politics, but of politics more closely based to home. issues of their state. Also, there were a number of scandels that failed to help the republicans. also, might i add, a seemingly weak crop of republican contenders. Going back to the senate all illinois could muster was a replacement alan keyes??? please.....

Anywho, to generalize that the American people, the MAJORITY of American people voted for candidates based on their stance on the war, and nothing else, is asinine. im not saying that didn't influence some voters, but there are many many more issues here in america and abroad besides the war in Iraq. We do talk about other things here, you know?

I will agree that two parties is very limiting, but as you said..... use what you got

Also, as it has been said, the presidential veto is a tool that it allowed, and by no means undemocratic. it's built into our system, a series of checks and balances that ensures nobody gets too much power, and if there were so many people against the war, why the 2/3 majority voteback wouldn't be a problem, would it?