Discuss

[The Big Cat]

I'm willing to bet THIS will cause some controversy here and at large!

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm willing to bet THIS will cause some controversy here and at large!

 

 

It's retarded. They can't enforce it. They're not in the chain of command.

 

It's probably unconstitutional as well.

 

And it's shamelessly transparent election politicking, as well. Two months before the presidential election, we're either still there and the Democrats either get to B word that the President isn't following the law (never mind that it's probably unconstitutional and retarded as Congress doesn't command the military), or we're out for whatever reason, and the Democrats get to brag that they're solely responsible for it because of their retarded unconstitutional law. Basically, it ain't about Iraq, it's about the 2008 election.

[Chilly]

And it's shamelessly transparent election politicking, as well. Two months before the presidential election, we're either still there and the Democrats either get to B word that the President isn't following the law (never mind that it's probably unconstitutional and retarded as Congress doesn't command the military), or we're out for whatever reason, and the Democrats get to brag that they're solely responsible for it because of their retarded unconstitutional law. Basically, it ain't about Iraq, it's about the 2008 election.

 

Its not even that elaborate. It more or less a "we promised to do something about it, so now that we are trying, look who is trying to stop us and support a failed cause."

[Tux of Borg]

It will get vetoed by the president and that will be the end of it.

[SilverNRed]

It will get vetoed by the president and that will be the end of it.

I believe this is also the bill that they kept adding pork (or "sweeteners") to to secure the needed votes.

 

So it may be the most disgraceful thing I can remember the House ever doing. Way to go, Nancy!

[Johnny Coli]

I believe this is also the bill that they kept adding pork (or "sweeteners") to to secure the needed votes.

 

So it may be the most disgraceful thing I can remember the House ever doing. Way to go, Nancy!

Laughable. Like you and your party should be spouting off about pork. Classic.

 

The most important part of this bill is getting our troops home. That's what this bill is about. So, instead of supporting our troops, you and your party would rather spin rhetoric and parrot GOP talking points. Personally, I find that pretty damn disgraceful.

[Bungee Jumper]

So what happens to the Iraqis in September '08?

[Johnny Coli]

So what happens to the Iraqis in September '08?

Ah yes, the new-found concern for the Iraqis. These are the same "rag-heads" that the war drum beaters and GOP enablers have been saying we should just nuke out of existence, right? These are the same Iraqis that after every story on this board about the middle east get's followed by the "Islam is the religion of peace (/sarcasm) " posts. These are the same Iraqis who, when recently polled said the US was the problem over there and overwhelmingly wish we would leave. How convenient that they all of a sudden they become the "poor left behind defenseless Iraqis."

 

For starters, they wouldn't be killing American troops, Tom. I thinks that's a pretty significant development. I thinks that's a pretty significant and worthwhile goal.

[SilverNRed]

Laughable. Like you and your party should be spouting off about pork. Classic.

 

The most important part of this bill is getting our troops home. That's what this bill is about. So, instead of supporting our troops, you and your party would rather spin rhetoric and parrot GOP talking points. Personally, I find that pretty damn disgraceful.

I don't have a party. I've never joined any party and I plan to keep it that way.

 

I hate the Republicans. It's just that I really, really hate the Democrats.

 

Again, this bill doesn't get the troops home. It's almost definitely not constitutional and Congress isn't in the chain of command. And even if they were, this thing is being vetoed very quickly. The most significant thing this bill will do is send a message to the people we're fighting that "look, we have a new general and we're in the early stages of a new plan with the surge but just hang in there another year and a half and we're leaving. Don't take us seriously." Our troops aren't coming home because of this thing but our enemies just found out that our legislative branch has no interest in succeeding.

 

That this has anything to do with bringing the troops home IS a talking point. The most significant effect this bill will have is the headlines it makes today and those make our efforts in the region look very, very bad.

[SilverNRed]

These are the same "rag-heads"

Do you really think the "raghead" card is something only the Republicans play or did you completely forget about the Dubai Ports Deal fiasco?

 

That thing was squashed 100% based on where Dubai is and who lives there.

[erynthered]

Ah yes, the new-found concern for the Iraqis. These are the same "rag-heads" that the war drum beaters and GOP enablers have been saying we should just nuke out of existence, right? These are the same Iraqis that after every story on this board about the middle east get's followed by the "Islam is the religion of peace (/sarcasm) " posts. These are the same Iraqis who, when recently polled said the US was the problem over there and overwhelmingly wish we would leave. How convenient that they all of a sudden they become the "poor left behind defenseless Iraqis."

 

For starters, they wouldn't be killing American troops, Tom. I thinks that's a pretty significant development. I thinks that's a pretty significant and worthwhile goal.

 

 

For you to think that so many people think like that is concerning. As the past few elections show, its not like what you say (rag heads). However, there should be concern over what we leave, regardless on how we got there. That, seems to me, the more rational exercise. But don't let get in you way of emotions, Johnny. I enjoy your passion.

 

Spouting rhetoric, claiming no one cares, is a waste of time.

 

Link me!!!

[Bungee Jumper]

Ah yes, the new-found concern for the Iraqis. These are the same "rag-heads" that the war drum beaters and GOP enablers have been saying we should just nuke out of existence, right? These are the same Iraqis that after every story on this board about the middle east get's followed by the "Islam is the religion of peace (/sarcasm) " posts. These are the same Iraqis who, when recently polled said the US was the problem over there and overwhelmingly wish we would leave. How convenient that they all of a sudden they become the "poor left behind defenseless Iraqis."

 

For starters, they wouldn't be killing American troops, Tom. I thinks that's a pretty significant development. I thinks that's a pretty significant and worthwhile goal.

 

"New-found"? Save it for Wacka and his ilk, don't spew that sh-- with me. You know better.

 

And will you think the same way when, by September 2009, two million Iraqis have died in genocidal pogroms? Because that's not even half the current estimate for the shitstorm that'll hit Iraq if we pull out and leave the country destabilized. Of course, it's the standard Democratic response to genocide: ignore it and call it someone else's problem. But hey, if you're satisfied with it...

[molson_golden2002]

Do you really think the "raghead" card is something only the Republicans play or did you completely forget about the Dubai Ports Deal fiasco?

 

That thing was squashed 100% based on where Dubai is and who lives there.

The problem there is, it was Republicans who freeked out over it. Right wing radio was going nuts over that deal. The Dems did egg it on a bit, but only to divide the GOP. Still not good, but still mostly a Republican thing

[molson_golden2002]

"New-found"? Save it for Wacka and his ilk, don't spew that sh-- with me. You know better.

 

And will you think the same way when, by September 2009, two million Iraqis have died in genocidal pogroms? Because that's not even half the current estimate for the shitstorm that'll hit Iraq if we pull out and leave the country destabilized. Of course, it's the standard Democratic response to genocide: ignore it and call it someone else's problem. But hey, if you're satisfied with it...

Who's current estimate? Seems like its hapopening now only slowely. We leave it MIGHT speed up or the neighboring countries might step in and help out. Either way it won't stop by us staying and wasting our national treasure and young lives there

 

So the Democratic response is to ignore genocide? You saying the Republicans are any better? Republicans created one in Iraq, to be sure. Remember the opposition to Kosovo? BTW, how many GIs died in Kosovo war?

[DC Tom]

Who's current estimate? Seems like its hapopening now only slowely. We leave it MIGHT speed up or the neighboring countries might step in and help out. Either way it won't stop by us staying and wasting our national treasure and young lives there

 

The current DoD estimate. Actually, I'm not even quoting it...their projections are worse than what I posted. I low-balled the estimate.

 

So the Democratic response is to ignore genocide?

One word: Rwanda.

 

Here's three more for you: "genocide-like activities". The Democratic platform on genocide is: pretend it doesn't exist. If you can't, make sure it's someone else's problem. And here's another good word that's a perfect example of this: Darfur. No one cared, until a Republican was in the White House and the Democrats could play the "somebody else's problem" card.

 

Not that the Republican track record is much better...but it is, through the simple realization that millions will die in a genocidal pogrom in Iraq if we arbitrarily pull up stakes. The Democrats, true to their Clintonian roots, simply don't give a sh--.

 

You saying the Republicans are any better? Republicans created one in Iraq, to be sure. Remember the opposition to Kosovo? BTW, how many GIs died in Kosovo war?

 

Yeah, the Republicans created one in Iraq. You weren't here to note that I never supported this stupid, unwarranted act of naked aggression against a foreign nation anyway. But how in the hell is the answer to simply unass the area and leave it a complete and utter mess? Again...typical Democratic foreign policy response: make it somebody else's problem. Who cares that we'll kill forty times more Iraqis by such an irresponsible act than we already have by our previous irresponsible acts.

 

The Iraqis biggest misfortune was being invaded by a completely irrational country. Of course, by definition, no rational country would have invaded them to begin with...

[justnzane]

Here's three more for you: "genocide-like activities". The Democratic platform on genocide is: pretend it doesn't exist. If you can't, make sure it's someone else's problem. And here's another good word that's a perfect example of this: Darfur. No one cared, until a Republican was in the White House and the Democrats could play the "somebody else's problem" card.

 

Not that the Republican track record is much better...but it is, through the simple realization that millions will die in a genocidal pogrom in Iraq if we arbitrarily pull up stakes. The Democrats, true to their Clintonian roots, simply don't give a sh--.

Yeah, the Republicans created one in Iraq.

 

Tom i agree with the other parts of the post, but i have to raise the questions "Is saving all of those lives worth draining funds from our recovering economy?" and if the answer is yes, then "Why is it only America's problem?". Seriously, I believe that we should take care of our own issues first (like our homeless and starving) before going overseas to save other countries civilians. I really take issue with the amount aid distributed around the world for the starving in overpopulated areas, when we neglect our own issues.

[Bungee Jumper]

Tom i agree with the other parts of the post, but i have to raise the questions "Is saving all of those lives worth draining funds from our recovering economy?" and if the answer is yes, then "Why is it only America's problem?". Seriously, I believe that we should take care of our own issues first (like our homeless and starving) before going overseas to save other countries civilians. I really take issue with the amount aid distributed around the world for the starving in overpopulated areas, when we neglect our own issues.

 

Maybe, with respect to places like Rwanda or Somalia, you might have a point.

 

I would submit, however, that we as a nation took responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people the moment we invaded them. Is it worth the money? Maybe, maybe not (there's other national security issues above and beyond the simple moral issues I've focused on here). But if we didn't want to spend a trillion dollars (yeah, it's only half a trillion...it'll be a full trillion at least before we're done) on the Iraqi people, we shouldn't have invaded their country to begin with.

 

But - and here's the real thing people keep tripping up on - pulling up stakes and leaving isn't going to fix our mistake. No matter how much the idiots in Congress beileve it possible, you can't retroactively fix the original error with new legislation. You can't "deauthorize" something that's already happened, and you can't arbitrarily declare something complete with legislation. The idea that withdrawing US troops equates to ending the war is absolutely ludicrous, and not a solution to anything. It's just another attempt to retroactively address the original mistake by burying it as deeply as possible, without solving anything.

[/dev/null]

Maybe, with respect to places like Rwanda or Somalia, you might have a point.

 

I would submit, however, that we as a nation took responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people the moment we invaded them. Is it worth the money? Maybe, maybe not (there's other national security issues above and beyond the simple moral issues I've focused on here). But if we didn't want to spend a trillion dollars (yeah, it's only half a trillion...it'll be a full trillion at least before we're done) on the Iraqi people, we shouldn't have invaded their country to begin with.

 

But - and here's the real thing people keep tripping up on - pulling up stakes and leaving isn't going to fix our mistake. No matter how much the idiots in Congress beileve it possible, you can't retroactively fix the original error with new legislation. You can't "deauthorize" something that's already happened, and you can't arbitrarily declare something complete with legislation. The idea that withdrawing US troops equates to ending the war is absolutely ludicrous, and not a solution to anything. It's just another attempt to retroactively address the original mistake by burying it as deeply as possible, without solving anything.

 

No, its not our responsibility for 2 reasons....

 

No blood for oil!!!

 

Save Darfur

 

[justnzane]

Maybe, with respect to places like Rwanda or Somalia, you might have a point.

 

I would submit, however, that we as a nation took responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people the moment we invaded them. Is it worth the money? Maybe, maybe not (there's other national security issues above and beyond the simple moral issues I've focused on here). But if we didn't want to spend a trillion dollars (yeah, it's only half a trillion...it'll be a full trillion at least before we're done) on the Iraqi people, we shouldn't have invaded their country to begin with.

 

But - and here's the real thing people keep tripping up on - pulling up stakes and leaving isn't going to fix our mistake. No matter how much the idiots in Congress beileve it possible, you can't retroactively fix the original error with new legislation. You can't "deauthorize" something that's already happened, and you can't arbitrarily declare something complete with legislation. The idea that withdrawing US troops equates to ending the war is absolutely ludicrous, and not a solution to anything. It's just another attempt to retroactively address the original mistake by burying it as deeply as possible, without solving anything.

 

eh, ok i see your point... I just don't think that we could ever turn things over to the iraqi gov't w/o an imminent collapse due to the social climite. I would have been in support of the implementation of two or three gov'ts one for each religious sect (ala the division of India).

 

That said, I'd still rather not see our cash go to Darfur

[Taro T]

Ah yes, the new-found concern for the Iraqis. These are the same "rag-heads" that the war drum beaters and GOP enablers have been saying we should just nuke out of existence, right? These are the same Iraqis that after every story on this board about the middle east get's followed by the "Islam is the religion of peace (/sarcasm) " posts. These are the same Iraqis who, when recently polled said the US was the problem over there and overwhelmingly wish we would leave. How convenient that they all of a sudden they become the "poor left behind defenseless Iraqis."

 

For starters, they wouldn't be killing American troops, Tom. I thinks that's a pretty significant development. I thinks that's a pretty significant and worthwhile goal.

Some interesting straw men you've set up. If the "GOP enablers" truly wanted to convert Iraq into a very large glass museum or 20MM hole golf course, shouldn't they have done it by now?

 

I, for one, will admit that I supported the war initially, but now wish we never made the effort. Not because I think our troops will fail or that it was a wrong headed effort, but because I think politicians have (and will continue to) mess(ed) things up. And, we don't seem to have the political will to see things through to a victory. Unitl someone in power figures out how to get the U.S. out without giving the Al Queda supporters free reign, I don't see how the U.S. can leave.

 

I would be very interested in hearing (reading) how you would get us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future. (Seriously.)