NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=AkcqQyHo0HdxTaiJ8l4AJ6as0NUE

WASHINGTON - Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

This is an interesting turn of events! What are your guys ideas about this?

Bad in that Bush can press his power, good in that we can kick Iran's ass. Provided the military commanders for the US and other nations involved are actually smart enough to deal with them.

To my mind, it doesn't really matter, as Bush doesn't have the authority to do much unilaterally, and many generals have already said off the record that they'd resign before they carry out an attack on Iran.

To my mind, it doesn't really matter, as Bush doesn't have the authority to do much unilaterally, and many generals have already said off the record that they'd resign before they carry out an attack on Iran.

Sadly enough I think a C&C Generals player would do a better job in Iraq. All the troops are doing is sitting there shooting at any resistance, they're not doing anything to stop the threat permanently.

Sadly enough I think a C&C Generals player would do a better job in Iraq. All the troops are doing is sitting there shooting at any resistance, they're not doing anything to stop the threat permanently.
First of all--what threat? If you're talking about a threat to the US, there isn't one, not from Iraq anyway. If you're talking about a threat to the Iraq government, such as it is, there's precious little the US troops can do to stop a threat there in the long term, no matter what they do. That's a power struggle that has to work itself out. It would be nice if it was done diplomatically, but my guess is that it'll be bloody before it gets to diplomacy.

First of all--what threat? If you're talking about a threat to the US, there isn't one, not from Iraq anyway. If you're talking about a threat to the Iraq government, such as it is, there's precious little the US troops can do to stop a threat there in the long term, no matter what they do. That's a power struggle that has to work itself out. It would be nice if it was done diplomatically, but my guess is that it'll be bloody before it gets to diplomacy.

Well in terms of war they're just sitting there shooting at all enemies who come near which is costing many lives needlessly, they should attack the source of enemy units permanently, its logical to do that in war.

Sadly enough I think a C&C Generals player would do a better job in Iraq. All the troops are doing is sitting there shooting at any resistance, they're not doing anything to stop the threat permanently.

You obviously have never played me in Ra2 then:p

Well in terms of war they're just sitting there shooting at all enemies who come near which is costing many lives needlessly, they should attack the source of enemy units permanently, its logical to do that in war.

In this case, you'd be talking about a genocide then, because a large number of the people fighting the US troops are people who want US troops out, and the more we kill, the more will join them. Attacking the source means destroying the population to an even greater degree than we have. Is that what you're advocating?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=AkcqQyHo0HdxTaiJ8l4AJ6as0NUE



This is an interesting turn of events! What are your guys ideas about this?

Deplorable, and not at all surprising. Politicians have always been pond scum, are pond scum now, and always will be pond scum.

Deplorable, and not at all surprising. Politicians have always been pond scum, are pond scum now, and always will be pond scum.
Indeed.

That’s what happens when you give up your political rights to an unaccountable representative who only has to answer to those who s/he is representing once every four or five years.

To my mind, it doesn't really matter, as Bush doesn't have the authority to do much unilaterally, and many generals have already said off the record that they'd resign before they carry out an attack on Iran.

Aye, it's pretty clear that an attack on Iran will not be happening.

Aye, it's pretty clear that an attack on Iran will not be happening.

I have learned with this crew to never say never. It wouldn't surprise me to see Dubya pull what his Daddy did and start a conflict on his way out the door and leave it for his successor to clean up.

I guess they figured better red then dead.

Yuk yuk yuk.


You know...red states...

Aye, it's pretty clear that an attack on Iran will not be happening.

Don't hold your breath.