Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

It's sad that all are not treated fairly and equally...

Posted By: Stating the obvious on 2005-08-27
In Reply to: Why is it sad? What do you have to hide? nm - sm

- on this board or in the real world.  But that is the way things are and it's time to accept it, I guess.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

    The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
    To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


    Other related messages found in our database

    He is on Fox fairly often.
    I know I've seen his 2 or 3 times already.  As far as him owning Fox....I don't think so.  He sounded like an moron to me.  Some of his comments are way out there.
    A fairly even-handed portrayal of the war>>>>

    Lack of Mandate on Iraq Haunts Bush





     


    “Iraqi support for the overthrow of Saddam was real, but ultimately insufficient to the full scope of the American project. ”

     

     

    NPR.org, August 22, 2005 · Among the many lessons the U.S. is being taught in the travails of Iraq, one stands out because it should not have been necessary. Let's call this lesson the rule of proportionate mandate.


    The rule is this: the scope of your plans must be matched by the breadth of your support. Remaking the Middle East by overthrowing its ugliest autocratic government was a bold undertaking. In concept, it may have been visionary. But to attempt it without overwhelming support from key constituencies was to court disaster.


    Much that we have learned in Iraq has become clear in hindsight. But this one, basic rule should have been clear from the outset.


    Before invading Iraq, the administration of President Bush needed the broad backing of three constituencies: the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. In each case, the administration heard just enough of what it wanted to hear to conclude it had sufficient support. In each case, it was wrong.


    In 2003, U.S. intelligence was satisfied it could count on resistance to Saddam Hussein among Kurds in northern Iraq, who were already semi-autonomous. The Shiite Arabs in the south were also presumably anti-Saddam. And if some Sunni in central Iraq remained loyal to the Baathist regime, they would be relatively few and readily isolated.


    We know now that support for a U.S. invasion was overstated, that very few Iraqis backed a long-term U.S. occupation and that even a remnant of determined Sunni can sustain a deadly insurgency indefinitely. In other words, Iraqi support for the overthrow of Saddam was real, but ultimately insufficient to the full scope of the American project.


    In the international sphere, the U.S. move into Iraq was supported by Great Britain and some other European states. But the United Nations preferred a course of more deliberate pressure on Saddam. More important, the U.S. did not have the Islamic allies it had in the 1991 war to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Most of these states feared the consequences of a greater American presence in their geographic midst.


    So despite the much-invoked "coalition of the willing," the U.S.-led invasion looked disturbingly unilateral in 2003. And the ongoing occupation looks even more so today, as the ranks of coalition partners have thinned.


    As for the third constituency, the American public, we were sold on the war intellectually as a defensive strike to rid the world of a tyrant who had (or would soon have) weapons of mass destruction. On a more visceral level, the war had appeal as revenge for the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- even without a connection between Iraq and those attacks. Today, of course, the weapons justification is regarded as either an error or a sham. The second basis remains, and the president now regularly refers to the war in Iraq as making Americans safer.


    In 2003, the war pitch worked well enough to win a polling majority. But it was never an overwhelming majority, as in the case of Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. This lack of a full mandate, proportionate to the ambition of the war policy, cast a cloud over the endeavor from the start.


    Because the margin in favor of war was never that great, the inevitable dwindling of support in the face of adversity and frustration has now reduced the level of public support well below 50 percent. In the latest Gallup polls, 54 percent said the war was a mistake, not worth its cost. An even greater percentage, 57 percent, said the Iraq war is not making Americans safer.


    This is far from being our first experience with the rule of proportionate mandate. Most Americans supported the wars in Korea and Vietnam, at least at first, but not enough to maintain the kind of national effort those wars turned out to demand.


    The need for broad backing affects domestic issues as well. The obvious example was President Bill Clinton's abortive attempt to redesign the nation's health care system in 1993 and 1994. Clinton's 42 percent plurality in the three-way election of 1992 was nowhere near enough to propel that kind of change in the face of concerted opposition. In similar fashion, President Bush has found that his historically narrow re-election margin lent him little momentum with which to tackle the Social Security system this year.


    This is not to say that no president can govern in a country so politically divided as ours. In the contemporary American system, the president must lead. Even those who have become president upon the death of their predecessors have done so.


    But there are limits. All presidents must govern within the norms of representative democracy, and these include the rule of proportionate mandate. Push a minimal majority too hard and it will be a majority no more. Pushing further still raises fundamental questions of legitimacy.


    Thank you but I'm fairly familiar with the Constitution.
    You could, however, educate me as to where the Constitution says that children born to ILLEGAL parents are automatic U.S. citizens.
    Your reply is equally mature.
    nm
    I got that from how they treated Kfir
    Kfir was drug through the mud for his his or her Jewish beliefs. People who believe that what is happening in the Middle East is a fulfillment of prophecy have been laughed at. More than one person have expressed their offense at this.

    You can disagree with someone without belittling their faith or laughing them.
    You have no basis in fact that Bush is doing a rewrite...you hate him, which is fairly obvious.
    Then go ahead and blame Clinton, if you believe there's enough blame to go around, but I don't see you taking up space doing so.



    Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
    I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post.  Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board.  Also, you said insults.  I asked for examples of that.  Again, you did not provide any.  I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating.  I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on.  However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian.  That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part.  I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here.  As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
    BTDT. This is an equally offensive opportunity.
    x
    W's clueless response is equally as disturbing.
    "So what if the guy threw his shoe at me?" Bush told a reporter in response to a question about the incident.

    "Let me talk about the guy throwing his shoe. It's one way to gain attention. It's like going to a political rally and having people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and having people not gesturing with all five fingers. ...These journalists here were very apologetic. They ... said this doesn't represent the Iraqi people, but that's what happens in free societies where people try to draw attention to themselves."

    So what? How many agree that this guy was seeking attention? Only on the W planet would the alleged leader of the free world be so unconscious and so casual about this deepest of insults. Who cares? Not W, evidently.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

    Yes. Someone must have run to the administrator again and complained that she was being treated the

    The height of hypocrisy.


    Kennedy wasn't treated like this
    This adoration is on a whole different level. And he's only human, who wouldn't have their head turned by all this devotion? If he turns into some kind of egomaniac, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

    And I agree with the other posters about his snooty wife. I'm sure she'll be right there, telling him he's all that, and more.


    I pray that Obama is treated with
    more respect than Bush was, not because I voted for Obama, but because he is the President. I wish him the best of luck because if he does well, we will be alright. I hope he isn't getting booed out of office in 4 or 8 years. So disrespectful, but only in America can you get away with it.
    No. No no! Look how liberals treated Palin?
    nm
    Strange, they said they were treated wonderfully....
    nm
    If you want to claim that the democrats in congress were not equally responsible for their votes...
    there is no talkin' to ya. But anyone who knows how voting works, knows the Dems share responsibility for any action or inaction that was taken.

    I still say Petraeus knows more about it than Barack Obama does. And frankly, than you or I do.

    Yes, that is the same thing we heard about Viet Nam, so no matter what we promised them about helping them, we just left. And the worst genocide in history followed right behind...the killing fields of Cambodia. And here the left is...wanting to do it again. No matter what indeed. Sigh.

    I think Palin was treated unfairly - just look at the posts on this board
    I think it's a disgrace that McCain has not asked that this be stopped. But then again I think it's a disgrace that Obama wasn't outraged at the comment the KGO radio guy made about wanted Joe the Plumber dead.

    I think Palin is an amazing woman and stood her ground.

    Just look at this board. The republican party lost and the liberals are still attacking and demonizing her and for no good reason. And this is why I think the democrat party in Washington will fail the people once again. They can't let things go. It's like hearing the same story over and over and over while they snicker and gloat over issues like the porn movie that was created with a Palin look alike, and telling lies that her daughter actually had the downs baby when they knew it was a lie. Then the whole clothing issue was just ridiculous. We've got serious issues at hand like a war, a sinking economy, people out of work and all the democrats can talk about is where her clothes were bought, which were later returned or donated to charity. It's just disgraceful. If the democrats can't even look forward and stop bringing up Palin how is this country ever going to heal.
    There are other choices. I find Obama and McCain equally offensive, so I am voting for Ralph Nader.
    Bob Barr might also be a good choice.