NationStates Jolt Archive

Dems Prepare Yet Another Blank Check for Wars
November 5, 2007
Democratic leaders in Congress are quietly preparing to give President Bush essentially everything he wants to keep the Iraq war going for at least another six months without forcing any change in course.

Swept into power on the votes of war-weary Americans last year, Congressional Democrats have so far failed in all their attempts to curtail Bush's war efforts. As they consider the president's latest request for $200 billion in supplementary war funding party leaders have pledged not to hand over another "blank check."

But, as Roll Call reports, a "blank check" is exactly what appears headed for the Pentagon.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Blank_check_seen_headed_Bushs_way_1105.html

LOL ... so pathetic.
All this reminds me of my old sig.. with the DailyShow Youtube clip.

Failure on the part of the American government. Well I am shocked and horrified, shocked and horrified.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Blank_check_seen_headed_Bushs_way_1105.html

LOL ... so pathetic.
All this reminds me of my old sig.. with the DailyShow Youtube clip.

Yes.

Even on this forum there are (supposedly intelligent) people who say things like 'voting against war spending, is voting against the troops'.

I wish the Dems would stand-up. But they just don't have the manpower to FORCE anything. And so they are caught between rock and hard place. Maybe they should stand up and try to block the spending anyway, like Republicans did with Clinton... but we've seen the fickle nature of the US voter on that kind of thing. (I mean, seriously... voting against a candidate because of perceived 'flip-flopping'? WTF? Like sticking to bad courses would be laudable?)

Good. Things are beginning to come together there in Iraq and now the Dems are caught. Good!

And another thing...they were swept into power because of corruption and scandles of the Republican Party and not the war.

Good. Things are beginning to come together there in Iraq and now the Dems are caught. Good!

And another thing...they were swept into power because of corruption and scandles of the Republican Party and not the war.

Right, because there's no way that both of those had a large impact, and people are happy with the war anyway. :rolleyes:

Maybe if you'd stop blindly accepting everything Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity says, you'd get some sensible ideas.

Right, because there's no way that both of those had a large impact, and people are happy with the war anyway. :rolleyes:

Considering that conservatives stayed home in 2006 also had nothing to do with the Dems getting into power either. I did not say that the war was not a reason did I? No. I said it was not the main reason.

Maybe if you'd stop blindly accepting everything Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity says, you'd get some sensible ideas.

I do not watch Bill O'Reilly. I do not read Ann Coulter! And I do not listen to Sean Hannity.

I did not say that the war was not a reason did I?


they were swept into power because of corruption and scandles of the Republican Party and not the war.

Yes, you did.

No. I said it was not the main reason.

they were swept into power because of corruption and scandles of the Republican Party and not the war.

No, you did not.

Yes, you did.





No, you did not.

"What I said was true. From a certain point of view" Jedi Master Kenobi

Good. Things are beginning to come together there in Iraq and now the Dems are caught. Good!

And another thing...they were swept into power because of corruption and scandles of the Republican Party and not the war.

Actually, I would turn that around. They were swept into power because of the war, not because of the corruption and scandals(Which helped alot, yes, but the main draw was anti-war). Of course, it was blatantly obvious they wouldn't do anything about the war, even before the election, but that's another story all together.

Failure on the part of the American government. Well I am shocked and horrified, shocked and horrified.

Yeah! Well I'm shocked and APPALLED!

Failure on the part of the American government. Well I am shocked and horrified, shocked and horrified.

No really? Shocking! ;)

"What I said was true. From a certain point of view" Jedi Master Kenobi

Am I supposed to forget about it all now and let you go on your way?

Nice try with the hocus pocus but really; how now brown cow?

The American public is sick and tired of partisan bickering, they voted to change that in the November elections and what they got was more of the same and in some cases, even worse.

Hence 11% approval ratings for Congress, the lowest in the history of polling congressional approval.
...
And then there are the Democrats in the Congress. What a bunch of losers, hiding behind the fact that it takes 60 votes to override a presidential veto. So what? So pass a law and make Bush veto it. Make him veto something every single day. Drive the guy crazy. What have you got to lose? And meanwhile what have you done? You’ve voted for the surge, you’ve voted to authorize a war against Iran, and you’re about to vote in favor of an attorney general-designate who refuses to call waterboarding torture.

For some, that 11% isn’t low enough, it seems.its worth repeating: 11% the lowest in the history of polling congressional approval.

its worth repeating: 11% the lowest in the history of polling congressional approval.

If the leadership is not careful, they too will find themselves out of power.

The Dems are worthless, they are just paving the way for a war with Iran.

If the leadership is not careful, they too will find themselves out of power.the way see it, they are already out, I dont think NancyPelosi/HarryReid are going to be reelected..

if they are re-elected then I would never vote Democrat again.. ever.

the way see it, they are already out, I dont think NancyPelosi/HarryReid are going to be reelected..

if they are re-elected then I would never vote Democrat again.. ever.

I'm never voting dem again, anyways.

Long live the green party!

the way see it, they are already out, I dont think NancyPelosi/HarryReid are going to be reelected..

if they are re-elected then I would never vote Democrat again.. ever....

except if Colbert of Jon Stewart decide to run as Democrats.. of course. :cool:

The Dems are worthless, they are just paving the way for a war with Iran.

Which will not occur unless Iran starts it.

Which will not occur unless Iran starts it.If there is war.. its 99.99% likely to be started by US or Israel.

the way see it, they are already out, I dont think NancyPelosi/HarryReid are going to be reelected..

if they are re-elected then I would never vote Democrat again.. ever.

Pelosi probably will get re-elected. She is from San Fran you know. As to Reid...I think he is up in 2010. I'm not sure on that though.

If there is war.. its 99.99% likely to be started by US or Israel.

Doubtful.

Doubtful.Its most likely going to be an attack/bombing on some nuclear research facilities, an undeniable act of War against Iran.

Its most likely going to be an attack/bombing on some nuclear research facilities, an undeniable act of War against Iran.


I think it will start with air raids from the US on Revolutionary Guard forces. And then spec. ops will go on and sabotage things, and that will draw the US into a big war with iran, and boom goes the dynamite!

Doubtful.
If they can attack Iraq, a sovereign nation, then it isn't so much of a jump to Iran, albeit that the US doesn't have the troops to occupy any tactical gains because of lack of troops - they would need a general draft or conscription to do so, also something which is not going to happen.

I do not watch Bill O'Reilly. I do not read Ann Coulter! And I do not listen to Sean Hannity.

But you do love war. Don't think I've forgotten how you used to advocate smashing Iraq based on flimsy evidence that even an uneducated bum couldn't see through.

Yes, the democrats are the only members of Congress supporting this bill, and there are no republicans which support it, and there are no democrats against it, so yes, the democrats are preparing yet another blank check. Because Congress is only made of of democrats which support such measures.

:rolleyes:

How about "CONGRESS quietly prepares..."? Keep your partisan trolling to yourself.

But you do love war. Don't think I've forgotten how you used to advocate smashing Iraq based on flimsy evidence that even an uneducated bum couldn't see through.

Actually no I do not love war. Never have but once my nation is engaged, I will support the troops who are there fighting and will oppose any who wants to see that funding cut off.

Actually no I do not love war. Never have but once my nation is engaged, I will support the troops who are there fighting and will oppose any who wants to see that funding cut off.

Oh yes, fighting there forever. Until some vague, ill defined goal as tangible as flying castles is achieved based on the nebulous, simplistic view that if you smack it hard enough, you can make a round peg fit in a square hole. Like that's an improvement.

You still love war.

Actually no I do not love war. Never have but once my nation is engaged, I will support the troops who are there fighting and will oppose any who wants to see that funding cut off.

Support them by bringing them home. Throwing more and more of them into a quagmire and slaughtering them needlessly is hardly "supporting" them. The people who advocate the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq are the ones who truly "support the troops."

Support them by bringing them home. Throwing more and more of them into a quagmire and slaughtering them needlessly is hardly "supporting" them. The people who advocate the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq are the ones who truly "support the troops."

And you know what will happen if we withdraw all troops immediately?

And on that note, I guess I can point out that violence is actually dropping? Of course, this could be a calm before a big storm but one never knows.

Guys Corneliu is right! Supporting troops means sending them to die! Ingenious!

And you know what will happen if we withdraw all troops immediately?

Yup. The bloodshed and internal strife will continue. So what? That will happen even if we stay.

Yup. The bloodshed and internal strife will continue. So what? That will happen even if we stay.

I see you have not kept up with the latest news. You do know that the violence is dropping right?

I see you have not kept up with the latest news. You do know that the violence is dropping right?

Duly noted. You also know that the safest areas of Iraq are the areas with the smallest presence of U.S. troops? Or that our very presence is the catalyst for much of this bloodshed? Do you really think al Qaeda and all the other foreign terrorists in Iraq would remain if the "infidels" packed up and left?

Do you really think al Qaeda and all the other foreign terrorists in Iraq would remain if the "infidels" packed up and left?

Actually...yes they will. Why? I'm sure you can fathom the answer.

Duly noted. You also know that the safest areas of Iraq are the areas with the smallest presence of U.S. troops? Or that our very presence is the catalyst for much of this bloodshed? Do you really think al Qaeda and all the other foreign terrorists in Iraq would remain if the "infidels" packed up and left?

To be fair, that alone isn't enough to imply that it's the troops' presence that causes the increased violence in said areas-- it is quite sensible to say that they deploy more troops to areas with more violence.

Now, I don't support this war because it was a dumb idea in the first place and we've already wasted far too many lives on said dumb idea, but I can't stand it when people think that correlation implies causation, so I had to point it out.

Actually...yes they will. Why? I'm sure you can fathom the answer.

What is the answer?

Edit: I'm not being facetious. I'm honestly curious.

To be fair, that alone isn't enough to imply that it's the troops' presence that causes the increased violence in said areas-- it is quite sensible to say that they deploy more troops to areas with more violence.

Now, I don't support this war because it was a dumb idea in the first place and we've already wasted far too many lives on said dumb idea, but I can't stand it when people think that correlation implies causation, so I had to point it out.

Fair enough.

Well said.

I see you have not kept up with the latest news. You do know that the violence is dropping right?

Quite right, after all, US casualties in 2007 were at an all time low (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ex=1352091600&en=343f92236662e2a5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

No...wait...

Quite right, after all, US casualties in 2007 were at an all time low (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ex=1352091600&en=343f92236662e2a5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

No...wait...

Violence is dropping in Iraq. That much is for sure.

Violence is dropping in Iraq. That much is for sure.

and yet, more american troops died in 2007 than any other year since the war began. And we still have 2 months to go. The war has been averaging 69 american deaths a month, that's slightly over 2 a day. 6 died yesterday

One hell of a drop.

Corneliu for someone so obcessed with terrorism, you know very little. al Qaeda was all but destroyed in Afghanistan and is hiding in Waziristan or thereabouts without much communication with the outside world. Because of 9/11 and the hysteria surrounding al Qaeda and the 'international terrorist threat' created by Bush, al Qaeda was made into a global name, so Islamists, nationalists in the Muslim world have kinda adopted al Qaeda like a franchise because it's so well known and would inspire anti-Americans. For example the group in Somalia renamed itself 'al Qaeda in Somalia', as did some Islamic group in Algeria, and the same for Iraq.

'al Qaeda in Iraq' is not the same al Qaeda that caused 9/11, they are actually mostly a bunch of sacked former Baathist civil servants, soldiers and the party officials, as a Iraqi official recently said, 'the insurgency is alternate employment'. Because of the massive privatisation neocon agenda in Iraq, the state jobs have disappeared and these young men (over 400,000 former soldiers etc) have nothing to do. 'al Qaeda in Iraq' of course feeds into the perception of an international hierarchical organization which plainly doesn't exist, mostly it's just local groups fighting over local territory and sectarian nationalistic sentiment.

With that in mind, without the US and Coalition forces in Iraq these would probably do what most of Iraq did at the elections: Go to the polls and into politics, this may seems funny to you but just look over the world and see the Civil War in which the militias eventually reformed into political groups afterwards. Without US forces their meaning and purpose would be sapped and the recruitment without the occupation would dwindle.

and yet, more american troops died in 2007 than any other year since the war began. And we still have 2 months to go. The war has been averaging 69 american deaths a month, that's slightly over 2 a day. 6 died yesterday

One hell of a drop.

Still better than the casualty rate in both WWII and Vietnam! Anyways....

The troops are still being funded so I have nothing to complain about tonight.

Still better than the casualty rate in both WWII and Vietnam! Anyways....

You know, that um...that doesn't really help your argument any.

You're really...not very good at this, are you?

Still better than the casualty rate in both WWII and Vietnam! Anyways....

The troops are still being funded so I have nothing to complain about tonight.

Nice goalpost shift. Previously, your argument was "violence is dropping" but now it's "well, it's been worse in other wars before..."

Still better than the casualty rate in both WWII and Vietnam! Anyways....

And I'm going to slaughter 5,000,000 Americans. Starting with you. That's 1,000,000 less people than Hitler. So I must be doing good.

Your argument sucks more than a sponge factory in a flood you war junky.

And I'm going to slaughter 5,000,000 Americans. Starting with you. That's 1,000,000 less people than Hitler. So I must be doing good.

Your argument sucks more than a sponge factory in a flood you war junky.

Don't bait, please.

Edit: And Hitler killed far more than 6,000,000. He killed anywhere from 11,000,000 to 26,000,000.

Actually Neo Art Vietnam is a good example because it shows exactly the wrong thinking that Corneliu is engaged in. Fighting a war of attrition may have worked in WWII against governments but it doesn't work fighting the whole populace asymmetrically, the US in Vietnam were fighting an war of attrition - that is in terms of a body count, but this ultimately failed because when you're fighting the whole populace it's not just a matter of knocking off the ruling government and it's armed forces.

I mean towards the end of Vietnam the US logic of attrition was brutal, it led to CIA trained assassins 'destroying VC infrastructure', but that basically meant killing anyone who supported the NFL, tax collectors, those giving food or shelter to them etc. A good example of what the commander who ordered the massacre at Mei Lei said about that he wasn't fighting flesh but the idea of communism, so he had to exterminate everyone. That logic of attrition basically means that you'll end up exterminating the entire population before you win the war. Corneliu just doesn't seem to understand or comprehend asymmetrical warfare. Symmetrical wars are measured in you're tactical gains in territory and you're ability to consolidate these gains, solving asymmetrical wars is only done through political means.

Nice goalpost shift. Previously, your argument was "violence is dropping" but now it's "well, it's been worse in other wars before..."

Actually it was not a goalpost shift at all. I made a statement about casualties is all. The violence is dropping and I hope it continues to drop so that our boys and girls can go home to their families.

solving asymmetrical wars is only done through political means.

There are, fundamentally, two ways to win an asymmetrical war. The first is political and obviously takes comlex and subtle diplomacy.

The second is perhaps most direct. Kill everybody. Or, absent killing everybody, make the prospect of continued fighting so painful that nobody is willing to do it.

The fact that "violence is going down" (which is questionable as, I have noted, 2007 has been the deadliest year) has become a harping sound for the administration, somehow trying to get our confidence up that the "surge" is working. Well of course it's working. Throw enough bodies at something and you'll accomplish something or other.

The problem is we get people like corneliu who look at violence in the streets and try to use the military as a police force. It works, for a time. The problem is it does absolutly nothing to aleviate the reasons for the violence in the first place, it merely pushes it underground. The problem is right now that the US has neither the diplomacy for the first option, nor the willigness (thank god) for the second. So instead we're left with a situation where we are following a policy belief that amounts to "the best way to fight terrorism is to police the streets but do absolutly nothing about the reasons for the violence in the first place"

Because no matter how much the adminstration says that just a little more time, a little more money, a few more dead teenagers and it will all suddenly, mystically, magically all be ok...somehow, it doesn't work that way. It never works that way.

Which leaves us with only two options. Leave, and have the violence spring right back up again, or stay there. Forever. The idea that the violence is just going to drop to some line where the soldiers can leave and not have the situation fall to hell within the course of a week...it's naive in the extreme.

Corneliu of course when you flood problematic areas with troops violence will go down, but as long as the occupation remains and the tensions remain the intentions for violence will remain, and it wouldn't matter if a million Americans were in Iraq, if anything more troops will make it worst.

For once you and I agree.

Corneliu of course when you flood problematic areas with troops violence will go down, but as long as the occupation remains and the tensions remain the intentions for violence will remain, and it wouldn't matter if a million Americans were in Iraq, if anything more troops will make it worst.

The violence is dropping

Then why have more soldiers died in the last 10 months than in any 12 month period? Why have the US deaths yesterday almost three times the daily average?

More people have died in the last year than in any other year. Three times the people died yesterday than on average.

How this fuck is this a drop?

There are, fundamentally, two ways to win an asymmetrical war. The first is political and obviously takes comlex and subtle diplomacy.

The second is perhaps most direct. Kill everybody. Or, absent killing everybody, make the prospect of continued fighting so painful that nobody is willing to do it.

The fact that "violence is going down" (which is questionable as, I have noted, 2007 has been the deadliest year) has become a harping sound for the administration, somehow trying to get our confidence up that the "surge" is working. Well of course it's working. Throw enough bodies at something and you'll accomplish something or other.

The problem is we get people like corneliu who look at violence in the streets and try to use the military as a police force. It works, for a time. The problem is it does absolutly nothing to aleviate the reasons for the violence in the first place, it merely pushes it underground. The problem is right now that the US has neither the diplomacy for the first option, nor the willigness (thank god) for the second. So instead we're left with a situation where we are following a policy belief that amounts to "the best way to fight terrorism is to police the streets but do absolutly nothing about the reasons for the violence in the first place"

Because no matter how much the adminstration says that just a little more time, a little more money, a few more dead teenagers and it will all suddenly, mystically, magically all be ok...somehow, it doesn't work that way. It never works that way.

Which leaves us with only two options. Leave, and have the violence spring right back up again, or stay there. Forever.

Well yeah I believe that was my point, but I agree with you yeah.

Then why have more soldiers died in the last 10 months than in any 12 month period? Why have the US deaths yesterday almost three times the daily average?

More people have died in the last year than in any other year. Three times the people died yesterday than on average.

How this fuck is this a drop?

I know! The violence is dropping. Right on top of the unsuspecting heads of Americans.

:p

I believe Corneliu was referring to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm).

Although, interestingly, the number of insurgent deaths also fell. :p

I believe Corneliu was referring to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm).

Although, interestingly, the number of insurgent deaths also fell. :p
Well I think defining between the 'insurgents' and the Iraqi people as mutually different entities is part of the problem, and fails to understand the problem in all it's complexities.

I believe Corneliu was referring to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm).

Although, interestingly, the number of insurgent deaths also fell. :p

the problem is you can't arbitrarily pick a point of time and call voilence "falling", it's far too up and down for that.

For example, yes a few months had low casualties, but the year overall had a record number. So how can we say with such confidence that "violence is falling"? Sure, we can look at october with relatively few casualties and say violence is falling, or we can look at 2007 with record casualties, and say violence is rising. October may have been a record low month, but 2007 was a record high year. Have things turned around? Or have the last two months merely been aberations in an overal state of rising violence indicative by the casualties of the last year?

What do we make of yesterday, where 3 times the average per day casualties were reported? Is that an aberatant bump in an overall cool down? Or a reflection of an increase in violence after a temporary cooldown?

When you have a record low month in a record high year, coupled with periodic breakouts of high violence, how do you catagorize that? Because despite what folks like corneliu would want to say, a few months of low casualties doesn't mean "violence is dropping" as a general rule, it means deaths were down for a few months, the significance of which is even less, considering even WITH these low violence months, it's still the most deadly year since the war began.

I believe Corneliu was referring to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm).

Although, interestingly, the number of insurgent deaths also fell. :p

And then there is this from CNN:

Monthly death tolls were highest in the first part of the year: 83 deaths in January, 81 in February and 81 in March. Numbers peaked in the next three months, with 104 deaths in April, 126 in May and 101 in June.

The numbers have dropped from that level since -- with 79 in July, 84 in August, 65 in September, 40 in October and 11 so far in November.

Also...civilian deaths have dropped to.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/06/iraq.main/index.html



And then: Iraq war deaths show sharp decline (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.main/index.html?iref=newssearch)

Now that we have gone totally offtopic, which I apologize for, shall we talk about what the dems are doing?

the problem is you can't arbitrarily pick a point of time and call voilence "falling", it's far too up and down for that.

I know, I'm just saying, that's probably what he was referring to.

The Dems are worthless, they are just paving the way for a war with Iran.

For that matter, BOTH parties are worthless. I used to consider myself a Republican, but now I don't trust either of them. The Republicans used to be in favor of reduced government intrusion, but since - in fact I think it's BECAUSE of - 9/11, they've been all for bigger government and less personal privacy, two things I am very much AGAINST, per se.

I don't mind the government trying to fight terrorism and terrorists, as long as they don't expand their definition of "terrorists" to mean "any person of ANY religious faith", or "anybody who goes to any church/shrine/temple/mosque/whatever that is not part of a 'convention', or that is not 'registered'", because I still believe in religious freedom too.

But domestic spying, unwarranted wiretapping, and e-mail snooping are just WAY too much, and are NOT necessary to protect our country from terrorists.

Corneliu that doesn't mean too much, and I wouldn't use arbitrary statistics, which are usually misused to put forward biased povs, as holy writ or anything, if anything it means the Iraqi govt and the militias are keeping to themselves these days, Iraq (and sections of Baghdad) are still entirely under the control of militias.

For that matter, BOTH parties are worthless. I used to consider myself a Republican, but now I don't trust either of them. The Republicans used to be in favor of reduced government intrusion, but since - in fact I think it's BECAUSE of - 9/11, they've been all for bigger government and less personal privacy, two things I am very much AGAINST, per se.

Just like Thomas Jefferson was against big government but expanded its authority when he made the LA Purchase.

And I agree with you about both parties.

If it wasn't 9/11 and Islamic terrorism it would have eventually been something else, governments are always reading to increase their own power and control the commons anyway possible.

If it wasn't 9/11 and Islamic terrorism it would have eventually been something else, governments are always reading to increase their own power and control the commons anyway possible.

Very true.

As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state."

I believe Corneliu was referring to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7021692.stm).

Yes, violence in Iraq varies from month to month, often considerably.

It proves nothing about long-term trends; this has happened before.

Yes, violence in Iraq varies from month to month, often considerably.

It proves nothing about long-term trends; this has happened before.

I know.