NationStates Jolt Archive

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
- Sun Tzu

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
- Sun Tzu's The Art of War

The conclusion is that it is time to stop the retreat. Not a single step back! This should be our slogan from now.
- Stalin

Although Stalin helped win WWII, Russia also lost staggeringly more troops than any other nation. No thanks.

Also have to remember that Russia used very bad tactics. That accounts for alot of their losses.

Nope, I've definatly typed dummer ones.

every chance you get it seems. Tell me, is General Eaton an example of the liberal biased media? To quote your idiotic statement, "I'm not arguing bias I'm just saying they lie to....(support their bias perhaps?)" You need to take a little logic 101 before you post here.

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

They did. It went something like this.

Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "The people want this."
Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "We need to talk about this."
Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "What the hell ever. We're passing a bill now."

Bush has made it EXCEEDINGLY clear over the years that he never learned the word "compromise."

Quoted for insanely massive truth.

True. They also had poor equipment. Oh and the commissars shooting those that took a step back probably didn't help. I still think it was a stupid slogan.

Apparently they did talk... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc)

every chance you get it seems. Tell me, is General Eaton an example of the liberal biased media? To quote your idiotic statement, "I'm not arguing bias I'm just saying they lie to....(support their bias perhaps?)" You need to take a little logic 101 before you post here.

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

Again, qualifying that if Bush does NOT actually HATE the troops, he at least affords them no respect whatsoever for neither their dignity nor their integrity, to say nothing of experience and expertise.
Being such an emotionally brazen man, though, Bush probably hates the troops. Not much of a surprise, having gone AWOL and all to work for that Alabama congressman.

As promised, president bush has vetoed the spending bill passed by the democratic held congress. Now it is back to Congress to pass a new bill.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html)


I like what one person said this morning on a talk show: "the military leaders will tell us when to pull out, not the politicians."

I think that anyone who is for withdrawing the troops should be shot for treason.

Not much of a surprise, having gone AWOL and all to work for that Alabama congressman.

And the statement that he went AWOL has been falsified. Now can we get real facts here please?

Again, qualifying that if Bush does NOT actually HATE the troops, he at least affords them no respect whatsoever for neither their dignity nor their integrity, to say nothing of experience and expertise.
Being such an emotionally brazen man, though, Bush probably hates the troops. Not much of a surprise, having gone AWOL and all to work for that Alabama congressman.

Everybody is uptight about this war becuase they think it is another 'Vietnam.' However, we lost a fraction of the troops (I think that it was around 3,000; compared to 55,000), we lost our hatred for comunistic societies (and dictatorships, thus wanting freedom in the world) and instead turned towards being hippies all over again. Ever wonder that everyone now in days makes fun of hippies, and yet we are slowly coming into mind when it comes to politics?

Quoted for insanely massive truth.

Is that what QFT means? I always thought it was Quite Fucking True...hmm...weird...guess I was wrong...

Anyway, riddle me unsurprised about the veto, hopefully the Dems don't back down.

They did. It went something like this.

Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "The people want this."
Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "We need to talk about this."
Bush: "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!"
Congress: "What the hell ever. We're passing a bill now."

Bush has made it EXCEEDINGLY clear over the years that he never learned the word "compromise."

Well, how many times do you expect congress to put up THE SAME GOD DAMN BILL before you would get tired of it?

I like what one person said this morning on a talk show: "the military leaders will tell us when to pull out, not the politicians."

I think that anyone who is for withdrawing the troops should be shot for treason.

Anyone else find this vaguely reminiscent of Corny's knee-jerk "Maintain the status quo" arguments?

The Democrats voted Bush in, two times... I am just guessing. It is further like my friends dad says: "the Democrats vote him in, then they complain."

The Democrats voted Bush in, two times... I am just guessing. It is further like my friends dad says: "the Democrats vote him in, then they complain."

Wait what? Vote him in?

Anyone else find this vaguely reminiscent of Corny's knee-jerk "Maintain the status quo" arguments?

Why else do we higher the military leaders anyways? Why don't we become more like Japan and just have nukes instead of a military? I mean, we got nukes that could quite possibly blow up the entire world itself with one shot, why not just use them and get it over with? Oh, that is right, there is something called the UN, which, by coincidence, is funded 70% by the United States in everything, if I am not mistaking.

The Democrats voted Bush in, two times... I am just guessing. It is further like my friends dad says: "the Democrats vote him in, then they complain."

um.....wtf?

Why else do we higher the military leaders anyways? Why don't we become more like Japan and just have nukes instead of a military? I mean, we got nukes that could quite possibly blow up the entire world itself with one shot, why not just use them and get it over with? Oh, that is right, there is something called the UN, which, by coincidence, is funded 70% by the United States in everything, if I am not mistaking.

um....wtf?

The Democrats voted Bush in, two times... I am just guessing. It is further like my friends dad says: "the Democrats vote him in, then they complain."

Riiight. And the Republicans voted for a rubbish bin?

Why else do we higher the military leaders anyways? Why don't we become more like Japan and just have nukes instead of a military? I mean, we got nukes that could quite possibly blow up the entire world itself with one shot, why not just use them and get it over with? Oh, that is right, there is something called the UN, which, by coincidence, is funded 70% by the United States in everything, if I am not mistaking.

What? This makes no sense, whatsoever. Explain the link between having bush yes-men in charge of the military, not using nukes, Japan, and the UN.

And, pray tell, are you ever going to respond to the posts in the Creationist thread?

It's a political reason because Bush made it one. He made it one when he decided last year that it was more important to lie about the size of the deficit by keeping the war off the books than it was to be up front about the costs. Now he's being stung by the fact that he and his party were so incompetent that they couldn't hold onto a single house of Congress and he's paying the political price for that.

It is not his fault that people are so blissfully ignorant. Jee, I wonder if any of them think of the cost just to raise and trian an army? I am guessing somewhere in the trillions of dollars. Why not be "upfront" about that?

Care to prove that they actually talked? I mean, seems the only thing that they disagreed over was this timetable.

Indeed. And Bush has been very clear that he won't even begin to consider a compromise on it. So what's the point of talking to him, especially when Bush's idea of "compromise" has always been, "Get them to agree to do it the way I already want to."

What? This makes no sense, whatsoever. Explain the link between having bush yes-men in charge of the military, not using nukes, Japan, and the UN.

And, pray tell, are you ever going to respond to the posts in the Creationist thread?


Why bother with the creationist thread... I wonder why you even bothered with posting about it. I gave up in there, why bother argueing something that no one on either side is open-minded about? I mean, by all means, give my nation a message with actual "evidence" for Evolution and I will respond (no, I don't need Evidence for creationism, it is not government funded). My nation is the same as my name ont he forums.

Well, at one point someone mentioned something about the prices the war costs and how George does not be upfront about it. If you use nukes, it costs extremely less than an army does. The UN comes in by saying "no nukes" (yea, I do understand why, though.) Think you got it now?

I know, I did not mention this before.

Indeed. And Bush has been very clear that he won't even begin to consider a compromise on it. So what's the point of talking to him, especially when Bush's idea of "compromise" has always been, "Get them to agree to do it the way I already want to."

Oi... I bet if the tree-hugger Kerrywent to war with Iraq, every democrat would love it.

If you use nukes, it costs extremely less than an army does.

Are you fucking insane?

What are you...12?

Indeed. And Bush has been very clear that he won't even begin to consider a compromise on it. So what's the point of talking to him, especially when Bush's idea of "compromise" has always been, "Get them to agree to do it the way I already want to."

We shall see what transpires. I am sure there is going to be some give and take here. May not be on a timetable but on some other important piece of legislation.

Oi... I bet if the tree-hugger Kerrywent to war with Iraq, every democrat would love it.

I doubt it highly.

Why bother with the creationist thread... I wonder why you even bothered with posting about it. I gave up in there, why bother argueing something that no one on either side is open-minded about? I mean, by all means, give my nation a message with actual "evidence" for Evolution and I will respond (no, I don't need Evidence for creationism, it is not government funded). My nation is the same as my name ont he forums.

All I needed to know.

Well, at one point someone mentioned something about the prices the war costs and how George does not be upfront about it. If you use nukes, it costs extremely less than an army does. The UN comes in by saying "no nukes" (yea, I do understand why, though.) Think you got it now?

That's irrelevant. The cost of nuclear weaponry has no relation an upfront listing of expenditures for the military by the President in his budget.
You have not yet supplied a valid reason for why military funding should not be out in the open and up for ready review in the President's budgeting, as opposed to resorting to repeated emergency spending bills.

Are you fucking insane?

What are you...12?

you do not get it do you... A nuclear weapon costs approx. 100-200m dollars, at the most expensive. An army can cost up to a few trillion dollars for the size that we have, obviously a war at $20 billion a month is a lot. So, it would take the building of 100-200 nuclear (possibly fussion) bombs a month just to keep up wiht the prices of a war.

you do not get it do you... A nuclear weapon costs approx. 100-200m dollars, at the most expensive. An army can cost up to a few trillion dollars for the size that we have, obviously a war at $20 billion a month is a lot. So, it would take the building of 100-200 nuclear (possibly fussion) bombs a month just to keep up wiht the prices of a war.

And that has...what to do with upfront listing of expenditures?

you do not get it do you... A nuclear weapon costs approx. 100-200m dollars, at the most expensive. An army can cost up to a few trillion dollars for the size that we have, obviously a war at $20 billion a month is a lot. So, it would take the building of 100-200 nuclear (possibly fussion) bombs a month just to keep up wiht the prices of a war.

Um...no, you're the one who is not getting it. The cost to MANUFACTURE a nuclear weapon is irrelevant.

What matters is what USING one would cost us in the end. And I gaurentee you, that would cost us FAAAAAAAR more than what the war has so far. Anyone who has even the slightest grasp of geopolitical realities would understand that.

So I repeat, what are you, 12?

Um...no, you're the one who is not getting it. The cost to MANUFACTURE a nuclear weapon is irrelevant.

What matters is what USING one would cost us in the end. And I gaurentee you, that would cost us FAAAAAAAR more than what the war has so far. Anyone who has even the slightest grasp of geopolitical realities would understand that.

So I repeat, what are you, 12?

QFT!

That's irrelevant. The cost of nuclear weaponry has no relation an upfront listing of expenditures for the military by the President in his budget.
You have not yet supplied a valid reason for why military funding should not be out in the open and up for ready review in the President's budgeting, as opposed to resorting to repeated emergency spending bills.

look, everyone was FOR the war at first. If they did not knowthe prices, it is there own damn fault. Now, since we have been over there for so long (a whole, what, 3 years max?) they start to think that it is another Vietnam, when in fact, we have lost less than 52,000 men.

I do not know why everyone is afraid of a little war. During the war, our economy benefits. By invading we got more oil (if we could exploit it). You need to build the army before the war, and how do we do that? By hiring different companies to manufacture the equipment we need.

War=good for economy.

Um...no, you're the one who is not getting it. The cost to MANUFACTURE a nuclear weapon is irrelevant.

What matters is what USING one would cost us in the end. And I gaurentee you, that would cost us FAAAAAAAR more than what the war has so far. Anyone who has even the slightest grasp of geopolitical realities would understand that.

So I repeat, what are you, 12?

Oh, so you want to talk about after using it? I was merely talking about costs. I mean, if we just used nukes, funding problem solved. if Democrats fear global warming so much, then why not cool it down with a little nuclear winter?

Oh, so you want to talk about after using it? I was merely talking about costs. I mean, if we just used nukes, funding problem solved. if Democrats fear global warming so much, then why not cool it down with a little nuclear winter?

Again, are you fucking insane? Do you have any idea what it would cost us as a result? That's the whole point. In pure economics using a nuclear weapon would cripple our economy.

Er, I do nto follow. Listen, if the scientist are correct, then fussin runs the sun. Follow me so far? Our highest powered nuclear weapons today are fussion, well they would be if they found a way to control the size of the explossion radious. We have something called thermal nukes.

If we were to cause a nuclear winter, then there would be no economy. you would say bye-bye to life... All I was saying that it is a low cost alternative for democrats to consider, if they feal that this war costs too much.

Er, I do nto follow. Listen, if the scientist are correct, then fussin runs the sun. Follow me so far?

Um....duh?

Our highest powered nuclear weapons today are fussion, well they would be if they found a way to control the size of the explossion radious. We have something called thermal nukes.

WTF is the point of amateur physics hour?

If we were to cause a nuclear winter, then there would be no economy. you would say bye-bye to life...

Uh...yeah, no shit.

All I was saying that it is a low cost alternative for democrats to consider, if they feal that this war costs too much.

so basically you're trolling.

Got it.

you do not get it do you... A nuclear weapon costs approx. 100-200m dollars, at the most expensive. An army can cost up to a few trillion dollars for the size that we have, obviously a war at $20 billion a month is a lot. So, it would take the building of 100-200 nuclear (possibly fussion) bombs a month just to keep up wiht the prices of a war.

Of course you are not factoring in the fact that the US would become a world Pariah, quarentined from every other country in the world, losing trillions of dollars a year in international trade, crippling our economy beyond repair. Or the fact that we would be the #1 target from then on for any nuclear strike against us. There is a very good reason why nuclear weapons are not used.

Oi... I bet if the tree-hugger Kerrywent to war with Iraq, every democrat would love it.

People, regardless of their political leanings, generally don't love war at all. But next time I talk to a Democrat, I'll ask. Most of the opposition I've heard has come from independents and Republicans.

Er, I do nto follow. Listen, if the scientist are correct, then fussin runs the sun. Follow me so far? Our highest powered nuclear weapons today are fussion, well they would be if they found a way to control the size of the explossion radious. We have something called thermal nukes.

If we were to cause a nuclear winter, then there would be no economy. you would say bye-bye to life... All I was saying that it is a low cost alternative for democrats to consider, if they feal that this war costs too much.

When you factor in the ramifications of using nukes, you realize that it is the most costly means to wage war. Period. There is no more costly measure than using nukes. So yeah... not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you are trying to troll about because you hate dems.

Of course.

People, regardless of their political leanings, generally don't love war at all. But next time I talk to a Democrat, I'll ask. Most of the opposition I've heard has come from independents and Republicans.

Personally, the only oposition that I have heard was for the troops. Now, there ARE still troops that want to stay and do their duty. Why would you join the army full well knowing that you may die and may be over in a strange place for a long time. Is it to save on auto-mobiles for veterans?

We should all be lucky that we have a choice of whether we join the military or not.

Tell me, why should we pull out?

I see you are not understanding what the words negotiations and compromise means.

Oh, sure I do, you condescending little shit. It's you who doesn't seem to understand. The Democrats were willing to discuss the situation from the beginning, but Bush's response has been, from day one, that it's the bill he wants or none at all. That's not negotiation--that's petulance, and you know what you do to a petulant child? You slap some sense into it.

When you factor in the ramifications of using nukes, you realize that it is the most costly means to wage war. Period. There is no more costly measure than using nukes. So yeah... not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you are trying to troll about because you hate dems.

Of course.

Wow... I do not know what to say... personally I was more along the lines for 1 joking and for 2 telling the truth. The upfront cost of sending nukes would be cheap. The after effects (which I full well understand that this is where the miscommunication was drawn) would be tremendous. I never said it would not.

Personally, the only oposition that I have heard was for the troops. Now, there ARE still troops that want to stay and do their duty. Why would you join the army full well knowing that you may die and may be over in a strange place for a long time. Is it to save on auto-mobiles for veterans?

We should all be lucky that we have a choice of whether we join the military or not.

Tell me, why should we pull out?

Do you have any sources or statistics to back up these claims?

i was wondering if there could be any consensus about the fact that both republicans and democrats are fucking 'tards. Republicans are have no concept of reality or accountability. think of all the pork in the preceding 6 years. think of the march to war. Dems are assholes just to get votes. keep using the slogan "end the war", it'll get us votes the republicans don't want or can't get. The war is here, we are fucked. Attention democrats, Pork has no right on a bill for the war, nor do timelines, just give the goddamn money to those who are dying, literally, for lack of supplies. but the president/republicans shouldn't boot generals who disagree and promote those in line with their ideology. For both, don't use the war for electionable means. What happened to a multi party system? since when did our political system devolve into a movie starring jim carrey and jeff daniels? for those of you that describe yourselves as independent or moderate, those of you that say 'well i have to chose the lesser of two evils', just fucking stop. There are other parties. And no, not every third party is some legalize pot party. For the love of god, vishnu, and allah, if you want the arguments to stop, just vote them out, vote them all out. then, if the third party sucks, we can ALL blame them.

i was wondering if there could be any consensus about the fact that both republicans and democrats are fucking 'tards. Republicans are have no concept of reality or accountability. think of all the pork in the preceding 6 years. think of the march to war. Dems are assholes just to get votes. keep using the slogan "end the war", it'll get us votes the republicans don't want or can't get. The war is here, we are fucked. Attention democrats, Pork has no right on a bill for the war, nor do timelines, just give the goddamn money to those who are dying, literally, for lack of supplies. but the president/republicans shouldn't boot generals who disagree and promote those in line with their ideology. For both, don't use the war for electionable means. What happened to a multi party system? since when did our political system devolve into a movie starring jim carrey and jeff daniels? for those of you that describe yourselves as independent or moderate, those of you that say 'well i have to chose the lesser of two evils', just fucking stop. There are other parties. And no, not every third party is some legalize pot party. For the love of god, vishnu, and allah, if you want the arguments to stop, just vote them out, vote them all out. then, if the third party sucks, we can ALL blame them.
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

You forgot the gun smileys in your otherwise unremarkable opening post. I just took care of that for you.

And as to the "substance" of your post (which inmy experience is often paired with flatulence), if you want to blame anyone for the troops not having money or supplies, there's only one party to blame here. This "pox on both your houses" shit is beyond stupid--the Republican party was in charge until last January. Any shortfalls the troops are currently experiencing fall on Republican shoulders, and no one else's.

look, everyone was FOR the war at first.

So those millions of people who marched against the war actually supported it?

So those millions of people who marched against the war actually supported it?
Didn't you get the memo? ;)

Bush said:

"t makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure,"

-not a big fan of the man but makes a good point.

Bush said:

"t makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure,"

-not a big fan of the man but makes a good point.
He makes a good soundclip. There are other factors to consider - like if "victory," as Bush obviously sees it, is even remotely possible, ever.

Bush said:

"t makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure,"

-not a big fan of the man but makes a good point.

It's quite clear that the US does not have the capability to conduct offensive operations overseas in any meaningful fashion. (Or conduct foreign policy for that matter).

I would think that probably the most prudent thing to do at this point is reduce the size of the military by about 2/3, and stop having opinions about other countries completely.

Bush said:

"t makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure,"

-not a big fan of the man but makes a good point.Actually, it's a pretty stupid point. We're going to withdraw at some point, and there will be a timetable, even if we "win" (and I used the scare quotes deliberately). It's not like the Iraqis are going to wake up one morning and say "where the fuck did the Americans go?" after all.

Bush said:

"t makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure,"

-not a big fan of the man but makes a good point.

As opposed to keeping the occupation of Iraq aka the World of Jihadcraft Main Server open and continuing the recruitment drive of insurgent and terrorist groups, as well as provide a locale where said recruits can practice and refine their skills in preparation for operations elsewhere in the world?

Bush said:

"t makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars. ... Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure,"

-not a big fan of the man but makes a good point.
Then we don't say... Heh,

Then when we do pull out we do it basicly over a few nights so they wake up one morning... Boom empty.

He makes a good soundclip. There are other factors to consider - like if "victory," as Bush obviously sees it, is even remotely possible, ever.

Yeah, what the fuck is victoryanyway? When the terrorists go away? When Iraq becomes a puppet democracy? When Shia muslims hold hands with Sunni and sing cum-by-a? I don't know why we went to Iraq and I don't know what it is that we are trying to accomplish there. Seriously, nobody has told given me a straight answer. How can we win if we don't even have a goal?

It's quite clear that the US does not have the capability to conduct offensive operations overseas in any meaningful fashion. (Or conduct foreign policy for that matter).

I would think that probably the most prudent thing to do at this point is reduce the size of the military by about 2/3, and stop having opinions about other countries completely.

wow you are so wrong. I don't know where to begin with America's international successes. Rebuilding Germany after WWII. Keeping Kim Jong Il out of the Korean DMZ. Say what you will. America.....Fuck yeah

Yeah, what the fuck is victoryanyway? When the terrorists go away? When Iraq becomes a puppet democracy? When Shia muslims hold hands with Shiites and sing cum-by-a? I don't know why we went to Iraq and I don't know what it is that we are trying to accomplish there. Seriously, nobody has told given me a straight answer. How can we win if we don't even have a goal?

Victory was supposed to be a stable secular democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately it turns out that the people there aren't capable of democracy. Probably the Saudi government is right to behave the way it does (in some respects).

wow you are so wrong. I don't know where to begin with America's international successes. Rebuilding Germany after WWII. Keeping Kim Jong Il out of the Korean DMZ. Say what you will. America.....Fuck yeah

That was some time ago. Countries change. I really think when you look at this last effort and the Vietnam disgrace it's time to hang the hat up.

Victory was supposed to be a stable secular democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately it turns out that the people there aren't capable of democracy. Probably the Saudi government is right to behave the way it does (in some respects).

I know, I just read "Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini. The people in the middle east have no sense of equality, diversity or tolerance for anything not muslim. The truly are a backwards culture in my opinion.

That was some time ago. Countries change. I really think when you look at this last effort and the Vietnam disgrace it's time to hang the hat up.

Like you said countries change. France screwed up just as bad as we did in Vietnam, are they also internationally challenged. The truth is all countries screw up and all countries do great things. However, America has done the most great things.

Not to mention the genocide in Algeria, man that was awful.

Bush isn't funding the troops! He's unamerican.

Victory was supposed to be a stable secular democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately it turns out that the people there aren't capable of democracy. Probably the Saudi government is right to behave the way it does (in some respects).

Secular democracy? America can't even pull off a secular democracy.

Like you said countries change. France screwed up just as bad as we did in Vietnam, are they also internationally challenged. The truth is all countries screw up and all countries do great things. However, America has done the most great things.

Not to mention the genocide in Algeria, man that was awful.

The difference is that the US didn't have to get involved in Vietnam really in the first place. It's own blunders forced it into escalating the war. Then turning tail and abandoning people was unforgivable. The only mitigating factor at that time was that everyone else was still scared of the soviets. That's not the case anymore. I imagine that the US is going to pay dearly for this over the next decade.

The US doesn't really have a foreign policy. It just has domestic policy squabbles through other means.

Well, lesson learned. It turns out the french were right. The US really is untrustworthy these days. (Or does this proposed timetable have provisions to resettle Iraqi's who are have known sympathies to the US elsewhere. Or are they just going to be thrown to the wolves for foolishly supporting it?)

Yeah, what the fuck is victoryanyway? When the terrorists go away? When Iraq becomes a puppet democracy? When Shia muslims hold hands with Sunni and sing cum-by-a? I don't know why we went to Iraq and I don't know what it is that we are trying to accomplish there. Seriously, nobody has told given me a straight answer. How can we win if we don't even have a goal?


There can really be no victory at this point. All we can hope for now is keeping Iraq from falling into a complete civil war. And, I hate to point this out, but since the United States did attack Iraq and eliminate its government, the United States is responsible for correcting the situation.

There can really be no victory at this point. All we can hope for now is keeping Iraq from falling into a complete civil war. And, I hate to point this out, but since the United States did attack Iraq and eliminate its government, the United States is responsible for correcting the situation.

If Iraq falls into a chaotic mess of feuding warlords tearing accross the desert burning villages, would that be America's fault? I mean, it was bound to happen anyways right.

If Iraq falls into a chaotic mess of feuding warlords tearing accross the desert burning villages, would that be America's fault? I mean, it was bound to happen anyways right.

Not necessarily bound to happen, not even likely, but the problem is that the US isn't going to be able to fix the situation--we're part of the problem.

The most obvious course for victory in iraq would be to place a strong dictator in charge of a centralized autocracy. he could maintain the fractured bits of ethnicity and religion together under oppressive fear. he could be a secular tyrant that would be used as a bulwark against extremists from Iran and Alqaeda. There wouldn't be a single terrorist left in the country because he'd kill anyone that contests his rule. We could even have bilateral agreements with him to provide chemical and biological weapons should any of our extremist enemies attack him. surely he couldn't kill as many people as terrorists from this war have killed. but why does this person sound familiar? Horribly, horribly familiar?

If Iraq falls into a chaotic mess of feuding warlords tearing accross the desert burning villages, would that be America's fault? I mean, it was bound to happen anyways right.

Not while Saddam was The Warlord in Iraq and he kept the others in line through fear.

The most obvious course for victory in iraq would be to place a strong dictator in charge of a centralized autocracy. he could maintain the fractured bits of ethnicity and religion together under oppressive fear. he could be a secular tyrant that would be used as a bulwark against extremists from Iran and Alqaeda. There wouldn't be a single terrorist left in the country because he'd kill anyone that contests his rule. We could even have bilateral agreements with him to provide chemical and biological weapons should any of our extremist enemies attack him. surely he couldn't kill as many people as terrorists from this war have killed. but why does this person sound familiar? Horribly, horribly familiar?

Lol, it's like conservative logic, circular.

Not necessarily bound to happen, not even likely, but the problem is that the US isn't going to be able to fix the situation--we're part of the problem.

agreed. But I am still left with the question, "What were we suppose to do about 9/11?" Invading Irag was going too far, especially when they had nothing to do with 9/11. But don't we need to take action and make sure that 9/11 never happens again? Do you think Bush was in the right when he invaded Afganistan, bombed terrorist camps and held a man-hunt for osama? That makes alot more sense to me that hanging Saddam.

I fear that 9/11 will not be remembered as the sad murder of thousands of civilians, but will be remember by the disproportion response is incurred and the thousands more people that were killed.

Again, are you fucking insane? Do you have any idea what it would cost us as a result? That's the whole point. In pure economics using a nuclear weapon would cripple our economy.

The world economy actually. Especially if the US economy tanks, other markets will go with it.

Oh, sure I do, you condescending little shit.

I was not being condescending. I will not respond to the rest of the statement because of this part here. That is not being very nice. If you want me to respond to your posts, leave your anger out of it.

Posting in anger just fuels contempt and creates more tension than there needs to be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517.html?hpid=topnews

Democrats offer to drop demand for withdrawal timeline as long as final bill still influences policy

That's good.

Great. Just fucking great. Negotiation has happened. Send him his bill back until he signs the damn thing, or just stop sending it at all. The President does not deserve to get a mulligan. The American people have spoken, and if the President won't listen, he can just go to his room without dinner. I am so sick of this asshole and his unitary executive bullshit. 2009 can't come soon enough.

I am not surprised by this at all. First he takes full advantage of 911 to implement the same kind of freedom destroying legislation that Germany did in the 30s; then he creates this department of homeland security which smacks of the Gestapo, Then he get's himself the best election that money can buy. He has shown time and again that he simply doesn't care what the American people want, namely their loved ones home. Personally I think he is suffering from Megalomania on a grand scale. We never should have fully occupied Iraq. His decisions have led to one blunder after another and cost dozens of lives if not hundreds. Iraq is not our country, we have no business being there now that we have eliminated Hussein. Let the Iraquis fight it out amongst themselves. Since they are so all fired up wanting to shoot each other over religious differences, I say let em. The whole war over there is turning into another Vietnam. Our troops are not defending anything having to do with us except oil, and that is not worth them losing their lives over. I say Impeach Bush and Cheney; neither of them should ever have gotten into office to begin with...

agreed. But I am still left with the question, "What were we suppose to do about 9/11?"
Not go Crusading? Maybe instead realize we were stupid fucks and to properly fix our security in a reasonable manner?
Imagine how we could make airport security easier and safer with all the money we are tossing at Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially Iraq.

Democrats back down? Put in some new people that will fucking carry through. I would bet my ass that the Democrats lose all the seats they gained because they are being pansies. I know I'm not voting for anyone who agrees to this "we'll play Bush's game" horseshit.
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Coulter, and random local conservapricks are going to be going apeshit. They are going to harass them for trying to insert a "timeline for failure" and are now going to insult them for not sticking to their guns and start pulling the "flip-flopper" bullshit again.

I have this to say to the Democrat committee in charge - Never give up, never surrender... and if you do, go the fuck home and find some one who will stand up for what they should be standing up for.

Great. Just fucking great. Negotiation has happened. Send him his bill back until he signs the damn thing, or just stop sending it at all. The President does not deserve to get a mulligan. The American people have spoken, and if the President won't listen, he can just go to his room without dinner. I am so sick of this asshole and his unitary executive bullshit. 2009 can't come soon enough.

I couldn't agree more. and Congress isn't all that much better. It's this sort of thing that makes me feel that Democracy is doomed to failure. I think the dictionary definition of Politics needs to be revised to something like...

Politics: 1. The art of looking very important and busy while actually doing nothing and being just another cog in the wheel. 2. The ability to lie as if you were a pathelogical liar while not actually being one. 3. The ability to be all of the following at the same time; Liar, Butthead, Buttwipe, Perjerer(sp) Thief.

Great. Just fucking great. Negotiation has happened. Send him his bill back until he signs the damn thing, or just stop sending it at all. The President does not deserve to get a mulligan. The American people have spoken, and if the President won't listen, he can just go to his room without dinner. I am so sick of this asshole and his unitary executive bullshit. 2009 can't come soon enough.
So, what's going to happen? Jack shit. The Democrats will get their 'benchmarks', Bush will be able to fudge them and keep his little adventure going whether they are met or not (since they don't seem connected to military funding). It's outrageous. People quite clearly do not want this war to continue, regardless of whether they share oil revenue or not. I can't believe how naive I was when I thought in November that this war might start to finish soon.

Not go Crusading? Maybe instead realize we were stupid fucks and to properly fix our security in a reasonable manner?
Imagine how we could make airport security easier and safer with all the money we are tossing at Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially Iraq.

Democrats back down? Put in some new people that will fucking carry through. I would bet my ass that the Democrats lose all the seats they gained because they are being pansies. I know I'm not voting for anyone who agrees to this "we'll play Bush's game" horseshit.
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Coulter, and random local conservapricks are going to be going apeshit. They are going to harass them for trying to insert a "timeline for failure" and are now going to insult them for not sticking to their guns and start pulling the "flip-flopper" bullshit again.

I have this to say to the Democrat committee in charge - Never give up, never surrender... and if you do, go the fuck home and find some one who will stand up for what they should be standing up for.

Great Points. I personally think we should do away with the 2 party system altogether. They spend so much time trying to screw each other over, they seldom get anything useful done at all. Just have no parties. That would also remove the necessity for primary elections and save a lot of money there. Another thing, they should make session attendance mandatory for both Congressmen and Senators. All too often they just blow it off unless one of their pet bills is being heard. Have penalties for not showing up just like any other job.


Sometimes I think we would have been better off had we remained a British colony...

Great. Just fucking great. Negotiation has happened. Send him his bill back until he signs the damn thing, or just stop sending it at all. The President does not deserve to get a mulligan. The American people have spoken, and if the President won't listen, he can just go to his room without dinner. I am so sick of this asshole and his unitary executive bullshit. 2009 can't come soon enough.

Did you feel that way when clinton shut down the government?

And the statement that he went AWOL has been falsified. Now can we get real facts here please?

Correct, Bush did not go AWOL and people should stop proclaiming this as truth. He did however receive preferential treatment, miss multiple drug tests, train on a plane that was obsolete, and have his flight status removed. While these things are not AWOl they most certainly are not honorable. People should also stop saying "Clinton could have killed Osama but Sandy Berger said no" because the 9/11 commission found that to be completely false, which I provided documentation on USMC2s Taleban thread. I'm still looking for the official citation from the 9/11 report though. I don't want to have to read the entire thing over again just to satisfy people who could read it themselves. I agree with you, we need to focus on the facts of the matter at hand and not on information that has already been debunked by multiple sources on multiple occasions. Good Call Lancaster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201517.html?hpid=topnews



That's good.

That would explain why the protesters I passed yesterday were so upset. The last thing I heard before I moved on (it was small demonstration and I was hungry) was that they weren't going to wait for congress to grow a spine. I don't know what the plan to end the war was without congress, but like I said, I was hungry...

Sometimes I think we would have been better off had we remained a British colony...
Nah, grass always seems greener.

Why else do we higher the military leaders anyways? Why don't we become more like Japan and just have nukes instead of a military? I mean, we got nukes that could quite possibly blow up the entire world itself with one shot, why not just use them and get it over with? Oh, that is right, there is something called the UN, which, by coincidence, is funded 70% by the United States in everything, if I am not mistaking.

Yeah, the UN is the reason we don't use nuclear weapons. There's nothing to worry about considering nuclear fallout/nuclear winter and the massive casualties inflicted upon civilians whose only crime is having polesmokers for leaders. Further, by using nuclear weapons it would necessitate a possible counter strike from nation sympathetic to the one we bomb. In this instance I'd say the most likely culprits would be Pakistan. You really should think out the ramifications of your posts and actions before spouting the "we should 'nuke 'em all" rationale. On 2nd thought... no foresight, little logic, would you like a job with the administration?

Why bother with the creationist thread... I wonder why you even bothered with posting about it. I gave up in there, why bother argueing something that no one on either side is open-minded about? I mean, by all means, give my nation a message with actual "evidence" for Evolution and I will respond (no, I don't need Evidence for creationism, it is not government funded). My nation is the same as my name ont he forums.

Well, at one point someone mentioned something about the prices the war costs and how George does not be upfront about it. If you use nukes, it costs extremely less than an army does. The UN comes in by saying "no nukes" (yea, I do understand why, though.) Think you got it now?

I know, I did not mention this before.

How about Nuclear fallout and a nuclear retaliation? Do you bother to think?

look, everyone was FOR the war at first. If they did not knowthe prices, it is there own damn fault. Now, since we have been over there for so long (a whole, what, 3 years max?) they start to think that it is another Vietnam, when in fact, we have lost less than 52,000 men.

I do not know why everyone is afraid of a little war. During the war, our economy benefits. By invading we got more oil (if we could exploit it). You need to build the army before the war, and how do we do that? By hiring different companies to manufacture the equipment we need.

War=good for economy.

Really? wtf basis in reality do you have for any of this drivel?

Er, I do nto follow. Listen, if the scientist are correct, then fussin runs the sun. Follow me so far? Our highest powered nuclear weapons today are fussion, well they would be if they found a way to control the size of the explossion radious. We have something called thermal nukes.

If we were to cause a nuclear winter, then there would be no economy. you would say bye-bye to life... All I was saying that it is a low cost alternative for democrats to consider, if they feal that this war costs too much.

You think the argument against the war would be null if it was the cost of a happy meal? Cost is not the only factor in this equation. Are you intentionally this myopic?

Really? wtf basis in reality do you have for any of this drivel?
For the record, I have ALWAYS opposed the war in Iraq. I have ALWAYS opposed the laughable "war on terror." I have been vocal about the fact that I thought these were shitty ideas from the start.

A lot of people are just now waking up to what a disaster the war really is. They're probably feeling pretty foolish, and don't like to admit that they made a really catastrophic mistake. So they project their own mistake onto everybody, so they can feel better about it. "Oh, well, everybody else made the same mistake, so it's okay that I was fooled!"

Sorry, jackasses, but I could see this disaster coming a mile away. I could see Bush wrecking the country back before he was first appointed President.

I goddam well TOLD YOU SO, you jackasses. Deal with it.

For the record, I have ALWAYS opposed the war in Iraq. I have ALWAYS opposed the laughable "war on terror." I have been vocal about the fact that I thought these were shitty ideas from the start.

A lot of people are just now waking up to what a disaster the war really is. They're probably feeling pretty foolish, and don't like to admit that they made a really catastrophic mistake. So they project their own mistake onto everybody, so they can feel better about it. "Oh, well, everybody else made the same mistake, so it's okay that I was fooled!"

Sorry, jackasses, but I could see this disaster coming a mile away. I could see Bush wrecking the country back before he was first appointed President.

I goddam well TOLD YOU SO, you jackasses. Deal with it.

Oh, How I love and agree with Bottle

For the record, I have ALWAYS opposed the war in Iraq. I have ALWAYS opposed the laughable "war on terror." I have been vocal about the fact that I thought these were shitty ideas from the start.

Allow me to repeat something I said a little while ago.

You know, I gotta agree here. Frankly speaking I've been saying this was a shitty idea since bush's "I swear they have yellow cake!" speech in March of 03.

NOW people are coming around saying "oh what a horrible idea this turned out to be!"

Yeah, no shit. I've been saying that since the beginning.

Really? wtf basis in reality do you have for any of this drivel?

Maybe you should check what the vote was on the authorization for the Iraq invasion.

IIRC, it wasn't everyone, but it was damn close.

There are quite a few Democrats who have trouble explaining why they voted that way - saying they were somehow deceived only makes them look twice as stupid.

Maybe you should check what the vote was on the authorization for the Iraq invasion.

IIRC, it wasn't everyone, but it was damn close.

There are quite a few Democrats who have trouble explaining why they voted that way - saying they were somehow deceived only makes them look twice as stupid.

A majority of Democrats in the House opposed the legislation. I believe there were only 12 Democratic Senators who voted against it--not as close as you'd think in the House. That said, the public was far more against the war than Congress was. Not surprising, as Congress tends to be behind the curve on this sort of thing.

But most importantly to this particular discussion, Liuzzo was replying to a poster who said "everyone was for the war." You had to have seen that when you made your snarky reply to him. In fact, the vote wasn't remotely close to being "everyone," even if we assume you were talking only about Congress's support or opposition. And if you take it, as I and many other posters did, to mean the population in general, the statement is even more ludicrous.

Maybe you should check what the vote was on the authorization for the Iraq invasion.

IIRC, it wasn't everyone, but it was damn close.

There are quite a few Democrats who have trouble explaining why they voted that way - saying they were somehow deceived only makes them look twice as stupid.

hmmm, or we could check the actual statement he made and what it referred to. Not "everyone" in congress" agreed and sure as hell not everyone in "America" agreed. (linky) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html) Furthermore, did the measure read "invade and occupy Iraq?" Because it didn't read that way as you and I both know they didn't technically vote for invasion. They voted to give the President the authority to use force only after all other means had been exhausted. As for the deception I don't think it would make anyone stupid. The Inspector General's Office has already concluded that some pre-war intelligence was intentionally manipulated. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2862621)

The person primarily at fault for this action was Douglass Feith. He allowed political pressure to corrupt the intelligence gathering process and at times intentionally twisted the findings of the intelligence community. Who was the guy lurking around the Pentagon, FBI, and CIA perhaps putting pressure on analysts (http://www.iflipflop.com/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg)?

A majority of Democrats in the House opposed the legislation. I believe there were only 12 Democratic Senators who voted against it--not as close as you'd think in the House. That said, the public was far more against the war than Congress was. Not surprising, as Congress tends to be behind the curve on this sort of thing.

But most importantly to this particular discussion, Liuzzo was replying to a poster who said "everyone was for the war." You had to have seen that when you made your snarky reply to him. In fact, the vote wasn't remotely close to being "everyone," even if we assume you were talking only about Congress's support or opposition. And if you take it, as I and many other posters did, to mean the population in general, the statement is even more ludicrous.

At the time a majority of Democrats is not the majority.

Majority rules, you know. Oddly, even though the Democrats are in the majority now, they somehow can't override a veto - seven Democrats voted not to override, which I find interesting.

At the time a majority of Democrats is not the majority.

Majority rules, you know. Oddly, even though the Democrats are in the majority now, they somehow can't override a veto - seven Democrats voted not to override, which I find interesting.

We weren't talking about the majority at the time--the original statement being discussed was that "everyone was for the war at first." That was demonstrably false, and the fact that you're trying to use a discussion of that false statement to link to some crap about the Iraq War resolution is trollish behavior.

As for the seven Democrats who voted against the override, I answered that pages back, and you conveniently forgot it. Those seven are the same seven who opposed the legislation in the first place because it wasn't tough enough. They are members of the Out of Iraq Now caucus, and have pledged to oppose any legislation that doesn't include language requiring an immediate withdrawal. That should satisfy your "interest."

We weren't talking about the majority at the time--the original statement being discussed was that "everyone was for the war at first." That was demonstrably false, and the fact that you're trying to use a discussion of that false statement to link to some crap about the Iraq War resolution is trollish behavior.

If you're a person who can read, you'll note that in my post I noted that this wasn't "everyone".

But it was plenty. Why don't you ask Hillary?

seven Democrats voted not to override, which I find interesting.

wow, a whole 7? That's about...4%! Shocking. I guess that bill lost a lot of support once Bush veto it huh?

Except for the fact that more Democrats voted to override the veto than voted for the bill in the first place.

Original House vote on the bill: 218 to 208

Vote to overturn the veto: 222 to 203

The bill PICKED UP support after it was vetoed.

And by the way, do you know why those 7 voted not to overturn the veto? Because they thought that the withdrawl date wasn't soon enough.

If you're a person who can read, you'll note that in my post I noted that this wasn't "everyone".

But it was plenty. Why don't you ask Hillary?

He wasn't talking about Congress, DK. He was talking about the entire damned population of the U.S. But go on with trying to distort facts, DK. It only makes you look like a fool.

He wasn't talking about Congress, DK. He was talking about the entire damned population of the U.S. But go on with trying to distort facts, DK. It only makes you look like a fool.

Why don't you stop trying to distort the first post I made - I wasn't talking about the entire population of the US...

Why don't you stop trying to distort the first post I made - I wasn't talking about the entire population of the US...

And that first post was made in an attempt to refute the comments made by someone who was.

So if you weren't talking about the general population, why'd you feel the need to spout off in reply to someone who was?

What, exactly, was your point, other than to look like a tool.

If you're a person who can read, you'll note that in my post I noted that this wasn't "everyone".

But it was plenty. Why don't you ask Hillary?

Oh, I read it. I also read what it was in response to--a classic case of goalpost shifting if ever there were one. And to your statement "At the time a majority of Democrats is not the majority," let me add this: The majority of Democrats in Congress did not support the war. The Democratic Caucus break down was as follows:
House 126 opposed (127 if you count Bernie Sanders) 81 in favor
Senate 22 opposed (23 if you count Jim Jeffords) 29 in favor
Total 148 opposed (150 with independents) 110 in favor

Now, I'm not a math whiz or anything, but last I checked, 148 > 110. As a group, the Democrats opposed the war.

And that first post was made in an attempt to refute the comments made by someone who was.

So if you weren't talking about the general population, why'd you feel the need to spout off in reply to someone who was?

What, exactly, was your point, other than to look like a tool.

My point was that it's rather irrelevant what "everyone" thought.

Why don't you read the Constitution? Maybe you would be able to stop calling people "tool" if you knew how wars were made.

Why don't you read the Constitution?

No thanks, did that enough during my 3 years as a lawstudent and my going on 5 years as an attorney. I have it memorized.

Maybe you would be able to stop calling people "tool" if you knew how wars were made.

I know how wars are made. I also know how funding is allocated.

I also know that piping in about apples in a conversation about oranges and then acting like an idiot when people point out that what you said has nothing to do with oranges is a pretty tool-like thing to do.

Senate 22 opposed (23 if you count Jim Jeffords) 29 in favor

Um, how's this number work? 22 + 29 = 51. That would mean, not counting Jeffords, there were 51 Democrats in the senate at the time

If I recall correctly, prior to Jeffords' defection, senate was in an even 50/50 split, it was jeffords move to an independant that made congress 50/49/1 and gave dems control until the 2002 elected congress was sworn in.

You're over by a number on one side or the other. I think it was 22 including jeffords

No thanks, did that enough during my 3 years as a lawstudent and my going on 5 years as an attorney. I have it memorized.



I know how wars are made. I also know how funding is allocated.

I also know that piping in about apples in a conversation about oranges and then acting like an idiot when people point out that what you said has nothing to do with oranges is a pretty tool-like thing to do.

No, it's not tool-like when I put the qualifier in the first post I made. It's tool-like not to read the whole post, and knee-jerk because you're pissed off that some Democrats voted to authorize the invasion, and didn't say shit about it until the poll numbers shifted.

No, it's not tool-like when I put the qualifier in the first post I made.

In a reply to a post that had absolutly 0 to do with what you were talking about.

I can go into Bottle's thread about near death experiences, quote her, and start discussing how to best make a grilled cheese sandwhich.

Regardless of whether or not i begin my post by saying "so here is the best way to make a grilled cheese sandwhich" it's still a pretty tool like move to do.

But do go on, tell me how the constitution works. Are you going to pretend to be a lawyer in this incarnation as you did in one of your last ones?

Um, how's this number work? 22 + 29 = 51. That would mean, not counting Jeffords, there were 51 Democrats in the senate at the time

If I recall correctly, prior to Jeffords' defection, senate was in an even 50/50 split, it was jeffords move to an independant that made congress 50/49/1 and gave dems control until the 2002 elected congress was sworn in.

You're over by a number on one side or the other. I think it was 22 including jeffords

I'm using Wiki's numbers--and now looking back, I see what I did. I counted Chaffee's vote as a Dem vote, so it was 21 Dems opposed, 22 if you count Jeffords.

I'm using Wiki's numbers--and now looking back, I see what I did. I counted Chaffee's vote as a Dem vote, so it was 21 Dems opposed, 22 if you count Jeffords.

Yah, Chaffee, if I recall, was the lone republican dissenter.

I can go into Bottle's thread about near death experiences, quote her, and start discussing how to best make a grilled cheese sandwhich.

Regardless of whether or not i begin my post by saying "so here is the best way to make a grilled cheese sandwhich" it's still a pretty tool like move to do.

Particularly tool-like given my extraordinary fondness for grilled cheese, and the fact that I forgot to pack a lunch today. *stomach rumble*

But yeah, you have a good point here. It annoys me when people do that sort of thing.

In a reply to a post that had absolutly 0 to do with what you were talking about.

I can go into Bottle's thread about near death experiences, quote her, and start discussing how to best make a grilled cheese sandwhich.

Regardless of whether or not i begin my post by saying "so here is the best way to make a grilled cheese sandwhich" it's still a pretty tool like move to do.

But do go on, tell me how the constitution works. Are you going to pretend to be a lawyer in this incarnation as you did in one of your last ones?

You'll note that I was talking about the war, not grilled cheese sandwiches.

You're just really, really upset because plenty of Democrats voted for the war, and you have no way to get out of that other than to say, "They lied!" which only makes them look really, really stupid.

Why don't you read the Constitution? Maybe you would be able to stop calling people "tool" if you knew how wars were made.
You really, really don't want to go there. You're actually telling a lawyer to "read the Constitution."

Back away slowly. You may yet escape with your entrails intact.

You really, really don't want to go there. You're actually telling a lawyer to "read the Constitution."

Back away slowly. You may yet escape with your entrails intact.

He evidently thinks it has something to do with the majority of the American population wanting to go to war.

You'll note that I was talking about the war, not grilled cheese sandwiches.

You're just really, really upset because plenty of Democrats voted for the war, and you have no way to get out of that other than to say, "They lied!" which only makes them look really, really stupid.

My feelings toward that minority of Democratic congresspeople who voted for the war are irrelevant in this discussion--they haven't been a topic of conversation until now, and I don't plan to get into it on this thread. If you want to start a new thread on the subject, I'll consider discussing it, and even throw in my two cents on the people who represent me personally.

You got busted trying to shift the discussion using a bogus argument. Get over it.

He evidently thinks it has something to do with the majority of the American population wanting to go to war.

Oh? do find where I said that. Go find me a post.

I'll wait right here.

Oh? do find where I said that. Go find me a post.

I'll wait right here.

You were all arguing about "everyone". What, are you going to say that would include the native population of New Guinea?

You'll note that I was talking about the war.

No you weren't. You were TRYING to talk about the democrats who voted for the authorization to use military force.

Which nobody else was talking about until you tried to shift the conversation that way. You made a totally irrelevant comment in a discussion that had nothing to do with what you wanted to say, and then acted indignent when people tried to carry the original conversation on around you

You were all arguing about "everyone". What, are you going to say that would include the native population of New Guinea?

and again, please find me where a discussion where I stated that the views of the american population has anything to do with the constitutionality of the Authorization To Use Military Force.

Go on, show it to me.

You stated:

He evidently thinks it [the Constitution] has something to do with the majority of the American population wanting to go to war.

Now back it the fuck up.

You were all arguing about "everyone". What, are you going to say that would include the native population of New Guinea?

Why not? The person to whom we were responding (who has conveniently disappeared) didn't make any sort of qualification. The Iraq War discussion wasn't solely a US thing, after all--there was all that talk of the "coalition of the willing" remember? So international support or lack thereof would certainly come into play in any discussion of the topic.

you know, i think the main problem is all the pork that is in the bills. So far everyone is making this operation(i do not beleive it is a war anymore) purly political. The Democrats and some Republicans in Congress and the Senate are denying vital funds based solely on furthering their political careers. Screw Party Politics!!
These are good men and women dying, not some campaign. Personally, I think we need to step up our operations and shoot before shot, not wait to be shot and then shoot. Preemptivity is the ony winable path we can take, and, until our politicians see this, more and more good peple will die. Hopefully, they see this before it is too late.
Well, thats my peice. Take it or leave it.

you know, i think the main problem is all the pork that is in the bills. So far everyone is making this operation(i do not beleive it is a war anymore) purly political. The Democrats and some Republicans in Congress and the Senate are denying vital funds based solely on furthering their political careers. Screw Party Politics!!
These are good men and women dying, not some campaign. Personally, I think we need to step up our operations and shoot before shot, not wait to be shot and then shoot. Preemptivity is the ony winable path we can take, and, until our politicians see this, more and more good peple will die. Hopefully, they see this before it is too late.
Well, thats my peice. Take it or leave it.

:mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :mp5:upyours: :upyours: :sniper: :sniper:

There, fixed what is a quite unremarkable first post to be a bit more appropriate.

No you weren't. You were TRYING to talk about the democrats who voted for the authorization to use military force.

Which nobody else was talking about until you tried to shift the conversation that way. You made a totally irrelevant comment in a discussion that had nothing to do with what you wanted to say, and then acted indignent when people tried to carry the original conversation on around you

Where did I act indignant? ROFL.

Where did I not act indignant?

Fixed

You really, really don't want to go there. You're actually telling a lawyer to "read the Constitution."

Back away slowly. You may yet escape with your entrails intact.

Oh, RO/EO/DK/WL is aware of all that.

unremarkable as in you think it total bull or the fact i didnt have any faces?:confused:

There, fixed what is a quite unremarkable first post to be a bit more appropriate.

I see you have taken up the cause. ;)

Fixed

Hardly - you and Nazz are the ones who have been calling names immediately.

If anyone was indignant, it was you two, and you know it.

unremarkable as in you think it total bull or the fact i didnt have any faces?:confused:

the flaming barrage of smilies is typical of first time posters, who feel it necessary to add a bit of "flare" to the posts.

That being said, I think your overall ideas are.....incompatable with the reality of the situation.

Hardly - you and Nazz are the ones who have been calling names immediately.

If anyone was indignant, it was you two, and you know it.

Oh to suggest I was indignant about anything you said is to believe I was riled to anger by your commentary.

You haven't had an original thing to say since you were DK the first time around, so I really don't get much of a rise out of your rather...shall we say....misinformed commentary.

I just calls em as I sees em.

the flaming barrage of smilies is typical of first time posters, who feel it necessary to add a bit of "flare" to the posts.

That being said, I think your overall ideas are.....incompatable with the reality of the situation.

Well im not a beginner at posting in forums and I do not think its nessesary to use all those faces. sorry but thats me.

What is your idea of what should be done?

What is your idea of what should be done?

Your whole idea about how the situation should be fixed via a "shoot first, ask questions later" methodology is what got us into trouble in the FIRST place.

Remember "shock and awe"?

Your whole idea about how the situation should be fixed via a "shoot first, ask questions later" methodology is what got us into trouble in the FIRST place.

Remember "shock and awe"?

Im not saying shoot first ask questions later. Im saying act on intelligence. I agree we shouldnt bomb the hell out of everything because someone of value might be there. I beleive we need more surgical ops and less pussyfooting. We cant restrict the soldiers from defending themselves. But yet, they are. If a civilian is accidentally killed, the "offenders" are court marshalled and jailed. This operation is different than any war that has ever been fought. There are no battle lines, no uniformed enemy combatants and no distinction between civilians and, say, suicide bombers. So what I say is this. The rules of engagement cant apply when the enemy is cowardly enough to hide in crowds of people.

If a civilian is accidentally killed, the "offenders" are court marshalled and jailed.

Do you have any citation for this? Everything I've seen suggests that the military has glossed over accidental deaths, even deaths of our own allies at american hands.

Your whole idea about how the situation should be fixed via a "shoot first, ask questions later" methodology is what got us into trouble in the FIRST place.

Remember "shock and awe"?

Worked in Bosnia. In fact that never even got to the questions stage.

Can't blame people for screwdriver syndrome.

Do you have any citation for this? Everything I've seen suggests that the military has glossed over accidental deaths, even deaths of our own allies at american hands.

im sorry. i dont have any citation for this information. I listen to NPR and also some conservative talk radio and i beleive it was last year that I heard the story. other than word of those radio and TV stations mouths, i dont have any evidence readily available. Perhaps I should have had that info in front of me before i mentioned that. As for what you said, I have heard that as well, but i think it comes mainly from one-sided media reporting.

Ha. i have a bad genetic habit of making broad generalizations. as for this discussion, i would like to continue but lunch break is over. Back to work! as for the other things i said about politics or sergical ops, do you agree or disagree? i will try to look occastionally and reply when possable but it wont be often.

and just to follow suite,

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Worked in Bosnia. In fact that never even got to the questions stage.

Can't blame people for screwdriver syndrome.

As I recall, it worked for Clinton and Chretien...

Why not? The person to whom we were responding (who has conveniently disappeared) didn't make any sort of qualification. The Iraq War discussion wasn't solely a US thing, after all--there was all that talk of the "coalition of the willing" remember? So international support or lack thereof would certainly come into play in any discussion of the topic.

Funny how that little tool disapeared after I called him out on his bullshit. And Remote Observer, care to comment on the IG report that said "intelligence was intentionally manipulated?" I liked to it earlier but you're too busy fighting off your back to respond. You tried to make a comment to me relating to a response I had to someone else. That someone else claimed that "everyone was for the war at first" and I definitively called "bullshit" to it. You then wanted to be the monkey on my back for some reason and now you're being called out for the inaccuracies you presented. Others presented numbers, sources, articles, and all you have is "because I say so." In case you were wondering, that's not sufficient for carrying on a debate past 5th grade. Ever though of going on that show? :confused: So here's what I'll add in the same vein as your original comment... BLACK IS NOT WHITE. Roll credits.

In the past few pages, there doesn't seem to be any sensible or reasonable refutation of the idea that congress has the power to end wars.

Vietnam 2.0 Lite ME-Version will end the same way Vietnam did, it's just a matter of time.

Every extra day we are there is 3 or 4 more dead American soldiers whose deaths are completely in vain. Outcome will be the same whether they get killed or not.

It is rather unusual for Mr. Bush to veto a piece of spending legislation.

Ain't it though? He doesn't seem particularly conservative when it comes to tax dollars, or our civil liberties, or our nation's future...little things like that.

What I fear most is the inevitable slew of badly made hollywood movies ten years hence about how America 'didn't really lose' in the middle east.

I bet they'll retcon the A-Team too.

Vietnam 2.0 Lite ME-Version will end the same way Vietnam did, it's just a matter of time.

Vietnam actually ended with a treaty.

What I fear most is the inevitable slew of badly made hollywood movies ten years hence about how America 'didn't really lose' in the middle east.

I bet they'll retcon the A-Team too.
Oh God. Geriatric Chuck Norris and Sly Stallone in the desert.

Vietnam actually ended with a treaty.

And I suppose the defunding of the conflict by the Congress had nothing to do with it?

And I suppose the defunding of the conflict by the Congress had nothing to do with it?

Last nail in the coffin of an unpopular war. There's so much recent crap on parallels between Iraq and Vietnam that it's hard to find anything from that period. I'm thinking that they just cut off assistance to the South Vietnam government, not to the U.S. effort. By the time that all happened, we had just about disappeared as a military presence.

Last nail in the coffin of an unpopular war. There's so much recent crap on parallels between Iraq and Vietnam that it's hard to find anything from that period. I'm thinking that they just cut off assistance to the South Vietnam government, not to the U.S. effort. By the time that all happened, we had just about disappeared as a military presence.

Yeah people, Vietnam and Iraq are not at all the same. Vietname is in the far east, Iraq is in the middle east.

See? Entirely different.

/Colbert

Yeah people, Vietnam and Iraq are not at all the same. Vietname is in the far east, Iraq is in the middle east.

See? Entirely different.

/Colbert
Ignorance is funny on Comedy Central. Point is that we had already disengaged from Vietnam by the time Congress got around to cutting any spending, or so I remember. That led to our last act, which was evacuating everyone that could possibly find a way out. Funding for troops was never an issue. The parallel, stay with me, would be that we withdrew from Iraq and then cut off any funding for the Iraqi government to arm and defend itself.

Probably not a big deal to Iraq. I think they can pay the bills, it's finding the people to do the work that's the tough part.

Ignorance is funny

then you must be fucking hillarious

Vietnam actually ended with a treaty.

You miss the point.

Vietnam ended with us leaving, accomplishing nothing, lots of American blood in the ground, even more native blood.

then you must be fucking hillarious
What's the matter, is it too hard for you to read past the first sentence in a post?

it's finding the people to do the work that's the tough part.
They can't do that with or without us taking the brunt of the beating.

Ignorance is funny on Comedy Central. Point is that we had already disengaged from Vietnam by the time Congress got around to cutting any spending, or so I remember. That led to our last act, which was evacuating everyone that could possibly find a way out. Funding for troops was never an issue. The parallel, stay with me, would be that we withdrew from Iraq and then cut off any funding for the Iraqi government to arm and defend itself.

Probably not a big deal to Iraq. I think they can pay the bills, it's finding the people to do the work that's the tough part.

Here's a brief timeline (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Congress_Wars_Glance.html) on the funding issue.
VIETNAM

1971: Law enacted to repeal the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized military force in Vietnam. Has little impact, however, as war continues for another two years.

March 1973: U.S. troops fully withdrawn from Vietnam.

July 1973: Legislation enacted over President Nixon's veto prohibits money spent on combat in North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.

Here's a brief timeline (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Congress_Wars_Glance.html) on the funding issue.

Like I tried to say, I was going by recollection. I think Watergate was bigger news by that point, as troops were coming home faster than they were being deployed.

Effectively, that means that we just quit supporting the South Vietnamese government, since troops were out of the country. Right?

Like I tried to say, I was going by recollection. I think Watergate was bigger news by that point, as troops were coming home faster than they were being deployed.

Effectively, that means that we just quit supporting the South Vietnamese government, since troops were out of the country. Right?Well, my memory of it is useless since I was 4 for most of 1973, but I'd have sworn there were still some troops in Vietnam at the fall of Saigon in 1975. Were they just embassy guards or something?

Well, my memory of it is useless since I was 4 for most of 1973, but I'd have sworn there were still some troops in Vietnam at the fall of Saigon in 1975. Were they just embassy guards or something?
Just Embassy guards? Those are United States Marines you're talking about, buddy, my comrades-in-arms. But yes, all that was left were a few guards at the Embassy. That's what Frequent Wind was all about. As it turns out, we evacuated every South Vietnamese that we could because of the retributions from the North that followed.

[sidebar]
I've got a friend from flight school that left Vietnam during those days. He and several others packed themselves into a T-37 jet flew toward an aircraft carrier. They ditched and were picked up by a SAR helo. Look back through some old issues of the Smithsonian Air&Space magazine for an article about the evacuation. Henry plays a big part in that article. Especially for someone that turned out to be the worst pilot I've ever flown with.

Just Embassy guards? Those are United States Marines you're talking about, buddy, my comrades-in-arms. But yes, all that was left were a few guards at the Embassy. That's what Frequent Wind was all about. As it turns out, we evacuated every South Vietnamese that we could because of the retributions from the North that followed.

[sidebar]
I've got a friend from flight school that left Vietnam during those days. He and several others packed themselves into a T-37 jet flew toward an aircraft carrier. They ditched and were picked up by a SAR helo. Look back through some old issues of the Smithsonian Air&Space magazine for an article about the evacuation. Henry plays a big part in that article. Especially for someone that turned out to be the worst pilot I've ever flown with.No insult intended--I meant just in the sense of only. Sorry about that.

No insult intended--I meant just in the sense of only. Sorry about that.
LOL. No offense taken. Proof again that it takes a better writer than I to convey emotions. ( False shock, in this case )

[sidebar]
I've got a friend from flight school that left Vietnam during those days. He and several others packed themselves into a T-37 jet flew toward an aircraft carrier. They ditched and were picked up by a SAR helo. Look back through some old issues of the Smithsonian Air&Space magazine for an article about the evacuation. Henry plays a big part in that article. Especially for someone that turned out to be the worst pilot I've ever flown with.

In all fairness, his finest hour *was* crashing an airplane into the ocean... ;)

In all fairness, his finest hour *was* crashing an airplane into the ocean... ;)
No, he managed to convince the Navy to give him a $72,000 bonus. Then he used that to bribe the Vietnamese government to let the rest of his family emigrate to the U.S. That was really his finest hour. Everyone else used those bonuses to buy Bayliners.

And the statement that he went AWOL has been falsified. Now can we get real facts here please?
You're welcome to refresh here with a link or something (sans pundit or op-ed, for posterity's sake, of course :p )

He didn't finish his "tour" by not making TWO physicals, and in not making it for flight duty, decided that all his other responsibilities to the country weren't important, and ran off to work for an Alabama congressman. Didn't finish.
Elucidation, if you will. Not AWOL persay, but it's fun to say, and basically as effective.
Further, McCain had a lot of control not to rip the little pipsqueak genetic trash's head off when he started chiding him over his POW experience. Lotsa respect for the military there, eh?

Further, McCain had a lot of control not to rip the little pipsqueak genetic trash's head off when he started chiding him over his POW experience. Lotsa respect for the military there, eh?
control?
naw.
lack of balls more like.
McCain's been GWB's bitch for years.

Ok, so the question now is, who's actually responsible for cutting off funding for the troops and the war? I mean yes Bush did Veto the bill, but the Democrats and Congress saw that coming a mile away, you can't tell me that they didn't know that this wasn't going to get the stamp of approval from the President, so this spending bill was doomed from the start. So who's really at fault here? Bush for vetoing it, or Congress for sending him a bill that everyone knew was doomed from the start?

Ok, so the question now is, who's actually responsible for cutting off funding for the troops and the war?

The one who chose to reject the funding bill.

QED

So who's really at fault here? Bush for vetoing it, or Congress for sending him a bill that reflected the will and opinions of the majority of the American people?
fixed for accuracy.

fixed for accuracy.

The Democrats only won by a slim margin, so I doubt the fix is quite that accurate.

The Democrats only won by a slim margin, so I doubt the fix is quite that accurate.

Didn't Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove promise Dear Leader that the Republicans would not only keep control of Congress but even gain more seats?

:D

The Democrats only won by a slim margin, so I doubt the fix is quite that accurate.

Check the polls. YOu will be surprised.

Ok, so the question now is, who's actually responsible for cutting off funding for the troops and the war? I mean yes Bush did Veto the bill, but the Democrats and Congress saw that coming a mile away, you can't tell me that they didn't know that this wasn't going to get the stamp of approval from the President, so this spending bill was doomed from the start. So who's really at fault here? Bush for vetoing it, or Congress for sending him a bill that everyone knew was doomed from the start?

Bush for vetoing it. He wanted to keep the war off the books and didn't ask for enough funding. Now he wants "extra" funding that was necessary from the start. It's up to him to deal with any stipulations placed on that money or deal with the fact that he is a shitty Commander in Chief.