NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democrats in Congress has proposed a new spending bill, which will fund the war from now to July, at which point, President Bush will have to report on the progress to Congress. I'd have to be honest and say, that I actually support the Democrats on this, I mean this is a much better bill than the last one, at least it can still give Bush the funds he needs and make him accountable. Thats is what this bill is all about, accountability, Bush has to be accountable to the American public, to the Iraqi civilians, and to their government, and he has to be accountable to the arm forces that are fighting his war. We tried running the war with a blank check, and looked where it got us, it got us into a Quagmire (giggity) and its time for a change on how we fight this war. At some point we're going to have to pull out and let Iraq either stand or fall. We can't be there forever, and it's time Bush realized that and I think thats what the Democrats are doing with the new spending bill. So, go donkey, ass, or mule whatever that is.

bush has made...one good argument against this, and as much as it pains me, I agree with it, to an extent.

Military does not exist in a vaccum, and often the military will contract with private enterprises. To fund a period of time would make forming contracts difficult, as they themselves would thus be forced to be renewed.

It's not a very good argument, and I could whip up a contract with a conditional statement to the effect of "this contract will continue past X date only upon the passage of a new budget"

But it would still make forming contracts somewhat more difficult.

If Bush was being held accountable, he wouldn't be the president.

So here's a question--what if the bill passes and Bush signs it (I think he's promised to veto this too, but bear with me) and then he doesn't appear and give Congress the report this legislation requires? What then?

So here's a question--what if the bill passes and Bush signs it (I think he's promised to veto this too, but bear with me) and then he doesn't appear and give Congress the report this legislation requires? What then?

Then we'll probably going to have to withdraw from Iraq if we don't have the fundings, and all we can do then is hold our breath and hope for the best.

So here's a question--what if the bill passes and Bush signs it (I think he's promised to veto this too, but bear with me) and then he doesn't appear and give Congress the report this legislation requires? What then?

from my understand, IF there are reports, and those reports are satisfactory, additional funding is automatic.

If not, then the trigger does not occur and the bill is effectively terminated. Meaning whatever funding comes then is up to the choice of congress, again.

The days of blank cheques are over. Bush's days are going to be over too with Tony Blair stepping down and his best buddy (Little Johnny Coward) looking shaky at home too.

from my understand, IF there are reports, and those reports are satisfactory, additional funding is automatic.

If not, then the trigger does not occur and the bill is effectively terminated. Meaning whatever funding comes then is up to the choice of congress, again.

Who gets to determine if the reports are satisfactory or not, I wonder? I mean, Bush could write "I'm the commander guy" on a Chili's kids menu in crayon and give it to Congress if he gets to say what's satisfactory.

Who gets to determine if the reports are satisfactory or not, I wonder? I mean, Bush could write "I'm the commander guy" on a Chili's kids menu in crayon and give it to Congress if he gets to say what's satisfactory.

not sure, I would IMAGINE a majority vote, or a specifically assigned subcomittee approval

We tried running the war with a blank check, and looked where it got us, it got us into a Quagmire (giggity) and its time for a change on how we fight this war.

I now love this thread and you. *M17 rated fluffle spam*

I support it because now Bush has to actually think, which would have helped considerably before going into the war. Dennis Miller shot himself in the foot by saying

Bush is a checkers guy playing a game of chess.

I support it because now Bush has to actually think, which would have helped considerably before going into the war. Dennis Miller shot himself in the foot by saying
Bush is a checkers guy playing a game of chess.
"Hehe, I jump you horsey-thing, your little tower-thing, and the pointy-tower thingy. King me! Hehe"

"Hehe, I jump you horsey-thing, your little tower-thing, and the pointy-tower thingy. King me! Hehe"

"You heard him. King him, or I'll shoot you in the face. Quack."

"Hehe, I jump you horsey-thing, your little tower-thing, and the pointy-tower thingy. King me! Hehe"

Brilliant analogy.

He jumps Afghanistan and Iraq, and then is puzzled why no one makes him king. I love it!

Who gets to determine if the reports are satisfactory or not, I wonder? I mean, Bush could write "I'm the commander guy" on a Chili's kids menu in crayon and give it to Congress if he gets to say what's satisfactory.
If it was a Denny's kids menu he could do it while pretending to be a robot.

I partially agree with the Dem's, but I also partially agree with Bushy as well (I know, I'll be fried on these boards for that).

It seems to me like this bill is only aimed at Bush, constantly (in political measures) to appear before Congress to make his case that sufficient progress is being made, at which point it seems that Congress will shoot him down anyway. Thats the impression I got from listening to John Kerry explain this bill, that they (the Dems) have already made up their mind for future reports. But, I do agree that some sort of progress needs to be seen as a reason for American troops to stay, otherwise they should be phased out.

The one thing I agree with Bush on is that the time limit shouldn't be July. I think Patreaus (or however you spell his name) is more correct about a reasonable deadline being Sept.

I now love this thread and you. *M17 rated fluffle spam*

I support it because now Bush has to actually think, which would have helped considerably before going into the war. Dennis Miller shot himself in the foot by saying

Allright, not trying to start a flame war here, but if your gonna quote something, dont take it out of context, this quote comes from his most recent HBO Special

this wont be verbaetum(Sp?) cause im not that good at memorizing but basically its something like this:
You have the two types of people chess players and checkers players. If you sit around and analyze every infinite detail and think about 10 turns away, eventually that egg timers gonna go off and someones gonna hit you first... See Bush is a checker player. You move across the board and if some asshole gets in your way, you jump him. We live in a tough world, and America cant afford to look weak to so some B-list radicals in a cave. You got to show them, that yeah this country has a long fuse but at the end of the day its connected to a Big Ass Bomb.

Bush is vetoing the bill because it puts a time limit. You talk about blank checking the war, but thats not the issue. The democrats are playing politics. They're not looking at the consequences they're just pushing the agenda. Their agenda: troops home ASAP IS that a bad agenda...? Of course not. I wish we could bring our troops home this instant. But the problem is its not that simple. Iraq is on the brink of civil war with our soldiers caught in the cross fire. If we just pick up and leave, in 5 months were back where we started. The damn School on the study of Iraq, or what ever it is that keeps preaching for us to get Iran and Syria involved, while they have good thoughts, are just stupid. Syria, and Iran, are the ones fueling the blaze in Iraq. They support insurgents, support the Shiite and Sunni violence. If we leave they'll move in and set up another totalitarian radical Islamic State. If that happens that means all the suffering, all the sacrifice, would be for nothing..NOTHING!... but the democrats like Paloski, aren't seeing that. They just wanna stop the war machine. And they know that the war machine, runs not on oil or food, but on Money!.. and so they are using this fact as a way to take power from the generals on the ground, and away from Bush. They want to run everything, but fortunately our forefathers saw fit to had the checks and balances. The congress knows it will never get a bill passed out right so they're playing the veto version of a filibuster. they'll keep changing wording changing this using finer words to say the same thing, until we all get tired of it and either Bush passes it or some of the democrats go with him in 2008

Allright, not trying to start a flame war here, but if your gonna quote something, dont take it out of context, this quote comes from his most recent HBO Special

This is a world of chess, and there is no question about that. Bush simply jumping people left and right without any kind of foresight is what got us where we are. What kind of leader does anything without thinking of the consequences? The man in office currently.

Iraq may be on the brink of civil war, but is that our problem? Yes. It was our other brain dead leaders that put Saddam in power without thinking of the consequences, and the same people who backed Osama during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Lack of foresight is nothing new.

It will take many years to bring any kind of order to Iraq, and honestly America's patience ran out with this war after Saddam was hung. The people will put in charge someone who will push their agenda, and be damned with the consequences. It's organized mob rule.

At any rate, if we wern't so close to Congressional elections, the Democrats would have only one more chance to force the President to agree before having to capitulate. However, all they have to do is hold out until the Republicans can feel their seats falling out from under their asses. But they are probably going to be dipshits and capitulate early and lose all their seats.

This is a world of chess, and there is no question about that. Bush simply jumping people left and right without any kind of foresight is what got us where we are. What kind of leader does anything without thinking of the consequences? The man in office currently.

Iraq may be on the brink of civil war, but is that our problem? Yes. It was our other brain dead leaders that put Saddam in power without thinking of the consequences, and the same people who backed Osama during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Lack of foresight is nothing new.

It will take many years to bring any kind of order to Iraq, and honestly America's patience ran out with this war after Saddam was hung. The people will put in charge someone who will push their agenda, and be damned with the consequences. It's organized mob rule.

Not thinking of consequences? Excuse me if i disagree. I think thats all that Bush was thinking about actually. The consequences of NOT doing anything. If we sat there after 9/11 and did nothing, sit there after we got info (as bad as it was) about WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was harboring terrorists... if we sat there and did nothing. How much bolder would the the terrorist groups get? How many scuicide bombers strapped with packs of ball bearings turning themselves in to walking talking claymore mines, have to go off in our shopping malls, or our movie theaters, or offices, or our Schools? before we smack their asses down?

this is what the patriot act and such is there for, to stop this stuff from happening, since 9/11 weve stopped a sears tower bombing, a dirty bomber, airplane bombing over the atlantic, weve stopped these because of the changes that our oh so fearless leader, has made in our government. Should you analyze moves before you make them? of course, no one is going to object to that. Anyone who acts on impulse on every decision is a moron. But the point is to be weary, theres multiple angles to be conciedered with every decision. in Bush's case,... start a war that will take forever and cost american dollars and lives? or do nothing, and look weak to the rest of the world, and have terrorist become more bold and attack more, to the cost of american dollars and lives... if i had to chose between a soldier, and a civilion to die, god forbid im ever in that situation... i would chose the soldier, because that is his Job, to fight, and die if neccessary, to protect your very rights, to oppose the war hes fighting in. Do i want the country at war, absolutely not, would i have jumped into war as fast as bush did, i dont think so, but in the end i would have made the same decision. ..and the thing is, Bush is the kind of leader that this country needs at this time. Some one whos not afraid to push back, and stick it to these bastards, and when they try pull off some elaborate plot, to smack their asses down and say not today mohammad of whatever. We get so indulged and caught up in the details, and not the big picture. I dont know the latest body count in Iraq, but lets put it into perspective. In 9/11 we lost a little more thand 3000 people. If the terrorists, had struck maybe 2 hours later, we would have lost over 50.000 people. They struck at 930 in the morning, as most people were on their way to work. While yes we lose lives on the battlefield, how many more lives are being saved on the home front.

We want to get out of Iraq, but we can't leave till the job is done. And we have to stop bitching about Repubs this Democrats that. Yeah im sure you've guessed that I'm a republican. And while i don't really get along with Democrats, I understand that we need to start working together instead of battling each other. Instead of just throwing bills at Bush which you know hes gonna veto, why dont you try working with him and see if yall can work something out. Until then yall are just gonna have to suck it up and deal with Bush. You can't impeach him, he hasn't broken any laws. Hes operated inside his executive powers. If he could have been impeached, it would have happened already.

At any rate, if we wern't so close to Congressional elections, the Democrats would have only one more chance to force the President to agree before having to capitulate. However, all they have to do is hold out until the Republicans can feel their seats falling out from under their asses. But they are probably going to be dipshits and capitulate early and lose all their seats.

the way things are going, democrats might be going out soon. Because they allocate funding bill after funding bill which they know Bush is going to Veto. And they will keep pushing it until someone gets annoyed enough to say enough already. They're not winning any great battle, theyre just waisting taxpayers dollars, and thankfully, most people recognize that.

the way things are going, democrats might be going out soon. Because they allocate funding bill after funding bill which they know Bush is going to Veto. And they will keep pushing it until someone gets annoyed enough to say enough already. They're not winning any great battle, theyre just waisting taxpayers dollars, and thankfully, most people recognize that.

O RLY?

Most Americans back Democrats in Congress in their showdown with President Bush over Iraq, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed favor setting a timetable for a U.S. troop pullout by 2008. The Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin by Oct. 1.

Most also believe Congress, not the president, should have the final word on setting troop levels in Iraq.

Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/opinion/polls/main2731960.shtml)

you were saying?

All people talk about are the troops...

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE SECURITY CONSULTANTS?!

All people talk about are the troops...

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE SECURITY CONSULTANTS?!

Screw them, we have to protect the troops by leaving them in Iraq instead of abandoning them by bringing them home.

Not thinking of consequences? Excuse me if i disagree. I think thats all that Bush was thinking about actually. The consequences of NOT doing anything. If we sat there after 9/11 and did nothing, sit there after we got info (as bad as it was) about WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was harboring terrorists... if we sat there and did nothing. How much bolder would the the terrorist groups get? How many scuicide bombers strapped with packs of ball bearings turning themselves in to walking talking claymore mines, have to go off in our shopping malls, or our movie theaters, or offices, or our Schools? before we smack their asses down?

this is what the patriot act and such is there for, to stop this stuff from happening, since 9/11 weve stopped a sears tower bombing, a dirty bomber, airplane bombing over the atlantic, weve stopped these because of the changes that our oh so fearless leader, has made in our government. Should you analyze moves before you make them? of course, no one is going to object to that. Anyone who acts on impulse on every decision is a moron. But the point is to be weary, theres multiple angles to be conciedered with every decision. in Bush's case,... start a war that will take forever and cost american dollars and lives? or do nothing, and look weak to the rest of the world, and have terrorist become more bold and attack more, to the cost of american dollars and lives... if i had to chose between a soldier, and a civilion to die, god forbid im ever in that situation... i would chose the soldier, because that is his Job, to fight, and die if neccessary, to protect your very rights, to oppose the war hes fighting in. Do i want the country at war, absolutely not, would i have jumped into war as fast as bush did, i dont think so, but in the end i would have made the same decision. ..and the thing is, Bush is the kind of leader that this country needs at this time. Some one whos not afraid to push back, and stick it to these bastards, and when they try pull off some elaborate plot, to smack their asses down and say not today mohammad of whatever. We get so indulged and caught up in the details, and not the big picture. I dont know the latest body count in Iraq, but lets put it into perspective. In 9/11 we lost a little more thand 3000 people. If the terrorists, had struck maybe 2 hours later, we would have lost over 50.000 people. They struck at 930 in the morning, as most people were on their way to work. While yes we lose lives on the battlefield, how many more lives are being saved on the home front.

We want to get out of Iraq, but we can't leave till the job is done. And we have to stop bitching about Repubs this Democrats that. Yeah im sure you've guessed that I'm a republican. And while i don't really get along with Democrats, I understand that we need to start working together instead of battling each other. Instead of just throwing bills at Bush which you know hes gonna veto, why dont you try working with him and see if yall can work something out. Until then yall are just gonna have to suck it up and deal with Bush. You can't impeach him, he hasn't broken any laws. Hes operated inside his executive powers. If he could have been impeached, it would have happened already.
2003 called, they want their rhetoric back. (I know, I know, the 90s called and they want their stupid quip back...sorry)

Seriously.

Frankly, this bill is working with Bush. You're going to have to get over the notion that 'working with Bush' is 'giving him what he wants.' We've tried that for far too fucking long.

The truth is that world wide terror has increased since the invasion of Iraq.

The truth is that Iraq had fuck all to do with 9/11.

The truth is that they did not 'greet us as liberators.'

The truth is there were no weapons of mass destruction.

The truth is that Al Queda had nothing to do with Iraq until we invaded.

The truth is that NONE of this is 'hindsight.' We've been screaming it at the top of our damn lungs since September 12, 2001.

He and his party has been wrong. Wrong at every fucking turn. Credit and credibility have run out.

The truth of the matter is that it is time for another direction. The people who have been wrong for so long now, it's time to step aside. You've cost too many lives, you've endangered too much security. You've taken too many liberties. You've squandered too much good will. You have been wrong for too long and there is no reason to believe that you are right now. You don't even have the success rate of a broken clock.

Screw them, we have to protect the troops by leaving them in Iraq instead of abandoning them by bringing them home.

But don't you see? We will eventually take most or all of our troops out because that is the will of the people. But we aren't going to just abandon Iraq, so that that means we would increase the pressure on those poor Blackwater folk. :(

If Bush was being held accountable, he wouldn't be the president.

Um, yes he would. He wouldn't be the king, but he'd be the president.

O RLY?



Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/opinion/polls/main2731960.shtml)

you were saying?

The flaw in your logic is that you're talking about people who actually exist instead of well-informed republicans.

Allright, not trying to start a flame war here, but if your gonna quote something, dont take it out of context, this quote comes from his most recent HBO Special

this wont be verbaetum(Sp?) cause im not that good at memorizing but basically its something like this:

You have the two types of people chess players and checkers players. If you sit around and analyze every infinite detail and think about 10 turns away, eventually that egg timers gonna go off and someones gonna hit you first... See Bush is a checker player. You move across the board and if some asshole gets in your way, you jump him. We live in a tough world, and America cant afford to look weak to so some B-list radicals in a cave. You got to show them, that yeah this country has a long fuse but at the end of the day its connected to a Big Ass Bomb.

Wow. Dennis Miller used to seem like an intelligent person. Now he's saying that we can't afford to do smart things because stupid people mistake intelligence for weakness. People like Dennis Miller apparently.

The Body Snatchers are really here. They've replaced Dennis Miller with a spineless, senseless toady, replaced Al Gore with someone charismatic, and replaced Richard Gere with someone who can get his name in the paper. Hmm, it seems like we're breaking pretty much even on the replacements. I wonder what we'd have to give up if the pod people were to replace George Bush with a competent leader?

bush has made...one good argument against this, and as much as it pains me, I agree with it, to an extent.

Military does not exist in a vaccum, and often the military will contract with private enterprises. To fund a period of time would make forming contracts difficult, as they themselves would thus be forced to be renewed.

It's not a very good argument, and I could whip up a contract with a conditional statement to the effect of "this contract will continue past X date only upon the passage of a new budget"

But it would still make forming contracts somewhat more difficult.

Why does private enterprise hate America?

bush has made...one good argument against this, and as much as it pains me, I agree with it, to an extent.

Military does not exist in a vaccum, and often the military will contract with private enterprises. To fund a period of time would make forming contracts difficult, as they themselves would thus be forced to be renewed.

Then they should have asked for the amount of funding they needed originally, instead of relying on bullshit "emergency" funds.

Um, yes he would. He wouldn't be the king, but he'd be the president.

If Bush were being held accountable, he'd be impeached by now.

Why does private enterprise hate America?

More important. Why are we making something as important as national defense something that corporations have more control over than Congress?

More important. Why are we making something as important as national defense something that corporations have more control over than Congress?

Because we suck?

Wow. Dennis Miller used to seem like an intelligent person. Now he's saying that we can't afford to do smart things because stupid people mistake intelligence for weakness. People like Dennis Miller apparently.

The Body Snatchers are really here. They've replaced Dennis Miller with a spineless, senseless toady, replaced Al Gore with someone charismatic, and replaced Richard Gere with someone who can get his name in the paper. Hmm, it seems like we're breaking pretty much even on the replacements. I wonder what we'd have to give up if the pod people were to replace George Bush with a competent leader?

I knew Miller had always been a right-wing comic, but that quote there just says he turned Bushevik. A shame.

And if Bush were to be replaced by a competent leader, the whole world would be stunned by someone who admitted that the whole Iraq invasion was started on a lie, brings the troops home, negotiates with the Middle East, resolves the Palestinian Issue, ends the tax cuts, so and so forth... then resigns.

Because we suck?

It's easy to dismiss it that simply, but think about what that means. It means that the military has gone from an instrument for the national interest to an instrument for the interest of for-profit entities. It should never be the case that unelected, undemocratic groups with interests outside of the public interest control the politics of war and peace.

It's easy to dismiss it that simply, but think about what that means. It means that the military has gone from an instrument for the national interest to an instrument for the interest of for-profit entities. It should never be the case that unelected, undemocratic groups with interests outside of the public interest control the politics of war and peace.

And the fact that Eisenhower- a former military man and former Republican president- warned everyone about this is another pimp slap at the current generation of the GOP.

It's easy to dismiss it that simply, but think about what that means. It means that the military has gone from an instrument for the national interest to an instrument for the interest of for-profit entities. It should never be the case that unelected, undemocratic groups with interests outside of the public interest control the politics of war and peace.
I agree completely, but I'm tired and frankly saying the same thing over and over again gets boring.

el snipo.

Pretty much what I was going to say.

"Hehe, I jump you horsey-thing, your little tower-thing, and the pointy-tower thingy. King me! Hehe"

Bush is like a pigeon playing chess: he knocks pieces over, craps on the board, and then flies away claiming victory.

Then they should have asked for the amount of funding they needed originally, instead of relying on bullshit "emergency" funds.

I've said the same I don't know how many times. Bush made this problem for himself by refusing to put it in the annual budget--he was hiding the cost of the war because he had to. The backlash against next year's Pentagon budget has already started because it includes Iraq and Afghanistan funding.

And he even had a chance to avoid it during the Congressional lame duck session, but his Congress people sold him out and didn't pass it then. So now he's stuck in a mess of his own making, and Daddy and the Saudis can't bail him out. Let me see if I can squeeze out a sympathetic tear.


Nope. Squeezed out something else instead. ;)

But don't you see? We will eventually take most or all of our troops out because that is the will of the people. But we aren't going to just abandon Iraq, so that that means we would increase the pressure on those poor Blackwater folk. :(

Blackwater is a mercenary company. As such, they are not controlled by the government and can leave whenever they like.

Blackwater is a mercenary company. As such, they are not controlled by the government and can leave whenever they like.

They'd have to cancel their massive contract with the State department to do it, but other than that, yeah.

They'd have to cancel their massive contract with the State department to do it, but other than that, yeah.

At the very least they can't just arbitrarily extend the contracts of their personnel....

If Bush were being held accountable, he'd be impeached by now.

Touche.

The Democrats in Congress has proposed a new spending bill, which will fund the war from now to July, at which point, President Bush will have to report on the progress to Congress. I'd have to be honest and say, that I actually support the Democrats on this, I mean this is a much better bill than the last one, at least it can still give Bush the funds he needs and make him accountable. Thats is what this bill is all about, accountability, Bush has to be accountable to the American public, to the Iraqi civilians, and to their government, and he has to be accountable to the arm forces that are fighting his war. We tried running the war with a blank check, and looked where it got us, it got us into a Quagmire (giggity) and its time for a change on how we fight this war. At some point we're going to have to pull out and let Iraq either stand or fall. We can't be there forever, and it's time Bush realized that and I think thats what the Democrats are doing with the new spending bill. So, go donkey, ass, or mule whatever that is.

And as much as I want Bush to veto this bill, I will agree to the bill myself.

Hindsight is 20/20.

That the Iraq was badly mismanaged, that WMDs were not actually present in any significant quantity, that intelligence linking Saddam and terrorists may or may not have been true (Russian intelligence reported Saddam getting ideas from 9/11 and wanting to train terrorists to use similar tactics to hurt the US – now put that in context of being just after 9/11 and I think it is fairly understandable that people were freaked).

Knowing what we know now is not a basis for making judgment calls on whether or not to invade Iraq.

That being said, whether or not you think it was a bad idea is completely irrelevant and has been for more than 4 years. Denying funding for the war now has absolutely nothing – let me reiterate that in case you are having trouble with it – it has nothing to do with whether or not you felt going in was a bad idea or that it was mismanaged.

The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq right now. Troops are actually there, this is not some planning stage, we have been in the shit for years now so it’s a bit late to be yammering on about ‘shouldn’t have been there, was a mistake to go in, etc. etc.’.

You cannot simply pull the troops out and pretend it never happened – the real world does not work like that. Pretending it doesn’t exist is not going to work. We are in Iraq. Do not try to close the barn doors after the horse has left, lived a good life out in the fields, and died of old age. Deal with reality and the facts on the ground.

Think, not just spout protester chants, but actually use critical thinking and logic. Think for yourself about this – what would be the effect if we just pulled the troops out now?

That is the issue at hand – not WMD, not bad choices by Rumsfeld, not whether or not we should have waited for UN to do anything (which it never does anyway). The point is the reality on the ground right now.

No matter how much you may want to bitch about how we got into this situation, and I think just about everyone agrees it is a bad situation, we have to deal with how things actually are.

Cutting funding for the war is not a good idea. It is myopic in the extreme.
Pacifying a nation is a very long process – the minute attention spans of the ignorant masses want everything done and finished right away, but the world doesn’t work like that. It will take years – especially since there was such mismanagement and so many bad decisions – before Iraq is sufficiently stable. Do none of you remember why Afghanistan became the way it did? Do you really want to leave Iraq like that?

What do you think that will do to the region? How will that affect geopolitics in the next 10 years? The next 20? ‘Bring the troops home’ might make a good soundbyte beloved of the people, but it is not a solution to the realities of the world.

Hindsight is 20/20.

We are angry at Bush because of his lack of Foresight before the Iraq War.

That is the issue at hand – not WMD, not bad choices by Rumsfeld, not whether or not we should have waited for UN to do anything (which it never does anyway). The point is the reality on the ground right now.

No matter how much you may want to bitch about how we got into this situation, and I think just about everyone agrees it is a bad situation, we have to deal with how things actually are.

What's wrong with bitching about it? We were misled into this war, and in Athens that was punishable by revoking your citizenship, being stripped from office, and exiled from the country.

The war is still being poorly managed because the fact of the matter is: Bush and his administration of appointed yes men suck. They couldn't lead a tiger out of a bengel cage. (I don't know what that means exactly but the point should still be understood.)

I'm just happy he's accountable for some kind of progress now.

Hindsight is 20/20.


Where the fuck do you get off trying to say that it's 'hindsight'?

It's not hindsight if we've been screaming it at the top of our fucking lungs since the beginning.

Just because you didn't listen doesn't mean it's hindsight.

It's time to give the people that have been wrong at every fucking turn the boot and maybe listen to the people who have been right for a change.

The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq right now. Troops are actually there, this is not some planning stage, we have been in the shit for years now so it’s a bit late to be yammering on about ‘shouldn’t have been there, was a mistake to go in, etc. etc.’.
Thanks for your insight, Cpt Obvious!
The Democrats are trying to fund the war with stipulations, Bush is being a dick and demands a blank cheque to do whatever the fuck he wants with. We are trying to remove the troops or at the very least get them back to a healthy schedule of duty and breaks.

You cannot simply pull the troops out
Can't we? Nothing is going to change unless we leave them there until all the factions of Islam sit around and sing fuckin' kum-bi-ya and everyone decides to have a marshmallow roast with the Kurdish people. We can keep them there for 10 months or 10 years, what is going to change? Jack shit other than they become completely reliant on us and continue dicking around.

Deal with reality and the facts on the ground.
You should try that yourself. Pretending the past didn't happen isn't as bad as pretending the present and future is going to turn into sunshine and roses and people are going to skip down the lane into a cartoon sunset.

Think for yourself about this – what would be the effect if we just pulled the troops out now?
Let's see. Radicalization of the people into all out civil war. Takeover of the government by the Shi'ite majority and oppression of the Bathists and Sunnis. Alignment of the Shia government with Iran.. Wait a minute.. All that has already happened besides the official alignment with Iran.