REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

House Iraq Resolution--what will it do?

POSTED BY: CAUSAL
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 15:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2580
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:09 AM

CAUSAL


So a terrible subject line, I know, but I don't want to unnecessarily bias the thread. I'm curious about your opinions on the resolution being debated in U.S. House of Representatives condemning the troop surge. It's a non-binding resolution, which means that it doesn't force any changes in the president's Iraq policy. Critics of the bill say that it doesn't really accomplish anything--and may damage the morale of the military and encourage the insurgents to keep fighting. Supporters says it's a vital part of the democratic process and a way for the Congress to let the president know that the American people aren't happy. So, what say you, RWEDers?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:34 AM

SHINYED


Good topic...good debate, but I won't engage.

Unless you're a hardcore Liberal you get ridiculed by 98% of the posters here, called an idiot and troll...not worth the energy to read a bunch of immature smartasses attacking your beliefs and opinions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:50 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Good topic...good debate, but I won't engage.

Unless you're a hardcore Liberal you get ridiculed by 98% of the posters here, called an idiot and troll...not worth the energy to read a bunch of immature smartasses attacking your beliefs and opinions.



Aw, come on, Ed. I agree with you about 50%--I've had the same thing happen to me (try being religious and pro-life!) but there are plenty of people here who respect the opinions of others. And if you think it's going south, jump ship!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 4:21 AM

SHINYED


Yes Causal...we've had some interesting and charged debates, but many others here really turn me off with their vile antics. I'm gonna pretty much stay in the more-respectful areas like episode discussions. Stay Shiny!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 7:47 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


It won't do much. But it will put some Congressmen on the record, one way or the other. Might be useful to their careers later. Or maybe to the history books, when the history of this time gets written.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 7:57 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Or maybe to the history books, when the history of this time gets written.



Though it may have little effect on the here-and-now, I agree it will be important when the histories are writen.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:02 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Just found this on yahoo editorials, from USA.Today, that far left wing, commie/pinko, terrorist supporting, yellow journalist rag:
Quote:



Opponents widely dismiss the resolution as toothless political posturing, and there's some truth to that. The measure requires no change in policy and offers no alternative. In a sense, it offers members a free shot at an unpopular president and a controversial war.

At the same time, it sends a powerful message, which is why those same opponents have fought so furiously to stop it. For the first time since Congress voted in late 2002 to give the president permission to go to war, a majority of one chamber will go on record against Bush's management of the conflict.

Put simply, it is a vote of no confidence in Bush's plan, and one in which a dozen or more Republicans are expected to join. It is a formal way for members of Congress to say what their constituents said in the last election and in every subsequent poll: They will not tolerate the failing war much longer.

[/ QUOTE]

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:22 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Critics of the bill say that it doesn't really accomplish anything



True

Quote:

and may damage the morale of the military


BS, anyone who could lose morale from this reolution would have lost it all long ago, lack of support for the war has been evident for years.

Quote:

and encourage the insurgents to keep fighting.


BS, the insurgents are going to fight as long as we are there, and again, lack of support for the war has been evident for years.

Quote:

Supporters says it's a vital part of the democratic process


Um, no. Wagging fingers has nothing to do with the democratic process.

Quote:

and a way for the Congress to let the president know that the American people aren't happy


Even Curious George must realize that the Republicans losing Congress means the people aren't happy, wagging fingers isn't going to do crap.

In short the Democrats are doing this as a slap in the face of the prez, and the Republicans who are joining in are doing it to garner spport for later. It means nothing and will accomplish nothing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:35 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Even Curious George must realize that the Republicans losing Congress means the people aren't happy, wagging fingers isn't going to do crap.



Maybe he realizes, maybe not. It's hard to guage the man's level of self-delusion.

It think it's worth making the public's disapproval a matter of record, regardless of whether or not it has a direct or immediate influence over the war.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 10:43 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Final count 246 Aye, 182 Nay. 17 Republicans vote Aye.

Meanwhile:

"I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

Remember his name...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 10:45 AM

DAYVE



just so you'll know... the votes are in - no surprise.... will it make a difference? Maybe if there were resonable people in this administration they would at least take notice...GW?? not so sure

BTW: picked this up over at Huffington Post:

After four days of debate, the House of Representatives has passed a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
The resolution, below, passed by 246 to 182.
Senate Democrats are holding an up or down vote on the resolution Saturday.
----
Text of the "Concurrent Resolution on the President's Escalation Plan:
This week the House of Representatives will be considering the following Concurrent Resolution.
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 9:02 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'm curious about your opinions on the resolution being debated in U.S. House of Representatives condemning the troop surge.


Training wheels.

Congress is learning to ride a bike. Again. (I know they say that you never forget how to ride a bike but these are Congresspeople we're talking about). The bike they're learning to re-ride is the concept that they actually represent one of the three branches of government rather than a rubber-stamp for the executive branch.

This non-binding resolution is, looked at from one direction, meaningless. So why is it a more robust expression of displeasure than Congress has managed in many years of Republican rule? And why did Republican Congresspeople fight so hard against it?

We were lied into this war. The rationale for this war has shifted repeatedly. Those in overall charge of prosecuting this war have failed miserably. The majority of Americans understand and agree with these facts. Congress, unfortunately, is lagging behind the rest of the country.

Taken by itself this vote is meaningless. Taken as the first step in a learning program, this vote could be huge. I will defer to Ron Paul's - the Republican representative from the 14th district of Texas and one of the 17 Republican Congresspeople who had the balls to support this resolution - statements regarding this resolution:
Quote:

excerpted from http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm
...
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:15 AM

JONGSSTRAW


America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:41 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?


Wait a second, Jongsstraw. How is what you did at the end of the paragraph any different than what you're complaining about at the start of the paragraph?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:10 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Wait a second, Jongsstraw. How is what you did at the end of the paragraph any different than what you're complaining about at the start of the paragraph?



I believe I was giving my view based on reality, and both ends of my post are related because they are honest, but harsh reminders of the utter failure of our entire government to put the county's interests ahead of their childish and embarassing social and political agendas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:57 AM

WALKERHOUND


Quote:

It think it's worth making the public's disapproval a matter of record


hummm, slight quibble.

This disapproval being put on record (symbolic though it be) is that of the house of representatives. Who (theoretically, hopefully?) are reflecting the opinion (or at lest what thay think/ hope/ believe the polls say) there constituents want back home.

In other word's maybe yes maybe no but DEFENTLY for some reason (that has been formulated in such a way as to prevent the lest political riaque)? Ask me in 60 years when my grand kid's bring home there history text's books.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:19 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?



How many other countries have you been to? I don't mean to offend. I spent 3 or 4 months in Turkey back in 2002. They shame themselves politically all the time, its' all part of the chaotic system of self discovery they have. They've had open borders since Biblical times, there are millions of undocumenteds walking the countryside looking for work, and they find it doing tasks that any other Turk with money won't do, same as here. Most Turks will invite someone they don't know into thier house for dinner because they look hungry, it's a tradition. Why are we afraid to do that? Because were all brainwash-paranoid! by the media. Sorry I don't agree completely with your post, no offense intended.


"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I think it's safe to say that most know my feelings on the issue.

Think I'll leave this one alone as well. Hell, it's Mardis Gras weekend. The Endymion parade is goin on.



Endymion Grand Marshall for 2007

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 18, 2007 1:13 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
and may damage the morale of the military



BS, anyone who could lose morale from this reolution would have lost it all long ago, lack of support for the war has been evident for years.



With all due respect, I have to disagree here. I served in Iraq at the beginning of the war, so I know whereof I speak (that is to say, I'm speaking from the experience of being one of the troops in Iraq).

As I read somewhere around, mission is a sacred thing to the military. You do the job, you accomplish the mission, and you put your life on the line to do so. We sacrifice so very much in order to see the mission get accomplished. We shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Granted. We could argue all day long about how and why we got into the war, but the bottom line is, we shouldn't have been there. But as a military man, I accepted the fact that I didn't get to be the one to make that call. I feel like a failure. And I don't like that feeling. I don't want to have suffered for nothing. I'm resolved to the fact that that may indeed turn out to be the case. But man, this just feels shitty. It feels like the country is saying to us, "You suck; pack your bags and guns and ammunition and come home, losers. You couldn't get the job done, so you're on the bench." Forget the political BS. That's how I feel. The House Resolution feels like a slap in the face. That's how it feels, and it's not because of my party affiliation. It's because I feel like I sacrificed for nothing. Because I feel like a damned failure. Makes sense to me now, why the Vietnam vets hurt so bad. They did their best and failed. I feel like I let the whole damned country down.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 7:28 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
With all due respect, I have to disagree here. I served in Iraq at the beginning of the war, so I know whereof I speak (that is to say, I'm speaking from the experience of being one of the troops in Iraq).

As I read somewhere around, mission is a sacred thing to the military. You do the job, you accomplish the mission, and you put your life on the line to do so. We sacrifice so very much in order to see the mission get accomplished. We shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Granted. We could argue all day long about how and why we got into the war, but the bottom line is, we shouldn't have been there. But as a military man, I accepted the fact that I didn't get to be the one to make that call. I feel like a failure. And I don't like that feeling. I don't want to have suffered for nothing. I'm resolved to the fact that that may indeed turn out to be the case. But man, this just feels shitty. It feels like the country is saying to us, "You suck; pack your bags and guns and ammunition and come home, losers. You couldn't get the job done, so you're on the bench." Forget the political BS. That's how I feel. The House Resolution feels like a slap in the face. That's how it feels, and it's not because of my party affiliation. It's because I feel like I sacrificed for nothing. Because I feel like a damned failure. Makes sense to me now, why the Vietnam vets hurt so bad. They did their best and failed. I feel like I let the whole damned country down.


Or it could be that the country is saying, "Given the past performance of this group of civilian leaders and their stated goals there is zero chance for success in Iraq. Our troops have done the best they could but they have been let down by their leaders. We will leave Iraq without successfully completing the mission that this administration set forth. The only question is whether we leave now or many years down the road and how much more our troops will be required to sacrifice for failed leadership."

There is no way to win this war, given the people we have in charge, without destroying our soul as a country. The mission was impossible in March of 2003. The mission is impossible today. It will be impossible in January 2009 when the next President takes office.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 8:12 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Or it could be that the country is saying, "Given the past performance of this group of civilian leaders and their stated goals there is zero chance for success in Iraq. Our troops have done the best they could but they have been let down by their leaders. We will leave Iraq without successfully completing the mission that this administration set forth. The only question is whether we leave now or many years down the road and how much more our troops will be required to sacrifice for failed leadership."



Yeah, the rational part of me knows that this is exactly what is being said. Believe me, my brain knows it. But in my chest beats the heart of a serviceman, and there is nothing more important to the honor of a serviceman than accomplishing the mission. If we go down in flames in Iraq (or just pull out quietly), I'll be scarred pretty deeply. I'm immensely proud of my military service; I feel like I did something important. But with the ever-more likely failure of the mission in Iraq, and the beginnings of doubts about Afghanistan, I begin to feel like I really accomplished nothing at all. And for someone to whom service is so important, that feeling is, needless to say, like a slow poison in my soul.

Quote:

There is no way to win this war, given the people we have in charge, without destroying our soul as a country. The mission was impossible in March of 2003. The mission is impossible today. It will be impossible in January 2009 when the next President takes office.



Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 9:47 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Yeah, the rational part of me knows that this is exactly what is being said. Believe me, my brain knows it. But in my chest beats the heart of a serviceman, and there is nothing more important to the honor of a serviceman than accomplishing the mission. If we go down in flames in Iraq (or just pull out quietly), I'll be scarred pretty deeply. I'm immensely proud of my military service; I feel like I did something important. But with the ever-more likely failure of the mission in Iraq, and the beginnings of doubts about Afghanistan, I begin to feel like I really accomplished nothing at all. And for someone to whom service is so important, that feeling is, needless to say, like a slow poison in my soul.

...

Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.


I hear what you are saying. When historians get around to writing about this time I hope that there is general consensus that one of the greatest sins of the Bush administration was precisely that: That they took the most powerful military in the world and ordered them to complete an impossible mission that was not beneficial at all to the defense of the United States.

Which doesn't do a damn thing about what you're feeling now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 9:53 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.



I'm sorry that you feel this way and I wish there was something I could do about it. The truth is that this failure does not fall on the troops, the troops have done as good a job as can be asked of anybody, the failure belongs to the leaders who chose a war that many people in the know knew could not be won, the failure falls to the Iraqis who refuse to work together for the good of their own country, the failure belongs to the extremists who are willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone for their narrow-minded goals, the failure falls on the civilians whose obsession with oil made the Middle East worth paying attention to. I hope that you and any other veterans who feel the same can come to understand that the failure is not your fault and in no way reflects on you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 9:59 AM

CAUSAL


Fred, SC, thanks for the kind words. I really have no idea how many other servicemembers feel the same way. Perhaps it's just me. I guess my real hope is that we'll never get treated like those poor VietNam vets did. Even if we ultimately fail in Iraq, I hope we don't have to go through the same nightmare those poor guys did.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 10:14 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I guess my real hope is that we'll never get treated like those poor VietNam vets did. Even if we ultimately fail in Iraq, I hope we don't have to go through the same nightmare those poor guys did.



You won't, we know enough these days to seperate the troops from the war. Most of the people I know think the war is a huge mistake, but none of them have anything but respect for the troops. The only people that are being assholes to the troops that I'm aware of are the Westboro Baptist people, and they're just nuts so you shouldn't take them too personally.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 10:15 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


There is no right answer - not with the resolution, not with Iraq, not with the War on Terror. There are just a lot of wrong answers. And, it's understandable that the people directly involved in the offense - the service men and women - feel bad about that. I feel bad about it, and I'm still not old enough to vote on any of this stuff. It's a situation with two options: bad or worse.

We stay, our guys and gals are either fodder for suicide bombers or they develop serious psychological issues (physical death or, for lack of a better word, spiritual death). We leave, the entire region is immersed in a blood bath. It sucks, and nobody should like it. Congress can do very little about it except stop the cash flow, and they probably don't like it. Any rallying action Americans can pull together would A) do nothing or B) do something (but, of course, there are no good somethings).

The only okay course of action that I can see is to lift out all the innocents (how does one identify innocents, much less retrieve them all?) out of the Middle East and take all the foreign troops with them. Unfortunately (for the U.S. mostly), that would leave the oil to the different radical groups, so they would have a constant supply of money until they ran out.

The way I interpret the resolution is this: "We don't have much more of a plan than this administration, but we need to make our stance official - both for ourselves and our constituents. Whether we like it or not, we need to take care of what we can, and the best way we can see to do that is to bring the troops home. We know that they would fight this loosing battle for as long as we still wanted them to (bless their souls), but we don't have the heart to continue this. What's coming may suck, but we have to try something."




Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 19, 2007 1:11 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.

Enough senior military leadership steped up and voiced both concern and outrage over the feasibility of the objectives and resources put into play, the only thing that could have caused any other conclusion would have been success...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:18 AM

KANEMAN


If the dems really didn't support this war, if they really wanted to pull out, if it wasn't just a bunch of lip service to their tree-hugging limp wristed constituency...couldn't they just DE-FUND the war? Don't they control the purse strings? Just a thought........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:53 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.



Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.




"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:35 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.



I don't know what Gino thinks but here is what I have heard about the blame for those two.

Bush 1: Blamed for not taking out Saddam in Gulf War 1, nevermind that he thought that an invasion would be a costly and unwinnable mistake (he has been proven correct)

Clinton: Blamed for the post-Somalia air-power-only doctrine, supposedly making us look weak and lacking commitment. Never mind that a raging LAND war in Afghanistan should have shown commitment and strength.

Once again, I don't know Gino's position, these are just what I have heard.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:25 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
If the dems really didn't support this war, if they really wanted to pull out, if it wasn't just a bunch of lip service to their tree-hugging limp wristed constituency...couldn't they just DE-FUND the war? Don't they control the purse strings? Just a thought........



I don't think they've gotten to that yet, with all the debate about debating about the resolution, and debating about voting on the resolution, and debating about the resolution...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.



Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.




"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx



Well, I'll try to be brief

When I started with Bush1, Reagan was President, Bush1 was the force behind much of the days foreign policy, and the US was backing Saddam against Iran in a war of aggression Iran started. Despite ( while being quite aware ) of Saddams many actions against his own people, the US continued to support his regime... As they supported the Shah years earlier in Iran when they helped overthrow an elected government in Iran.

Bush1 / Gulfwar

While freeing Kuwait was a just cause, the US faltered badly in the post-invasion diplomacy. The main reason the coalition forces did not invade Iraq, is if that had of been the objective there would have been no coalition. After Kuwait had been secured there was no plan, other than to isolate Iraq. Action without objective. If they had of publicly stated the embargos would continue until reparations were paid, or until Saddam stepped down... fine. But that did not happen, and led to further problems...

Clinton,

Continued the embargos despite the objections of ... everyone but Britain, this alone held a body count in Iraq for over a million deaths. This leads to making the US more unpopular in the region, etc

Bush II, well what more can be said. :)


The disaster began long before BushII, by bad US policy, the weak UN veto mechanism not able to resist the US, no strong opposing force to bolster the oppostion ( fall of the Soviet Union )




" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, March 19, 2024 06:57 - 6092 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, March 19, 2024 06:54 - 351 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL