Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.
User avatar
The Add Jay
Expatriate
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:10 pm
Reputation: 4
Location: Nung river
Libya

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by The Add Jay » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:03 pm

you get the point.
You're a nobody in the gutter with a Smartphone in your a hand.


Ordinem ad Imperium
User avatar
vladimir
The Pun-isher
Posts: 6077
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
Reputation: 185
Location: The Kremlin
Russia

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by vladimir » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:47 pm

The Add Jay wrote:you get the point.
Are you asking me, or telling me? :?

I have no idea what you were trying to say. :lol:
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right? ;)
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by OrangeDragon » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:52 pm

vladimir wrote: You guys got your butts kicked sooo many times, just admit it, Iraq is a cock up of the worst order.

OD, explain one thing: 911, iirc 19 of the guys involved were from Saudi. Why not invade Saudi?

Oh, and can you explain WHY 911 happened. WHY did they do it? Not that it's relevant in any way, just wondered why it has always been fobbed off as 'Oh they envy our lifestyle".

That's right, they killed themselves and thousands of others cause they wanted your iPods. Duh. :facepalm:

I'm just amazed that you two clowns can be sooo blind/fanatical as to defend every foreign policy action of your idiot government unquestioningly.

Republicans, the new Nazis.Go, guys.
The driving force for 9-11 was the Saudi/US cooperation after Kuwait which involved US troops stationed there, and Bin Laden/extremist dislike of it. Which is also what got him kicked out of Saudi and disowned by his family... which only made him more enraged.

The reason we attacked Afghanistan is that's where he was living... and remember the first person to attack him there wasn't a Republican, it was the liberal Democrat Bill Clinton.
User avatar
vladimir
The Pun-isher
Posts: 6077
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
Reputation: 185
Location: The Kremlin
Russia

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by vladimir » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:46 am

The foreign policy is generally a fuck up, OD. regardless of which party is at the helm they are both bribed by the same lobbyists and either pander to, or are powerless to get rid of corporate cash bitches and arms manufacturers.

When people who make guns and people whose sole interest in business is making cash (regardless of the human cost) have a huge say in determining who runs the country, what results do you expect?

Go, on, tell the government doesn't care about the lobbyists! I'll believe you.
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right? ;)
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by OrangeDragon » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:46 am

Recommended reading...
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During the 2008 election season, politicians from both sides of the aisle promised to rid government of lobbyists’ undue influence. For the authors of Lobbying and Policy Change, the most extensive study ever done on the topic, these promises ring hollow—not because politicians fail to keep them but because lobbies are far less influential than political rhetoric suggests.

Based on a comprehensive examination of ninety-eight issues, this volume demonstrates that sixty percent of recent lobbying campaigns failed to change policy despite millions of dollars spent trying. Why? The authors find that resources explain less than five percent of the difference between successful and unsuccessful efforts. Moreover, they show, these attempts must overcome an entrenched Washington system with a tremendous bias in favor of the status quo.

Though elected officials and existing policies carry more weight, lobbies have an impact too, and when advocates for a given issue finally succeed, policy tends to change significantly. The authors argue, however, that the lobbying community so strongly reflects elite interests that it will not fundamentally alter the balance of power unless its makeup shifts dramatically in favor of average Americans’ concerns.
In a nutshell, the tug of war between lobby sides is nearly balanced, and even when it's not they're pushing it in the direction it was already going to go anyway because they share the same interests as the politicians.
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by OrangeDragon » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:55 am

Here's a free Ebook if you like:

http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/books/lobby/A ... 9_2008.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by OrangeDragon » Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:06 am

And here's a nice little excerpt about how impotent lobbyists can be:
In the early days of 1999, representatives from a large telecommunications company and two
large trade associations made a visit to a relatively junior member of Congress. They had an
issue that they thought he would be interested in hearing about. It involved cutting taxes in a
time of tax surpluses, promoting consumer interests and rolling back a policy that no longer had
any reasonable justification. It had the backing of nearly 100 groups, both within the business
community and within a wide array of citizen and consumer groups. The backers had money,
and their diverse membership seemed to assure that they would have legitimacy in the public eye
as well. The issue had no organized opposition and seemed unlikely to develop any, since the
issue had no natural enemies. Given all this, would the congressman be willing to serve as the
issue’s champion in the House? The interest groups would provide the organizing skills and
media push outside Congress, but they needed someone inside Congress to bring the issue
forward. The primary benefit to the junior member of Congress was a chance to be seen as a
person who could get things done—a mover and shaker who led a popular bill through to
fruition, later taking credit, perhaps, for saving consumers millions of dollars in taxes. The
junior member said yes, and the fight to eliminate the 3 percent federal excise tax on
telecommunications began in earnest.
Sometimes a policy proposal seems to have it all, yet still fails to pass. The effort to end
the 3 percent excise tax was just such an issue. Telecommunications companies hated the tax
because it was costly to collect and made their customers irritable, and efforts to eliminate the
tax dated back more than 15 years. The tax—which was applied to all phone bills, cell phone
bills, and cable television bills—began in 1898 as a luxury tax on a newfangled invention. Its
proceeds were to help defray the costs of the Spanish American War. More than a century later,
the fund created by the tax was not dedicated to any specific program, and in a time of budget
surpluses, it seemed like a good time to let it go. Proponents of eliminating the tax were well
connected, gave plenty of campaign contributions, and had hired Jack Quinn, a former Clinton
White House counsel who headed the prominent lobbying firm Quinn and Gillespie. Their issue
was popular with the public, garnered respectable press coverage, and had no organized
opposition. It was “good for the poor and old people” because it eliminated a regressive tax. On
May 25, 2000, the bill passed the House with only two members voting against it. Time,
however, was not on its side. Postponed on the Senate schedule because leaders had other
priorities, the bill languished until the end of August, and with elections approaching the session
was essentially over. A last-minute attempt was made in October to attach it to the general
Treasury appropriations bill, but that bill was vetoed on other grounds. Supporters hoped to
reintroduce the bill and pass it during the 107th Congress. When the next session arrived,
however, the federal budget surplus had evaporated—and with it any chance of the excise tax
being eliminated. The issue died in committee.
And if you're wondering, it was still there as of 2 years ago when I left... and people were still complaining about it (self included).
User avatar
vladimir
The Pun-isher
Posts: 6077
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
Reputation: 185
Location: The Kremlin
Russia

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by vladimir » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:26 am

I suppose the issue of donating to presidential candidates' campaigns likewise has no bearing on their actions when they do win, either.
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right? ;)
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 16
United States of America

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by OrangeDragon » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:30 am

Guessing you didn't read the book... it covers campaign donations and includes them in the zero sum effect.
User avatar
StroppyChops
The Missionary Man
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
Reputation: 1028
Australia

Re: Quite an "about-face" over Iraq

Post by StroppyChops » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:46 am

vladimir wrote:Go, on, tell the government doesn't care about the lobbyists! I'll believe you.
You used a comma incorrectly, your point is invalid. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU... nah, just kidding, it's really lame isn't it? ;)
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post