NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6296397.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/238662AA-F5BA-4F4B-9889-856B63C8E98A.htm
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20070125-senate-iraq.html

Thoughts?

Watch as Bush goes ahead anyway. He's like that.

True.

Watch as Bush goes ahead anyway. He's like that.

Watch as Bush goes ahead anyway. He's like that.

Indeed:


Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, dismissed the congressional objections. During an interview with CNN he said "it won't stop us".

[...]

"We are moving forward. We are moving forward. We'll continue to consult with the congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done."


And he even adds:


"What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do; the world is much safer today because of it."


:rolleyes:

"What we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do; the world is much safer today because of it."

*dies of laughter*

Oh noes! A nonbinding resolution! :eek:

If Bush doesn't respond to the will of 70% of the public, why would he consider this?

*dies of laughter*

The good old "The more you repeat an absurdity, the more some people will believe it" approach.

The good old "The more you repeat an absurdity, the more some people will believe it" approach.

Yep.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/728/comicalcheney3ba.jpg

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/728/comicalcheney3ba.jpg

ROFLMAO

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/728/comicalcheney3ba.jpg

Hey I know this guy! It's the USA Information Minister! :D

Let's hope a non binding resolution eventually turns into a funding cut.

If our soldiers lose 1 cent of supplies you watch whoever is the 2008 democrat candidate get eaten alive by the republic mudslingers who will destroy that persons chances for the presidency. This is win win for the president and the republicans. The public will very quickly forget they disagreed with the 20 000 extra men if the democrats answer that by fund cuts.

Mark my words, even if noone here believes me, democratic congress votes for any iraq funding cut what so ever = certain win for the replubican candidate.

If our soldiers lose 1 cent of supplies you watch whoever is the 2008 democrat candidate get eaten alive by the republic mudslingers who will destroy that persons chances for the presidency. This is win win for the president and the republicans. The public will very quickly forget they disagreed with the 20 000 extra men if the democrats answer that by fund cuts.

Mark my words, even if noone here believes me, democratic congress votes for any iraq funding cut what so ever = certain win for the replubican candidate.

I think - and hope - the Democrats areaware of that. However, if the REPUBLICANS start voting to cut funds... THEN it gets interesting. :D

What's 21,000 increase of troops going to do? They'll be a soft targets to Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad and other major cities, where Americans have to fight street to street and house to house. But then again, I support a strong US presence in Iraq because America created this problem and its America that must solve it. If America leaves, then all the crooks that are buying their time will pop up and seek revenge against the minority Sunnis and you know who will come to the rescue of the Sunnis (you can only guess). That kind of scenerio will only produce out millions of Bin Ladens who are not satisfied until Islam is a global politic. Americans must not leave a vacuum of power in the Middle East, if they do, America won't have any allies left in that region forever and sadly no more oil for America :( I would suggest about an increase of 350,000 to 550,000 of American troops in Iraq and if the current American army cannot do this than it should build more, all that hundreds of billions of dollars are for nothing if America can't send 550,000 soldiers to Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6296397.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/238662AA-F5BA-4F4B-9889-856B63C8E98A.htm
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20070125-senate-iraq.html

Thoughts?

Thoughts... the war machine propaganda still promises us a 'win' in Iraq.

What the hell does a 'win' in Iraq even look like?

Gas in the pumps? Electricity 24 hours a day? A stable government - even if it's not quite how we'd do it?

They had all that - we took it away.

Or - maybe an end to the insurgency? The insurgency is opposition to our occupation.

Maybe - an end to homegrown terrorism? We still have home grown terrorists here - does that mean we don't yet have a 'win' in America?

What's 21,000 increase of troops going to do? They'll be a soft targets to Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad and other major cities, where Americans have to fight street to street and house to house. But then again, I support a strong US presence in Iraq because America created this problem and its America that must solve it. If America leaves, then all the crooks that are buying their time will pop up and seek revenge against the minority Sunnis and you know who will come to the rescue of the Sunnis (you can only guess). That kind of scenerio will only produce out millions of Bin Ladens who are not satisfied until Islam is a global politic. Americans must not leave a vacuum of power in the Middle East, if they do, America won't have any allies left in that region forever and sadly no more oil for America :( I would suggest about an increase of 350,000 to 550,000 of American troops in Iraq and if the current American army cannot do this than it should build more, all that hundreds of billions of dollars are for nothing if America can't send 550,000 soldiers to Iraq.Are you volunteering?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6296397.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/238662AA-F5BA-4F4B-9889-856B63C8E98A.htm
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20070125-senate-iraq.html

Thoughts?

The Panel essentially rejected any idea of surging troops months ago.. so why would this be surprising ? Even though their recommendations of scaling down troops is rejected by all military experts as unworkable[atleast in the near term].

These people are just playing politics..

Im more interested to know how the Panel thinks redeployment will prevent a wider regional escalation once American forces are extracted seeing how Arab countries are already starting to draw lines in the sand [Saudi Arabia already pledging military and financial support to Sunni's if civil war erupts, and Iran already bankrolling Shi'ite militants]

We can't just sit there and hold Iraq's hand forever. When are we going to push them to get their shit together? People try to guesstimate what might happen if we were to eventually leave before Iraq is some peaceful, stable democracy where everyone is living happy. Yeah, does anyone see this occuring anytime in the forseeable future? Our presense is making matters even worse for the region and stopping Bush from escalating the war further is all for the good. The problems facing that country now aren't going to be solved by more soldiers, but through negotiations between the Sunnis and Shi'ites to end the violence. Anyone thinking we can simply kill enough insurgents and the problem will be solved is simply deluding themselves. The Iraqis are going to have to solve their own problems, we can't force a resolution on them. So halting troop increases that will only keep us there longer is a wise move.

Are you volunteering?
Probably Greater Somalia is too young to enlist??? If not, he shouldn't be wasting any time on NSG whilst Iraq is in dire straits.

Probably Greater Somalia is too young to enlist??? If not, he shouldn't be wasting any time on NSG whilst Iraq is in dire straits.
He could be gay.:D

As to Iraq, I honestly dont care anymore. I beleive that the idea of removing Sadam from power was the right thing to do, but we totally fucked up the operation. Soon enough, the war will be over. Whether its when Congress cuts funding, or when Bush's term is over and a new President gets elected (who I beleive will have to use "pull out of Iraq" to get elected), its gonna happen. So meh.

'Soon enough' is relative. If you were living in Iraq, your opinion of when was soon 'enough' might be very different.
Agreed, but its gonna happen when I said above, and not a moment sooner. Theres nothing you, nor I, nor Humphry Bogart can do about that.

He could be gay.:D

As to Iraq, I honestly dont care anymore. I beleive that the idea of removing Sadam from power was the right thing to do, but we totally fucked up the operation. Soon enough, the war will be over. Whether its when Congress cuts funding, or when Bush's term is over and a new President gets elected (who I beleive will have to use "pull out of Iraq" to get elected), its gonna happen. So meh.

'Soon enough' is relative. If you were living in Iraq, your opinion of when was soon 'enough' might be very different.

Why are we so worried about what's going to happen once we leave Iraq? It's their own fault for keeping Sadam Hussein in power for so long, for propping him up so that the United States was forced to go in and remove him in the interests of world peace. They continue to smash up their own country, to kill each other and our troops (who are only there to help them, after all), why are we continuing to enable these obviously disfunctional people? If the Iraqi government cannot meet the completely reasonable benchmarks that the US government is now preparing, I say they will have lost our support, and we should withdraw our troops and personnel. Whatever happens then is their own fault.

:p

'Soon enough' is relative. If you were living in Iraq, your opinion of when was soon 'enough' might be very different.

I suppose Iraqis would hope for a government that would actually be worth something and would actually do what it can to protect them. Unlike the so-called government they have currently... I'd think the American presense is more of a sideshow now, given the sectarian violence they have to suffer with.