NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama Seeks $83B for War Spending in Iraq, Afghanistan

Bush's supplemental spending bills that Obama wasn't going to duplicate?

"President Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/obama-seek-b-war-spending/

You've been watching tonight's Rachel Maddow show, haven't you?

cool story bro

Hmm... Faux news. That's really credible. :rolleyes:

Hmm... Faux news. That's really credible. :rolleyes:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/09/obama.war.funding/index.html?eref=time_world

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8448163

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5386BX20090409

United Press International: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/09/Obama-to-seek-755-billion-for-wars/UPI-64421239322392/

Obama Seeks $83B for War Spending in Iraq, Afghanistan

Bush's supplemental spending bills that Obama wasn't going to duplicate?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/obama-seek-b-war-spending/

If true... it's the first part of Obama's economic policy that like.

If true... it's the first part of Obama's economic policy that like.
Why? I mean, why do you like funding the war by emergency supplemental budget measures rather than any other way?


Disclaimer: I don't like this. They claim they will only do it once. We shall see.

If true... it's the first part of Obama's economic policy that like.

Like it or not - it's a bit of a U-turn.

Disclaimer: I don't like this. They claim they will only do it once. We shall see.

Yes - we won't do it becomes we won't do it twice.

Promise.

The war effort needs to be funded somehow, and since his budget hasn't gone through yet (and Bush never felt the need to include war costs in his budgets) how else is he to do it?

The war effort needs to be funded somehow, and since his budget hasn't gone through yet (and Bush never felt the need to include war costs in his budgets) how else is he to do it?

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to be the end of Supplemental spending?

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to be the end of Supplemental spending?

You still haven't answered my question.

*wars cost money shocker*

The war effort needs to be funded somehow, and since his budget hasn't gone through yet (and Bush never felt the need to include war costs in his budgets) how else is he to do it?
This is true, and it is the basis of their statement that it won't be repeated. On the other hand...power and money...what politician has ever been able to resist either of those, let alone both?

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to be the end of Supplemental spending?
That does not actually address what Dyakovo said.

If, as Dyakovo suggests, the reality of the situation forced them to do this, then what would you have them do? Just stop paying the bills? Leave the troops over there having to forage for themselves because there won't be any food in the mess halls?

With all of the undoing of Bush's "legacy", I do not expect Obama to be able to do it all at once. These things have a lot of people involved in the decision process, a lot of parties involved in the money process, and the legal processes are not always as simple as an executive order. I expect that he will have to continue doing things similar to Bush at least through the first year of his term.

But I still don't like it, and such activities do not instill trust and confidence. I think Obama should be very careful.

I don't see it as any big deal. It's just the reality of the situation. Even if a bring the troops home now candidate had won there'd still have to be a supplementary spending bill to pay for it. It's nothing burger.

Look we are in Iraq, and it will be awhile until we can get out.
Until that time I expect Obama to provide the troops with funding for equipment and the like.
That being said this si exactly what he should have done.

This is true, and it is the basis of their statement that it won't be repeated. On the other hand...power and money...what politician has ever been able to resist either of those, let alone both?


That does not actually address what Dyakovo said.

If, as Dyakovo suggests, the reality of the situation forced them to do this, then what would you have them do? Just stop paying the bills? Leave the troops over there having to forage for themselves because there won't be any food in the mess halls?

With all of the undoing of Bush's "legacy", I do not expect Obama to be able to do it all at once. These things have a lot of people involved in the decision process, a lot of parties involved in the money process, and the legal processes are not always as simple as an executive order. I expect that he will have to continue doing things similar to Bush at least through the first year of his term.

But I still don't like it, and such activities do not instill trust and confidence. I think Obama should be very careful.

I agree, it is not at all comforting. I just do not see it as something which automatically says that he doesn't plan to change the modus operandi for war funding.

Wait you mean Obama wants to fund our troops as long as they're over there? Why did anyone vote for this guy?

I agree, it is not at all comforting. I just do not see it as something which automatically says that he doesn't plan to change the modus operandi for war funding.

The problem is Hillary gave the Easy button to Russia.

The problem is Hillary gave the Easy button to Russia.

lol

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/Budget%202009%20Proposed%20Discretionary%2002102009.jpg

Um, fuck him, much?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/Budget%202009%20Proposed%20Discretionary%2002102009.jpg

Um, fuck him, much?
There are two wars being fought. You don't get to stop paying for them until they are ended, you know. And I have heard that, in fact, Bob Gates, following Obama's orders, has been slashing defense spending left and right, by cutting some of the biggest ticket contractor pet projects. Apparently, those $13billion helicopters are off the table, as is that stealth thing that failed to fly, and a lot of other free gifts with purchase for corporate campaign donors of years past.

And remember, the only reason that is bigger than Bush's military budget is because Bush tried to pay for the wars off the books. Account for the wars, and the recorded budget skyrockets.

A source chosen haphazardly: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30071664/

is bigger than Bush's military budget is because Bush tried to pay for the wars off the books. Account for the wars, and the recorded budget skyrockets.


And then add some more spending, off the books.

There are two wars being fought. You don't get to stop paying for them until they are ended, you know. And I have heard that, in fact, Bob Gates, following Obama's orders, has been slashing defense spending left and right, by cutting some of the biggest ticket contractor pet projects. Apparently, those $13billion helicopters are off the table, as is that stealth thing that failed to fly, and a lot of other free gifts with purchase for corporate campaign donors of years past.

Yes, I read all that in the newspaper. Jolly good. Obama, could, ya know, end those wars.

And remember, the only reason that is bigger than Bush's military budget is because Bush tried to pay for the wars off the books. Account for the wars, and the recorded budget skyrockets.

With all of Bush's stupidity accounted for, Obama is still increasing overall military spending by 4%. I totally expected he would cut it.

You still haven't answered my question.

That's because I'm not the person to answer it - I'm not the one who ran for President, promising no more supplemental spending.

You're asking me to provide explanations to help people avoid buyer's remorse.

That's because I'm not the person to answer it - I'm not the one who ran for President, promising no more supplemental spending.

You're asking me to provide explanations to help people avoid buyer's remorse.
you could show that you have at least a small understanding of the budget process as it has unfolded in the....80? days that mr obama has been president.

for example, is this $83 billion added to the last budget passed or to the one currently proposed?

That's because I'm not the person to answer it - I'm not the one who ran for President, promising no more supplemental spending.

You're asking me to provide explanations to help people avoid buyer's remorse.

No, quite simply you're not answering because you don't have an answer. Mainly because there isn't one. Even were he to immediately start pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan it would still cost an exorbitant amount of money. Money which wasn't allowed for in the last Federal budget.


you could show that you have at least a small understanding of the budget process as it has unfolded in the....80? days that mr obama has been president.

for example, is this $83 billion added to the last budget passed or to the one currently proposed?

Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me. I know the answer to that one...

And then add some more spending, off the books.
You have evidence that Obama is spending off the books? Because this latest thing that I'm not happy about is obviously not off the books.

you could show that you have at least a small understanding of the budget process as it has unfolded in the....80? days that mr obama has been president.

for example, is this $83 billion added to the last budget passed or to the one currently proposed?

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/09/obama-gates-propose-4-increase-in-defense-spending/

Yes, I read all that in the newspaper. Jolly good. Obama, could, ya know, end those wars.
He's working on it. It can't be done by flipping a switch.

With all of Bush's stupidity accounted for, Obama still increased overall military spending by 4%. I totally expected him to cut it.
Then I think you were unrealistic in your expectations.

Also, do you really think it will ever be possible to account for ALL of Bush's stupidity?

Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me. I know the answer to that one...

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/09/obama-gates-propose-4-increase-in-defense-spending/

im not asking you guys. it would surprise me if you didnt understand at least as much as i do about the budget process.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/09/obama-gates-propose-4-increase-in-defense-spending/

And?

im not asking you guys. it would surprise me if you didnt understand at least as much as i do about the budget process.

I never get called on when I know the answer... :( :mad:

This is the song you looking for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkfJ3zMIlO0)

No offense to Seger.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/09/obama-gates-propose-4-increase-in-defense-spending/
have you seen the republicans decrying how gates and obama are GUTTING the defense budget? funny innit?

have you seen the republicans decrying how gates and obama are GUTTING the defense budget? funny innit?
I don't know. The constant haze of irony is starting to make my eyes water.

He's working on it. It can't be done by flipping a switch.

Whenever I look at that pie chart, and think of all the wonderful things Obama could be doing with the money he is wasting on the military, I think "yes, he can flip that switch".


Then I think you were unrealistic in your expectations.

If Tricky Dick could cut defense spending while still fighting in the War in Vietnam, then Obama can cut the spending on his wars. It is over half the discretionary budget.

Also, do you really think it will ever be possible to account for ALL of Bush's stupidity?

:wink:No, just the book-keeping.

*Sniff Sniff* Do I smell Kimchi?

you could show that you have at least a small understanding of the budget process as it has unfolded in the....80? days that mr obama has been president.

for example, is this $83 billion added to the last budget passed or to the one currently proposed?

The 83 million is part of 09. Just like the 66 pre-approved for 09, last year.

I don't know. The constant haze of irony is starting to make my eyes water.
my only consolation is that the public doesnt seem to be buying any of their line of crap.

except for the nutcases who will believe anything that makes the president look bad.

have you seen the republicans decrying how gates and obama are GUTTING the defense budget? funny innit?

It is ass-backward dumb. I constantly hear whining about how Obama is not spending on the military anymore. Hello! he is spending more than Bush did!

Whenever I look at that pie chart, and think of all the wonderful things Obama could be doing with the money he is wasting on the military, I think "yes, he can flip that switch".
Which just shows your ignorance on the subject matter.

I don't know. The constant haze of irony is starting to make my eyes water.
my only consolation is that the public doesnt seem to be buying any of their line of crap.

except for the nutcases who will believe anything that makes the president look bad.

It is ass-backward dumb. I constantly hear whining about how Obama is not spending on the military anymore. Hello! he is spending more than Bush did!

Not exactly, he is budgeting more, rather than keeping the war expenses off the books.

The 83 million is part of 09. Just like the 66 pre-approved for 09, last year.
so whats your problem? do you think the government shouldnt fund the military because of some campaign promise? would you respect a president who did that? i wouldnt.

*Sniff Sniff* Do I smell Kimchi?


Where?

I don't. I picked his scent before those of you vocally claiming you did.

Has his new one been banned already? I missed it if so.. and I also missed puddle.

Put it this way .... If I am here I know who must puppets.. reincarnates are.

But if I skip a few days.. well. I have to then backtrack.

It is ass-backward dumb. I constantly hear whining about how Obama is not spending on the military anymore. Hello! he is spending more than Bush did!
yeah. kinda makes you wonder what staying even would cost us.

No, quite simply you're not answering because you don't have an answer. Mainly because there isn't one. Even were he to immediately start pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan it would still cost an exorbitant amount of money. Money which wasn't allowed for in the last Federal budget.


A: Robert Gates says that there are two choices - this supplemental funding, or immediate withdrawal. So - that is one duck shot down.

B: This funding sends another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan and funds a Pentagon plan to increase the standing army.

The argument that this is needed to maintain the status quo isn't entirely true.

Not exactly, he is budgeting more, rather than keeping the war expenses off the books.

No; Bush's wars led to an increase of over 70% in defense. Even with that accounted for, Obama is increasing military spending.

Which just shows your ignorance on the subject matter.

So you support spending over half of our budget on the military, or just continuing to fight two wars?

yeah. kinda makes you wonder what staying even would cost us.

Do not feel to bad; only idiots can please idiots. Our country generally fails to judge its leaders by their actions: We like to look at political parties, facial features, and speeches.

so whats your problem? do you think the government shouldnt fund the military because of some campaign promise? would you respect a president who did that? i wouldnt.

There will be no lobbyists. Well, okay, there will be some.

There will be total transparency and every item will be individually assessed. Or not.

There will be no more supplemental spending. Well, okay, but maybe just a little one for the road.

If Tricky Dick could cut defense spending while still fighting in the War in Vietnam, then Obama can cut the spending on his wars. It is over half the discretionary budget.


The government is trying to make the army bigger.

So you support spending over half of our budget on the military, or just continuing to fight two wars?

I support continuing to fight one of the wars (Afghanistan), with a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. As to the cost, well the cost is what it is, reducing funding simply makes the jobs of soldiers on the ground more difficult and dangerous.

Although really, its not a matter of what I support, but of what is.

*wars cost money shocker*

Now you going to suggest people die in them?

A: Robert Gates says that there are two choices - this supplemental funding, or immediate withdrawal. So - that is one duck shot down.

B: This funding sends another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan and funds a Pentagon plan to increase the standing army.

The argument that this is needed to maintain the status quo isn't entirely true.
It is if the situation is getting worse. Then they would have to run twice as fast just to stay in one place, i.e. maintain the status quo.

Do not feel to bad; only idiots can please idiots. Our country generally fails to judge its leaders by their actions: We like to look at political parties, facial features, and speeches.

too

know it all.

I support continuing to fight one of the wars (Afghanistan), with a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. As to the cost, well the cost is what it is, reducing funding simply makes the jobs of soldiers on the ground more difficult and dangerous.

Although really, its not a matter of what I support, but of what is.

Why do you support staying in Afghanistan?

I think our soldiers get quite enough funding as it is, speaking as one of them (though I have yet to see combat).

There will be no lobbyists. Well, okay, there will be some.

There will be total transparency and every item will be individually assessed. Or not.

There will be no more supplemental spending. Well, okay, but maybe just a little one for the road.
so reality be damned?

*Sniff Sniff* Do I smell Kimchi?
I just find it amusing that his name is also the name of a logical fallacy.

The government is trying to make the army bigger.

Too...fucking...bad. Nixon also dropped the draft.

It is if the situation is getting worse. Then they would have to run twice as fast just to stay in one place, i.e. maintain the status quo.

Obama needs to appropriate a bigger supplemental war budget, because the circumstances on the ground require more troops, and we need a bigger army.

What happened to "bring them home"?

How far should this increased spending go? The GOP candidate at least laid out an agenda to keep the troops where they were.

There will be no lobbyists. Well, okay, there will be some.

There will be total transparency and every item will be individually assessed. Or not.

There will be no more supplemental spending. Well, okay, but maybe just a little one for the road.
Except, of course that he never said those first two things.

He never said there would be no lobbyists. What he said was that former lobbyists would have to follow strict rules to ban all conflicts of interest, and likewise for people leaving his admin for the private sector.

He never said every single item would individually assessed. He said that he and his teams would be doing that on particular budgets and bills, and that there would be significantly more transparency and accountability than the previous admin demanded or allowed.

So far, judging by the bitching of the lobbies and the amount of angsting everyone is doing over every little thing he does, I would say he is delivering on both of those promises.

Ashmoria and Muravyets. Have they ever said they were wrong?

Pride. One of the worse 'sins'. It really screws with everything.

Don't even try attacking me. It's pointless.

so reality be damned?

If the words spoken on the campaign trail are worth exactly their weight in gold, why vote for one candidate over another? You seem to be finding ways to excuse a lack of accountability.

Obama needs to appropriate a bigger supplemental war budget, because the circumstances on the ground require more troops, and we need a bigger army.

What happened to "bring them home"?

How far should this increased spending go? The GOP candidate at least laid out an agenda to keep the troops where they were.
What happened to "I will listen to the generals in the field?" Did he or did he not say that all of his plans would be amended based on what the generals in command in the theater of war told him once he got into office, but that no matter what, the end goal would be withdrawal of troops and the end of the wars?

Also when did he ever say he would bring the troops home immediately? You must be confusing him with Dennis Kucinich.

Ashmoria and Muravyets. Have they ever said they were wrong?

Pride. One of the worse 'sins'. It really screws with everything.

Don't even try attacking me. It's pointless.
You lose, too. I have said I was wrong, several times in the past, when I have been wrong.

Too...fucking...bad. Nixon also dropped the draft.

Pity we can't have Zombie Nixon.

Ashmoria and Muravyets. Have they ever said they were wrong?

Pride. One of the worse 'sins'. It really screws with everything.

Don't even try attacking me. It's pointless.
ive said muravyets is wrong, does that count?

If the words spoken on the campaign trail are worth exactly their weight in gold, why vote for one candidate over another? You seem to be finding ways to excuse a lack of accountability.
i feel you are being disingenuous.

Ashmoria and Muravyets. Have they ever said they were wrong?

Probably not; though it has been sometime since I, myself, confessed.

Pride. One of the worse 'sins'. It really screws with everything.

It also is the motivator behind some of the world's greatest accomplishments.

Don't even try attacking me. It's pointless.

*assaults viciously*

i feel you are being disingenuous.

You mean this wasn't set up as a "Where's the change Sauron" thread?

Ashmoria and Muravyets. Have they ever said they were wrong?

Pride. One of the worse 'sins'. It really screws with everything.

Don't even try attacking me. It's pointless.
i have been wrong from time to time on here. mostly no one has ever called me on it.

but i seldom post things that im not sure are right.

What happened to "I will listen to the generals in the field?" Did he or did he not say that all of his plans would be amended based on what the generals in command in the theater of war told him once he got into office, but that no matter what, the end goal would be withdrawal of troops and the end of the wars?

Also when did he ever say he would bring the troops home immediately? You must be confusing him with Dennis Kucinich.

Eventually, he said he would amend his plans, yes. So - campaign era revisionism should have simply been taken as a portent of things to come?

If the words spoken on the campaign trail are worth exactly their weight in gold, why vote for one candidate over another? You seem to be finding ways to excuse a lack of accountability.
What lack of accountability? Do we know about this, or don't we? Are we voters and taxpayers with lines of communication to our elected officials and to the media, or aren't we? Hasn't this just happened? What do you expect -- that anytime he crosses a line, he'll just blow up? You want him held accountable for something, then speak up, as is your right as a citizens (assuming you are a US citizen). Otherwise, wait and see what happens before declaring that it hasn't happened.

I think our soldiers get quite enough funding as it is, speaking as one of them (though I have yet to see combat).

Yes, they do. However, if the spending is cut, then they won't be. See how that works?
Military gets $X, funding is satisfactory
Military gets $X-$Y, funding is no longer satisfactory.


Also, I'm inclined to call BS on your claim of being in the military.

You mean this wasn't set up as a "Where's the change Sauron" thread?
it obviously was. but im not convinced that our OP believes anything he is saying.

ive said muravyets is wrong, does that count?
-_- Very cute.

Eventually, he said he would amend his plans, yes. So - campaign era revisionism should have simply been taken as a portent of things to come?
Eventually? From when to when? From what point do you start measuring and how long was it from that point before he said it? Because I heard him say it even before he got the Democratic nomination.

i feel you are being disingenuous.

Expecting a campaigning politician to at least pretend to keep the promises they made? You could call me naive, but disingenuous seems like one extrapolation too far.

Why is questioning whether someone can actually be held to account, and not found wanting - disingenuous?

Yes, they do. However, if the spending is cut, then they won't be. See how that works?
Military gets $X, funding is satisfactory
Military gets $X-$Y, funding is no longer satisfactory.

No. Once again, Nixon cut the defense budget, ended the draft, and still managed to reduce American casualties in Vietnam.


I'm inclined to call BS on your claim of being in the military.

;) I officially joined a few weeks ago, and I report for basic training in May. When I come back, I will TG you some pictures or my unit number if you would like.

You mean this wasn't set up as a "Where's the change Sauron" thread?

it obviously was. but im not convinced that our OP believes anything he is saying.

*presents this thread with the Pie of Sauron*

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/pieofsauron.jpg

Expecting a campaigning politician to at least pretend to keep the promises they made? You could call me naive, but disingenuous seems like one extrapolation too far.

Why is questioning whether someone can actually be held to account, and not found wanting - disingenuous?
because you know that reality dictates just how campaign promises are met. and having the previous administration not budget the military is part of that. as is deciding when and how to withdraw from iraq.

pretending that you are SHOCKED that reality has to be taken into consideration is not worthy of you.

No. Once again, Nixon cut the defense budget, ended the draft, and still managed to reduce American casualties in Vietnam.




;) I officially joined a few weeks ago, and I report for basic training in May. When I come back, I will TG you some pictures or my unit number if you would like.
you joined the military? what branch? why? had you been planning this for a long time?

Ash, Mura .. I was sorta teasing. But you are .. know it alls. Smunkee too and Bottle!

It's weird .. I agree with most of what you say but something annoys me. I think Sinuhue said the same about Jocobia once. I get it now.

What lack of accountability? Do we know about this, or don't we? Are we voters and taxpayers with lines of communication to our elected officials and to the media, or aren't we? Hasn't this just happened? What do you expect -- that anytime he crosses a line, he'll just blow up? You want him held accountable for something, then speak up, as is your right as a citizens (assuming you are a US citizen). Otherwise, wait and see what happens before declaring that it hasn't happened.

The official request was sent early Thursday evening. Does that count as 'just happened'?

When you say "wait and see what happens", do you mean wait and see if his own party lets him do it? Is that really enough? A President who has to be kept in check?

Pity we can't have Zombie Nixon.

Why settle for Zombie Nixon when you can go for the Full Upgrade?

http://fashionablygeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/robot-nixon.jpg

No. Once again, Nixon cut the defense budget, ended the draft, and still managed to reduce American casualties in Vietnam.
By changing operational attitudes and actions. Money had been being wasted on operations that had been shown to be ineffectual (primarily due to political limitations). This, on the other hand is a different situation, for the most part the military has not been hampered by non-sensical limitations on operational range.
;) I officially joined a few weeks ago, and I report for basic training in May. When I come back, I will TG you some pictures or my unit number if you would like.
So you're not in the military. At least not yet.

you joined the military?

Yes.

what branch?

Army.

why?

To help the United States in the wars abroad.

had you been planning this for a long time?

I had been thinking about it, though not seriously, for years. About 4 1/2 months ago I made-up my mind. I have been going through the process with my recruiter for about 2 1/2 months.

Ash, Mura .. I was sorta teasing. But you are .. know it alls. Smunkee too and Bottle!

It's weird .. I agree with most of what you say but something annoys me. I think Sinuhue said the same about Jocobia once. I get it now.
you want me to be wrong?

Yes.



Army.



To help the United States in the wars abroad.



I had been thinking about it, though not seriously, for years. About 4 1/2 months ago I made-up my mind. I have been going through the process with my recruiter for about 2 1/2 months.

What's your intended MOS?

Yes.



Army.



To help the United States in the wars abroad.



I had been thinking about it, though not seriously, for years. About 4 1/2 months ago I made-up my mind. I have been going through the process with my recruiter for about 2 1/2 months.
geez now i am going to have to stick you into a whole different pigeonhole.

good luck with it....less than a month before basic?

you want me to be wrong?



no... of course not

By changing operational attitudes and actions. Money had been being wasted on operations that had been shown to be ineffectual (primarily due to political limitations). This, on the other hand is a different situation, for the most part the military has not been hampered by non-sensical limitations on operational range.

Mmm. You still failed to address my question of why you support the War in Afghanistan.

So you're not in the military. At least not yet.

According to them I am. I signed my contract, took the oath, I have to address fellow members of the army correctly, I have to shave, my hair has to be above the ears, I just got my I.D., I am attending pre-basic training.

What's your intended MOS?

Infantry--though I might try artillery latter, which they said I could when my contract expired.

What's your MOS?

Hey! When someone asks .. What's your MO. Is that Motive of Operation or Means of Opposing?

Obama, could, ya know, end those wars.


What, by pretending there aren't any troops in either theater and blocking all their calls? Unless you're talking about a full scale evacuation that abandons hardware, and fuck the two countries you wrecked, a withdrawal will take time, which will cost money to maintain until they return.

Being president let's you do a lot, but it doesn't mean having a magic wand that can make everything go your way while disregarding realities on the ground.

geez now i am going to have to stick you into a whole different pigeonhole.

I am not a very pigeonhole-able person.

good luck with it....less than a month before basic?

32 days, actually, to be precise. I am working on being promoted to the next Private class before I even leave, which my recruiter says is possible.

Mmm. You still failed to address my question of why you support the War in Afghanistan.
True
According to them I am. I signed my contract, took the oath, I have to address fellow members of the army correctly, I have to shave, my hair has to be above the ears, I just got my I.D., I am attending pre-basic training.
OK, so strictly speaking you are in, however from my POV, with not having completed boot (or even started for that matter) you are not in the military.

Also, Pre-basic? What the hell is that? :confused: You'll have to pardon my ignorance on this one as it's been over 20 years since I joined.

True

I would be happy if you did so.

OK, so strictly speaking you are in, however from my POV, with not having completed boot (or even started for that matter) you are not in the military.

As you wish.

Also, Pre-basic? What the hell is that? :confused: You'll have to pardon my ignorance on this one as it's been over 20 years since I joined.

Future Soldiers Training Program?

Infantry--though I might try artillery latter, which they said I could when my contract expired.

You can change MOS, theoretically, six months into service. Good luck; when I went through 11B OSUT it was thirteen weeks, IIRC it's now sixteen weeks (eighteen for 11C). It's not that bad. I suffered from back problems (kyphosis) and left the Army after I graduated OSUT ("left" is an understatement, but let's not get into that :) ). Regardless, I'd suggest to work on your pull-ups above everything else (assuming you're not already a PT stud); we had to do pull-ups before chow (three times a day). The push-ups and sit-ups and all of that gets easy once you start getting smoked. You'll have a lot of weak people in the beginning to blue falcon you during smokings, so you'll get enough exercise. I would recommend working on running, but the week at 30th AG is going to be absolute hell (boring and you're not going to be able to exercise at all).

Don't be a dick and try to be a drill private, either. I hated those type of people. After you come back from your 36-hour pass (after the 9 weeks of "basic"... basically, a transition to the AIT part of OSUT) your DS' will be relatively nicer, as well (although they'll still be assholes). And, they will catch you making the mistakes you got away with in the first nine weeks (to give you an idea, my platoon went from fifty-two people the first day to around twenty-five by the end of my basic training, including replacements). Replacements are just people who are recycled (from their last week; who couldn't pass their PT test) or split-ops, et cetera. My platoon got one E-5, who came from supply, and one E-6 who came from military police, too.

I am not a very pigeonhole-able person.



32 days, actually, to be precise. I am working on being promoted to the next Private class before I even leave, which my recruiter says is possible.
well i have now pigeonholed you as someone who will do well in the army.

where do you go for basic?

32 days, actually, to be precise. I am working on being promoted to the next Private class before I even leave, which my recruiter says is possible.

Yea, learn the NATO alphabet... learn how to do basic marching... ranks... soldier's creed... and you're pretty much set. I got E-2 with my college credits, and then E-3 doing that test (the first thing I described). Just make sure to bug your recruiter about it; my friend never reminded his recruiter, and ultimately got dicked out. Nevertheless, he's now an E-4 and he's only been in for about a year and a half (a little bit more, actually); he went in as a E-1. But, if you go in as a E-3 as 11B you have a good chance of hitting E-5 in under two years.

Infantry--though I might try artillery latter, which they said I could when my contract expired.

Wow, my opinion of your intelligence just went down a bit... You actually chose Infantry? :p

BTW I was a 0331 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/0331new.htm) in the Marines, so not much of one to talk

You can change MOS, theoretically, six months into service. Good luck; when I went through 11B OSUT it was thirteen weeks, IIRC it's now sixteen weeks (eighteen for 11C). It's not that bad. I suffered from back problems (kyphosis) and left the Army after I graduated OSUT ("left" is an understatement, but let's not get into that :) ). Regardless, I'd suggest to work on your pull-ups above everything else (assuming you're not already a PT stud); we had to do pull-ups before chow (three times a day). The push-ups and sit-ups and all of that gets easy once you start getting smoked. You'll have a lot of weak people in the beginning to blue falcon you during smokings, so you'll get enough exercise. I would recommend working on running, but the week at 30th AG is going to be absolute hell (boring and you're not going to be able to exercise at all).

Don't be a dick and try to be a drill private, either. I hated those type of people. After you come back from your 36-hour pass (after the 9 weeks of "basic"... basically, a transition to the AIT part of OSUT) your DS' will be relatively nicer, as well (although they'll still be assholes). And, they will catch you making the mistakes you got away with in the first nine weeks (to give you an idea, my platoon went from fifty-two people the first day to around twenty-five by the end of my basic training, including replacements). Replacements are just people who are recycled (from their last week; who couldn't pass their PT test) or split-ops, et cetera. My platoon got one E-5, who came from supply, and one E-6 who came from military police, too.

I will refrain from dick-ish behaviour. And no, my PT sucks. I am running and doing a few hundred push-ups, and a few dozen pull-ups (obviously not all at once) every day to shape-up.

Wow, my opinion of your intelligence just went down a bit... You actually chose Infantry? :p

Hey, the most intelligent guy I met at MEPS was joining the infantry. We discussed Hume, Kant, HHGTTG, 2001: A Space Odyssey, relative morality, and so much more.

BTW I was a 0331 (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjo2/a/0331new.htm) in the Marines, so not much of one to talk

Many recommended I join the Air Force. Most that I talked to expressed utter disgust at my having anything to do with the military.

I would be happy if you did so.
In part because the reasons out forth for us going there were not BS. The taliban did support (and for a while were sheltering) Bin Laden.
Future Soldiers Training Program?
Didn't exist 20 years ago...
What does it entail? I'm thinking some PT also learning military terminology and some drill?

I will refrain from dick-ish behaviour. And no, my PT sucks. I am running and doing a few hundred push-ups, and a few dozen pull-ups (obviously not all at once) every day to shape-up.

The best thing I did was test myself at night, in the barracks. I would do the two minutes for push-ups and the two minutes for sit-ups. I started basic doing 20 correct push-ups, and left doing 73. My goal was to improve by ten every week, and it worked. For sit-ups, if you can't get your battle buddy to hold your feet, you can use the locker door. You can use the bunk beds to do military presses too.

I was in Easy 2-19 (because, it's too damn easy to do what you're told, private), Alpha company (2nd platoon).

What, by pretending there aren't any troops in either theater and blocking all their calls? Unless you're talking about a full scale evacuation that abandons hardware, and fuck the two countries you wrecked, a withdrawal will take time, which will cost money to maintain until they return.

Being president let's you do a lot, but it doesn't mean having a magic wand that can make everything go your way while disregarding realities on the ground.

He could at least start withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Hey! When someone asks .. What's your MO. Is that Motive of Operation or Means of Opposing?

In all candor, I am not certain. Probably the former.

What does it entail? I'm thinking some PT also learning military terminology and some drill?

A lot of people hate me for this, but I did about one week of drill at the beginning of my OSUT... and it was drill while waiting for chow. My senior DS did four weeks of army combatives, instead of drill.

Hey, the most intelligent guy I met at MEPS was joining the infantry. We discussed Hume, Kant, HHGTTG, 2001: A Space Odyssey, relative morality, and so much more.
Considering the fact that I was a machinegunner in the Marines, you can be safe in assuming that I am kidding. Although it is a little unusaul for people to chose Infantry, generally if someone enlists and 'chooses' infantry it is because their asvabs weren't high enough for anything else.
Many recommended I join the Air Force. Most that I talked to expressed utter disgust at my having anything to do with the military.
Well, I don't think much of the Air Force, their basic training strikes me as rather lax.

Considering the fact that I was a machinegunner in the Marines, you can be safe in assuming that I am kidding. Although it is a little unusaul for people to chose Infantry, generally if someone enlists and 'chooses' infantry it is because their asvabs weren't high enough for anything else.

I was qualified for every field. I pondered Intelligence Analysis for some time.

Well, I don't think much of the Air Force, their basic training strikes me as rather lax.

Cushy branch.

Considering the fact that I was a machinegunner in the Marines, you can be safe in assuming that I am kidding. Although it is a little unusaul for people to chose Infantry, generally if someone enlists and 'chooses' infantry it is because their asvabs weren't high enough for anything else.

I got a 91 on my ASVAB. Then I again, I was 18X (although, even had I stayed in the Army I wouldn't have made the program... I would have just reverted to 11B). But, yea, generally the people in my platoon had like 30s and 40s.

In part because the reasons out forth for us going there were not BS. The taliban did support (and for a while were sheltering) Bin Laden.

But think of the cost.

Didn't exist 20 years ago...
What does it entail? I'm thinking some PT also learning military terminology and some drill?

Pretty much.

But think of the cost.
To me it is worth it, assuming that we can break the taliban's power in the region. Something which we could have done quite a while ago if Bush hadn't decided that we needed to depose Saddam. Also if we hadn't been distracted by invading Iraq, I feel the chances of us capturing/killing Bin Laden would have been pretty good, and that would have likely been a telling blow to Al-Queda.
Pretty much.
Okay, thinking back the marines did have something similar, my recruiter didn't feel it was necessary for me to take part, considering the fact that I was coming to the Marines from the national guard.

To me it is worth it, assuming that we can break the taliban's power in the region. Something which we could have done quite a while ago if Bush hadn't decided that we needed to depose Saddam. Also if we hadn't been distracted by invading Iraq, I feel the chances of us capturing/killing Bin Laden would have been pretty good, and that would have likely been a telling blow to Al-Queda.

I agree that Iraq was cocked-up; I still believe we could have managed Afghanistan without quite so much an increase in spending,

Okay, thinking back the marines did have something similar, my recruiter didn't feel it was necessary for me to take part, considering the fact that I was coming to the Marines from the national guard.

Either way, it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3BthgYwbIU

I agree that Iraq was cocked-up; I still believe we could have managed Afghanistan without quite so much an increase in spending
I f we weren't also in Iraq, yes we most likely could. However, we are in Iraq and in my opinion should stay there a bit longer to try to ensure that the Iraqi government is prepared to fend for itself once we do leave (We made the mess, we should help clean it up).

He could at least start withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Which is actually less stable than Iraq. Bush fucked up big time. Since we can't legally make him clean up the mess on his own, it falls on his successor to do the cleaning up. I don't like that it's come to this, but the last time you guys cut and ran from your messes, it only left a bigger mess in the stewing.

Change we can believe in huh, lol.

Which is actually less stable than Iraq. Bush fucked up big time. Since we can't legally make him clean up the mess on his own, it falls on his successor to do the cleaning up. I don't like that it's come to this, but the last time you guys cut and ran from your messes, it only left a bigger mess in the stewing.

I doubt a "mess" would result. The Taliban would quickly assume the power they had previously to our invasion.

Vietnam?

Ash, Mura .. I was sorta teasing. But you are .. know it alls. Smunkee too and Bottle!

It's weird .. I agree with most of what you say but something annoys me. I think Sinuhue said the same about Jocobia once. I get it now.

Sorry. It's kinda hard not to come off as a know-it-all when one does, in fact, Know. It. All.

;)

The official request was sent early Thursday evening. Does that count as 'just happened'?
Yes.

When you say "wait and see what happens", do you mean wait and see if his own party lets him do it? Is that really enough? A President who has to be kept in check?

No, I mean wait and see what else emerges as the matter is reviewed in Congress and hashed over in the media.

And as for a president that needs to be kept in check -- hey, funny thing! Look at this, right here in the US government, there's this thing -- they call it "checks and balances". Wow! It's almost as if there are checks on the president. There are also checks on the Congress and the judiciary. Holy shit, will ya look at that. It's like, a little more than 200 years ago, some guys got together and put together a government that included the assumption that nobody gets through a month without having what they do checked over and approved or disapproved by someone else who doesn't work for them. Hm. Go figure.

He could at least start withdrawing from Afghanistan.

So, you would like him to abandon the arguably legitimate war and leave that entire region to become once again a home base for our official and self-avowed enemies, while slowing easing out of the completely illegitimate and illegal war over a longer period of time? Well, that makes sense. You'll do well in the Army. /sarcasm

(By the way, good luck with your service.)

Change we can believe in huh, lol.

Wouldn't a pro-war conservative such as yourself like the fact that more money is being invested into war?

Thank you for this thread title, I will now spend the rest of my day hearing Bob Seger singing in the back of my mind...

Wouldn't a pro-war conservative such as yourself like the fact that more money is being invested into war?

No, because a dirty liberlol (misspelled like that on purpose) is doing it.

Change we can believe in huh, lol.

I do have to take exception to this - you have to allow that the 'staying the same' is at least less than it would have been if the election had gone the other way.

Which makes the 'change we can believe in' joke weak tea, really.

And as for a president that needs to be kept in check -- hey, funny thing! Look at this, right here in the US government, there's this thing -- they call it "checks and balances". Wow! It's almost as if there are checks on the president. There are also checks on the Congress and the judiciary. Holy shit, will ya look at that. It's like, a little more than 200 years ago, some guys got together and put together a government that included the assumption that nobody gets through a month without having what they do checked over and approved or disapproved by someone else who doesn't work for them. Hm. Go figure.

And that's enough?

That's what you want? A President that has to be restrained?

I'm well aware of the system of checks and balances. I don't think the design was to make barely-constraining the actions of headstrong executives the norm. I think it was designed to limit the damage at the extremes.

So, you would like him to abandon the arguably legitimate war and leave that entire region to become once again a home base for our official and self-avowed enemies, while slowing easing out of the completely illegitimate and illegal war over a longer period of time? Well, that makes sense. You'll do well in the Army. /sarcasm

Yes, "legitimate" is not worth the cost. We went over there for revenge, which is a luxury that demands too high of a price.

I am an evil Muslim spy trying to sow dissension and keeeeell the Americans!

(By the way, good luck with your service.)

Thanks.

"It makes a fellow proud to be a soldier!" :D

Wouldn't a pro-war conservative such as yourself like the fact that more money is being invested into war?

Not if a Democrat does it.

Which is actually less stable than Iraq. Bush fucked up big time. Since we can't legally make him clean up the mess on his own, it falls on his successor to do the cleaning up. I don't like that it's come to this, but the last time you guys cut and ran from your messes, it only left a bigger mess in the stewing.

Dear Nazi Germany - please stay in Poland until you've cleaned it all up. It's your mess, and therefore your responsibility, to stay there for an indefinite amount of time until vague and arbitrary standards of cleanliness have been met.

Dear Nazi Germany - please stay in Poland until you've cleaned it all up. It's your mess, and therefore your responsibility, to stay there for an indefinite amount of time until vague and arbitrary standards of cleanliness have been met.

/thread. :D

*awards medal that Trostia is forced to bow to a Saudi to receive*

All this doesn't surprise me.

what I am wondering tho. is with all the 'negative' news about Iraq that has been coming out during Bush's terms, how will the media 'spin' this without making President Obama look bad.

Dear Nazi Germany - please stay in Poland until you've cleaned it all up. It's your mess, and therefore your responsibility, to stay there for an indefinite amount of time until vague and arbitrary standards of cleanliness have been met.

Sorry, I missed the part in history where Hitler was deposed in a peaceful power transition and a reformist took power who promised and tried to make good on not being such a douche.

They must have taught that the day the school was serving red herrings.

Sorry, I missed the part in history where Hitler was deposed in a peaceful power transition and a reformist took power who promised and tried to make good on not being such a douche.

Obama's Iraq plan is no different from Bush's.

Sorry, I missed the part in history where Hitler was deposed in a peaceful power transition and a reformist took power who promised and tried to make good on not being such a douche.

You're calling the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan a "peaceful power transition?"

You're calling the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan a "peaceful power transition?"

No, the "peaceful power transition" he is referring to is the election that put Obama in the White House.

Obama's Iraq plan is no different from Bush's.

Because he has recognized that it would be irresponsible to just pull all the troops out and allow Iraq to disintegrate in a civil war.

Obama, however, was not the one who decided to invade and depose Saddam.

Also a factor to consider is that if we were to just pull all our troops out immediately and a civil war did start, one of the power grabs would be by the Kurds with the goal of setting up a Kurdish state which would prompt an invasion by Turkey.

No, the "peaceful power transition" he is referring to is the election that put Obama in the White House.

The one that is supposed to magically go back in time and make said invasions and occupations non-existant? I'm not sure how Obama's election in any way addresses the point I made.

Because he has recognized that it would be irresponsible to just pull all the troops out and allow Iraq to disintegrate in a civil war.

What exactly are we doing that will prevent such an occurrence once we leave?

(By the way, I think Obama is lying and that we will never leave, but that is just my opinion.)

Obama, however, was not the one who decided to invade and depose Saddam.

That was supposed to be our only mission.

Also a factor to consider is that if we were to just pull all our troops out immediately and a civil war did start, one of the power grabs would be by the Kurds with the goal of setting up a Kurdish state which would prompt an invasion by Turkey.

Once again, how is our staying in Iraq longer supposed to prevent this?

You're calling the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan a "peaceful power transition?"

You equated the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. to the invasion of Poland by the Third Reich. In this comparison Bush ≈ Hitler. There was a "peaceful power transition" from Bush to Obama, whereas there was no peaceful power transition from Hitler to his successors.

The one that is supposed to magically go back in time and make said invasions and occupations non-existant? I'm not sure how Obama's election in any way addresses the point I made.

It does not; he is trying to say: "We have a reformer for a President now, therefore the occupation is fine."

You equated the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. to the invasion of Poland by the Third Reich. In this comparison Bush ≈ Hitler.

Any analogy will fail if you take it too far. My point was not to compare Bush, but to compare the US.

There was a "peaceful power transition" from Bush to Obama, whereas there was no peaceful power transition from Hitler to his successors.

Also, we predominately speak English, not German. Damn, there goes my point!

What exactly are we doing that will prevent such an occurrence once we leave?

(By the way, I think Obama is lying and that we will never leave, but that is just my opinion.)



That was supposed to be our only mission.



Once again, how is our staying in Iraq longer supposed to prevent this?

In theory, we are giving the Iraqi government time to consolidate their power, and also training their police and military so that when we do leave they won't succumb to civil war. Will it work? I have no idea, but I feel that the effort should be made since we created the chaos. Saddam's regime wasn't particularly nice, but the area was stable under his leadership.

Because he has recognized that it would be irresponsible to just pull all the troops out and allow Iraq to disintegrate in a civil war.

Obama, however, was not the one who decided to invade and depose Saddam.

Also a factor to consider is that if we were to just pull all our troops out immediately and a civil war did start, one of the power grabs would be by the Kurds with the goal of setting up a Kurdish state which would prompt an invasion by Turkey.

but wasn't President Obama's campaign promise no more 'business as usual' and 'we will be out of Iraq in [enter latest number] months?

Funny how all that is changing after he got elected. it's almost as if, he's getting information that the public does NOT know about...

the excuse of "it was not Obama who started it" can only go so far. He took the job and all that goes with it. including cleaning up the previous person's messes.

but wasn't President Obama's campaign promise no more 'business as usual' and 'we will be out of Iraq in [enter latest number] months?

Funny how all that is changing after he got elected. it's almost as if, he's getting information that the public does NOT know about...

the excuse of "it was not Obama who started it" can only go so far. He took the job and all that goes with it. including cleaning up the previous person's messes.

It's sort of like electing a janitor! Only the Democrats are the ones who are supposed to do the cleaning up, while the Republicans get to shit all over the place.

but wasn't President Obama's campaign promise no more 'business as usual' and 'we will be out of Iraq in [enter latest number] months?
And the bolded is why I almost did not vote for him.
Funny how all that is changing after he got elected. it's almost as if, he's getting information that the public does NOT know about...
Wow, the president has access to information that the general public does not? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
the excuse of "it was not Obama who started it" can only go so far. He took the job and all that goes with it. including cleaning up the previous person's messes.
And in my opinion he is going about it the correct way, by making an attempt to actually clean up the mess, not just run away and ignore it.

Any analogy will fail if you take it too far. My point was not to compare Bush, but to compare the US.

And your analogy failed because of the differences in the situations, it's not my problem if you don't recognize that.

In theory, we are giving the Iraqi government time to consolidate their power, and also training their police and military so that when we do leave they won't succumb to civil war.

We have already had plenty of time to do that. We keep postponing the deadline and, eventually, there will be no deadline.

Will it work? I have no idea, but I feel that the effort should be made since we created the chaos. Saddam's regime wasn't particularly nice, but the area was stable under his leadership.

About as stable as Nazi Germany.

And your analogy failed because of the differences in the situations, it's not my problem if you don't recognize that.

My analogy is just fine. You haven't pointed out a single relevant difference, largely because you completely missed the point. And yes, it is your problem for being deliberately obtuse.

My analogy is just fine. You haven't pointed out a single relevant difference, largely because you completely missed the point. And yes, it is your problem for being deliberately obtuse.

The problem with your analogy is that America is occupying Iraq to improve it, since we are a much more enlightened culture, and Germany occupied Poland to...uh, I think someone is calling me...gotta go.

My analogy is just fine. You haven't pointed out a single relevant difference, largely because you completely missed the point. And yes, it is your problem for being deliberately obtuse.

If you don't see how a change in leadership is a relevant difference then it is you that is being obtuse.

In addition I feel I ought to point out that the U.S. has done this successfully before, you get a cookie if you know where.

You're calling the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan a "peaceful power transition?"

I'm fairly certain that Bush, orchestrator of the Afghani and Iraqi invasions, the Germany's Hitler in your example, was removed from power by constitutional law and election results decided by the American people.

I am fairly certain that Hitler exited the political stage by third nostril, so your example falls apart.

The one that is supposed to magically go back in time and make said invasions and occupations non-existant? I'm not sure how Obama's election in any way addresses the point I made.

Your point fails because you somehow shoehorn a time machine into my argument, which began with the premise of fixing things that were already broken.

Obama's Iraq plan is no different from Bush's.

Bush talked about a permanent presence forever. Obama has a gradual withdrawal timetable I believe. Or is that not different enough for you?

We have already had plenty of time to do that. We keep postponing the deadline and, eventually, there will be no deadline.
Possibly, or we are staying until the Iraqi government is actually stable and can maintain itself.
About as stable as Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany was very stable.

Bush talked about a permanent presence forever. Obama has a gradual withdrawal timetable I believe. Or is that not different enough for you?

I think Parkus is saying it's all just talk.

Bush talked about a permanent presence forever. Obama has a gradual withdrawal timetable I believe. Or is that not different enough for you?

And guess what? the withdrawal was arranged by Bush before Obama was elected! And guess what else? Obama has not arranged any withdrawal from Afghanistan, period!

I'm fairly certain that Bush, orchestrator of the Afghani and Iraqi invasions, the Germany's Hitler in your example, was removed from power by constitutional law and election results decided by the American people.

I am fairly certain that Hitler exited the political stage by third nostril, so your example falls apart.

I'm fairly certain that if Hitler was replaced by another elected Nazi, suddenly the invasion and occupation of Poland would become morally right! Damn, I stand corrected, you've defeated my point by completely missing it.


Your point fails because you somehow shoehorn a time machine into my argument, which began with the premise of fixing things that were already broken.


Just like Nazi Germany had an obligation to "fix" things that were "broken." You break it, you buy it! Right?

I think Parkus is saying it's all just talk.

And it is possible that he is correct, however he isn't in a position to know for certain.

I'm fairly certain that if Hitler was replaced by another elected Nazi, suddenly the invasion and occupation of Poland would become morally right! Damn, I stand corrected, you've defeated my point by completely missing it.

Since you ignored this...

My analogy is just fine. You haven't pointed out a single relevant difference, largely because you completely missed the point. And yes, it is your problem for being deliberately obtuse.

If you don't see how a change in leadership is a relevant difference then it is you that is being obtuse.

In addition I feel I ought to point out that the U.S. has done this successfully before, you get a cookie if you know where.

It does not; he is trying to say: "We have a reformer for a President now, therefore the occupation is fine."

That requires a significant stretch of interpretation and a fair bit of dishonesty on your part.

My statement is simple. You broke it, you fix it. If some butter fingered dolt cannot be relied to do so, then the next connected person who bears responsibility for that dolt and possesses a measure of competency will have to do so.

And it is possible that he is correct, however he isn't in a position to know for certain.

And supposing it ain't talk, W. arranged the withdrawal before H. entered office, so no kudos to Obama, who promised a much earlier withdrawal.

Holy shit you mean our president is actually paying for war? Paying our troops salaries and equipment? :rolleyes:

That requires a significant stretch of interpretation and a fair bit of dishonesty on your part.

My statement is simple. You broke it, you fix it. If some butter fingered dolt cannot be relied to do so, then the next connected person who bears responsibility for that dolt and possesses a measure of competency will have to do so.

"We broke, we fix it"? That is like a gang-rape being responsible to make its victim come before breaking-off the assault.

Holy shit you mean our president is actually paying for war? Paying our troops salaries and equipment? :rolleyes:

Soldiers do not deserve to be paid or fed. They should pillage, and live off the land, and steal their dying enemies weaponry and ammo. (Stop postinjg in the threads I'm looking at! ;))

And supposing it ain't talk, W. arranged the withdrawal before H. entered office, so no kudos to Obama, who promised a much earlier withdrawal.

Withdrawing before the government is stable is the wrong thing to do regardless of who does it.

Also, H?

Just like Nazi Germany had an obligation to "fix" things that were "broken." You break it, you buy it! Right?

Germany did make amends, in war reparations as well massive retributions that saw it's cities burned to a cinder and other assorted means since it had no intention of making amends with anyone except at gunpoint. They also spent the next 30 years being tritely under the thumb of their conquerers.

I wasn't quite advocating that, since I feel that maybe this particular leader is willing to do the responsible thing, but I suppose if having your cities bombed, treasuries looted and people killed as a way of making amends is what you want...

Since you ignored this...

If you don't see how a change in leadership is a relevant difference then it is you that is being obtuse.

It's not a relevant difference with regards to "fixing" (occupying) nations the state has "made a mess in" (invaded).

The State remains the same, regardless of who is elected. Get it yet? No?

Holy shit you mean our president is actually paying for war? Paying our troops salaries and equipment? :rolleyes:

Yes, Siree! Half of the world-wide military-budget is United States spending, and Obama is increasing it.

"We broke, we fix it"? That is like a gang-rape being responsible to make its victim come before breaking-off the assault.

Are you daft?

Yes, Siree! Half of the world-wide military-budget is United States spending, and Obama is increasing it.

I dont recall him running on decreasing military spending, so OMG OBAMA LIED THIS ISNT CHANGE doesnt apply.

Withdrawing before the government is stable is the wrong thing to do regardless of who does it.

How do we determine when a government is "stable"?

Also, H?

Hussein. :wink:

It's not a relevant difference with regards to "fixing" (occupying) nations the state has "made a mess in" (invaded).

The State remains the same, regardless of who is elected. Get it yet? No?

So U.S. foreign policy has remained the same the entire time of its existence? New leadership has never meant new policy? :rolleyes:

I dont recall him running on decreasing military spending, so OMG OBAMA LIED THIS ISNT CHANGE doesnt apply.

Gee, too fucking bad. I still blame him for doing it. Bush did not run on decreasing military spending either; that does not pardon him. And Obama did lie about withdrawing from Iraq ASAP. Little sh*t.

"We broke, we fix it"? That is like a gang-rape being responsible to make its victim come before breaking-off the assault.

Ah, so using your analogy, if I cave in your skull with a baseball bat, somebody else should go to jail for it. Excellent, if you would be so kind as to provide your address, I shall see if we can test this theory of yours.

How do we determine when a government is "stable"?
Well, one factor would be when they feel they are capable of handling the problems with insurgents.
Hussein. :wink:
:rolleyes:

Soldiers do not deserve to be paid or fed. They should pillage, and live off the land, and steal their dying enemies weaponry and ammo. (Stop postinjg in the threads I'm looking at! ;))

I think we can still pay and feed our troops without spending as much on them as the rest of the world combined spends on its own armies. Not once did anyone here recommend we abolish military spending altogether.

Ah, so using your analogy, if I cave in your skull with a baseball bat, somebody else should go to jail for it. Excellent, if you would be so kind as to provide your address, I shall see if we can test this theory of yours.

Wow. You really did not get the anology. If you hit him with a baseball bat, and hand it to someone else, they SHOULD NOT KEEP BASHING YOUR HEAD IN!

(Note I do not support Parkus here, but I hate dumb arguments)

Gee, too fucking bad. I still blame him for doing it. Bush did not run on decreasing military spending either; that does not pardon him. And Obama did lie about withdrawing from Iraq ASAP. Little sh*t.

So, to you, ASAP is within 100 days, while completely ignoring the concept of reality?

Well, one factor would be when they feel they are capable of handling the problems with insurgents.

And what is the guarantee this will happen within fifty years?

:rolleyes:

It is endearing.

So, to you, ASAP is within 100 days, while completely ignoring the concept of reality?

Apperantly.


The biggest threat to Obama will be people with no fucking concept of the real world.

Wow. You really did not get the anology. If you hit him with a baseball bat, and hand it to someone else, they SHOULD NOT KEEP BASHING YOUR HEAD IN!

(Note I do not support Parkus here, but I hate dumb arguments)

I find amusing that a teenager is more mature than most of us intellectual adults. :D

Germany did make amends, in war reparations as well massive retributions that saw it's cities burned to a cinder and other assorted means since it had no intention of making amends with anyone except at gunpoint. They also spent the next 30 years being tritely under the thumb of their conquerers.

Germany was forced to make amends because it eventually lost the war. The United States hasn't been defeated. Do you think this is a relevant difference to the point that invading a country is not "making a mess" and occupying it is not "cleaning it up?"

I wasn't quite advocating that, since I feel that maybe this particular leader is willing to do the responsible thing, but I suppose if having your cities bombed, treasuries looted and people killed as a way of making amends is what you want...

What is the responsible thing?, then, according to you?

I keep seeing analogies. "Fixing it." "Cleaning up the mess." What the hell do you actually mean by these disgustingly dismissive euphemisms?

And do you really think bombing of German cities was "Germany making amends?" WTF, man.

Wow. You really did not get the anology. If you hit him with a baseball bat, and hand it to someone else, they SHOULD NOT KEEP BASHING YOUR HEAD IN!

(Note I do not support Parkus here, but I hate dumb arguments)

Is that what you think Parkus is saying? It sounds to me like he's saying:

"We broke it. We bombed their country, destroyed their infrastructure, and let things go to hell under warlords which we coddled. Now that we have some other President, it's not our problem anymore, because you see, when we changed Presidents, all that blood on our hands went away."

"We broke it. We bombed their country, destroyed their infrastructure, and let things go to hell under warlords which we coddled. Now that we have some other President, it's not our problem anymore, because you see, when we changed Presidents, all that blood on our hands went away."

Thats the arguement Ive been seeing.

Is that what you think Parkus is saying? It sounds to me like he's saying:

"We broke it. We bombed their country, destroyed their infrastructure, and let things go to hell under warlords which we coddled. Now that we have some other President, it's not our problem anymore, because you see, when we changed Presidents, all that blood on our hands went away."

"Our hands"? I never supported that war. And no, our occupation is comprised of telling Iraq what to do and fighting battles against anyone who does not like this. We claim we will leave when it is "safe".

Gee, too fucking bad. I still blame him for doing it. Bush did not run on decreasing military spending either; that does not pardon him. And Obama did lie about withdrawing from Iraq ASAP. Little sh*t.

Actually, no he didn't.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible," Obama said then. "We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

"I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."
a bit later on (same interview)...
“My position has not changed but keep in mind what that original position was. I have always said that I will listen to commanders on the ground; I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Linky (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/03/1182955.aspx)

It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about TPE.

And what is the guarantee this will happen within fifty years?

There isn't one.

Actually, no he didn't.


a bit later on (same interview)...


Linky (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/03/1182955.aspx)

It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about TPE.

What? He said recently wed be out by 2010. But during the campaign he said he didnt know.


HE FUCKING LIED!

What? He said recently wed be out by 2010. But during the campaign he said he didnt know.


HE FUCKING LIED!

lol

It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about TPE.

Whoops. I was wrong about that.

Here is something I was right about:

"The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php

I find amusing that a teenager is more mature than most of us intellectual adults. :D
:tongue:
Is that what you think Parkus is saying? It sounds to me like he's saying:

"We broke it. We bombed their country, destroyed their infrastructure, and let things go to hell under warlords which we coddled. Now that we have some other President, it's not our problem anymore, because you see, when we changed Presidents, all that blood on our hands went away."
We? What's with this 'We' crap? Put the blame on those that deserve it. Enough with 'We' killed those people, the Bush Administration did that. Now it's our time to get out, and stop this colossal screw-up and get back to minding our own business instead of stomping over small, almost defenseless countries with crackpot dictators. All the blood is still on Bush's hands, and I hope he goes to the grave with it on his mind.
Thats the arguement Ive been seeing.
It's the argument I've been making, minus the 'we' part.

Germany was forced to make amends because it eventually lost the war. The United States hasn't been defeated. Do you think this is a relevant difference to the point that invading a country is not "making a mess" and occupying it is not "cleaning it up?"

The United States hasn't been defeated, but it has had a change of leadership who presumably, is at least marginally more responsible than his predecessor. One reasonable assumption is that he could start by trying to make amends with


I keep seeing analogies. "Fixing it." "Cleaning up the mess." What the hell do you actually mean by these disgustingly dismissive euphemisms?


He could stabilize Afghanistan for one thing. See to it that predatory companies like Haliburton are reined in order to give local Afghani companies a start. Begin cash crop initiatives that would see less opium being grown and more legitimate products. Make arrangements with Pakistan that do not rely on what are effectively bribes to seal the border. Actually listen to what people on the ground there have to say on how to gain the support of the populace.

Many things that the Bush administration pooh poohed despite the advice of competent and knowledgeable people really.

Or is that still disgustingly dismissive hmm?



And do you really think bombing of German cities was "Germany making amends?" WTF, man.

No, I think it was punishment, on a massive scale. When you commit a crime, either you make amends by fines and community service, or you are punished by prison sentences or hangings.

Parkus here is advocating the "skipping bail and fleeing the country" option.

We? What's with this 'We' crap? Put the blame on those that deserve it. Enough with 'We' killed those people, the Bush Administration did that. Now it's our time to get out, and stop this colossal screw-up and get back to minding our own business instead of stomping over small, almost defenseless countries with crackpot dictators. All the blood is still on Bush's hands, and I hope he goes to the grave with it on his mind.

We as in the U.S. and allies who took part, not we as in individuals within said nations.

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php

And if you'll notice, he said he doesnt know when we'll be able to completely withdraw.

Thus, no lie.

Whoops. I was wrong about that.

Here is something I was right about:

"The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

"Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/index.php

And that is a bad thing in what way? As I stated before, the U.S. did the same thing before, successfully I might add.

And if you'll notice, he said he doesnt know when we'll be able to completely withdraw.

Thus, no lie.

He mentions withdrawal, than says we leave leave a "residual force" in Iraq--there is no implication that that force will ever withdraw.

And that is a bad thing in what way?

Cost.

We? What's with this 'We' crap? Put the blame on those that deserve it. Enough with 'We' killed those people, the Bush Administration did that. Now it's our time to get out, and stop this colossal screw-up and get back to minding our own business instead of stomping over small, almost defenseless countries with crackpot dictators. All the blood is still on Bush's hands, and I hope he goes to the grave with it on his mind.

It's the argument I've been making, minus the 'we' part.

"Our hands"? I never supported that war. And no, our occupation is comprised of telling Iraq what to do and fighting battles against anyone who does not like this. We claim we will leave when it is "safe".

America is a nation, like it or not. You are Americans, like it or not. The crimes of your country happened, like it or not. You all share a responsibility as citizens of that country, and support that country with taxes.

America, as a nation, invaded another, and committed serious crimes. That one key component has simply been replaced does not absolve America of it's crimes.

Cost.

So, according to you it would be better to see the area fall into civil war than for the nation that made the situation possible to be inconvenienced?

He mentions withdrawal, than says we leave leave a "residual force" in Iraq--there is no implication that that force will ever withdraw.

And there is no implication that it will stay forever and ever.

Besides, if the Iraqi's dont mind said residual force...who cares?

America, as a nation, invaded another, and committed serious crimes. That one key component has simply been replaced does not absolve America of it's crimes.

Occupying the the invaded nation, killing anyone who demands we leave, and altering the government to suit our fancy is not "making amends".

And there is no implication that it will stay forever and ever.

But, but he also hasn't given a timetable written in stone of when it will happen, so obviously the troops are going to stay there forever... :rolleyes:

America is a nation, like it or not. You are Americans, like it or not. The crimes of your country happened, like it or not. You all share a responsibility as citizens of that country, and support that country with taxes.

America, as a nation, invaded another, and committed serious crimes. That one key component has simply been replaced does not absolve America of it's crimes.
cannot
stop
the
laughter

oh the humanity

Occupying the the invaded nation, killing anyone who demands we leave.

Huh. Ive never noticed us rounding up people demanding we leave and putting them in front of a firing squad.


Got any proof?

We as in the U.S. and allies who took part, not we as in individuals within said nations.
And it's on THEIR HANDS. The people who made the decision, not the common guy sitting at home, not the Senators who opposed it, not the soldier who had no choice, the people in charge, those that made that choice, that supported it, are the ones who have the blood on their hands. 'We', as Americans, are by and large, innocent.

And there is no implication that it will stay forever and ever.

... He says we are leaving a force--he does not mention withdrawal of it. That means we are staying there for some time.


Besides, if the Iraqi's dont mind said residual force...who cares?

I do. We are spending money occupying Iraq that could be put to better use.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/Budget%202009%20Proposed%20Discretionary%2002102009.jpg

And many Iraqis do mind--did you ever stop to wonder why the Americans trotting about over there wear helmets and carry assault rifles?

Occupying the the invaded nation, killing anyone who demands we leave, and altering the government to suit our fancy is not "making amends".

I've yet to see how any of your complaints in this post actually applies to Obama, much less proof of the latter two that can be attributed to him.

And many Iraqis do mind--did you ever stop to wonder why the Americans trotting about over there wear helmets and carry assault rifles?

For one because that is standard gear for U.S. forces, something which you will learn soon enough.

Huh. Ive never noticed us rounding up people demanding we leave and putting them in front of a firing squad.


Got any proof?

People that demand we leave with guns. As in "Stop occupying our nation or we will kill you!" *American soldier shoots angry Iraqi* "Yeah, another terrorist down!"

The United States hasn't been defeated, but it has had a change of leadership who presumably, is at least marginally more responsible than his predecessor. One reasonable assumption is that he could start by trying to make amends with


It's an assumption, but I don't know how reasonable it is. I think the first step towards recognizing an invasion was wrong is by not continuing to occupy the land you invaded.

He could stabilize Afghanistan for one thing. See to it that predatory companies like Haliburton are reined in order to give local Afghani companies a start. Begin cash crop initiatives that would see less opium being grown and more legitimate products. Make arrangements with Pakistan that do not rely on what are effectively bribes to seal the border. Actually listen to what people on the ground there have to say on how to gain the support of the populace.

Maybe we don't have the support of the populace because we invaded and occupied their nation. Being a nicer occupier isn't going to change that.

Many things that the Bush administration pooh poohed despite the advice of competent and knowledgeable people really.

Or is that still disgustingly dismissive hmm?

The "fix it" and "cleaning up the mess" analogies are still disgustingly dismissive. An invasion is an invasion, not a "mess." A mess is what my nephew makes sometimes in the living room.

No, I think it was punishment, on a massive scale. When you commit a crime, either you make amends by fines and community service, or you are punished by prison sentences or hangings.

We did the punishments; the prison sentences and hangings: Nuremberg Trials. The strategic bombing was a war effort.

Parkus here is advocating the "skipping bail and fleeing the country" option.

I like to think of it as the "take your penis out of the woman you are currently raping" option.

For one because that is standard gear for U.S. forces, something which you will learn soon enough.

U.S. forces that guard or might see combat. My recruiter does not carry a gun or wear a helmet.

Aside: The troops in Iraq are seeing combat.

I do. We are spending money occupying Iraq that could be put to better use.


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
Truly sad.

I like to think of it as the "take your penis out of the woman you are currently raping" option.

Post-ejaculatory pullout. The mess is still there and the consequences will emerge in the future whether or not you stick around to clean it up.

And it's on THEIR HANDS. The people who made the decision, not the common guy sitting at home, not the Senators who opposed it, not the soldier who had no choice, the people in charge, those that made that choice, that supported it, are the ones who have the blood on their hands. 'We', as Americans, are by and large, innocent.

Mmm... no. Not at all. When war occurs, there are no innocents. Each and every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage a currently happening aggressive war is no longer innocent. Given the interconnected nature of the military industry and government, this means anyone who has a positive net value to the economy, no matter how small. The total war doctrines make this very clear, especially when it comes to defining legitimate targets.

The degrees of guilt vary, but the crime touches all. You are... accessories.

I like to think of it as the "take your penis out of the woman you are currently raping" option.

Not until we fix the rape by giving her an orgasm.

Mmm... no. Not at all. When war occurs, there are no innocents. Each and every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage a currently happening aggressive war is no longer innocent. Given the interconnected nature of the military industry and government, this means anyone who has a positive net value to the economy, no matter how small. The total war doctrines make this very clear, especially when it comes to defining legitimate targets.

The degrees of guilt vary, but the crime touches all. You are... accessories.
You're a fascist right?

Mmm... no. Not at all. When war occurs, there are no innocents. Each and every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage a currently happening aggressive war is no longer innocent. Given the interconnected nature of the military industry and government, this means anyone who has a positive net value to the economy, no matter how small. The total war doctrines make this very clear, especially when it comes to defining legitimate targets.

The degrees of guilt vary, but the crime touches all. You are... accessories.
Blame by association. I see. I'm afraid I can no longer debate this issue with you, as your kind disgusts me to no end.

And as a side note, with today's global economy, by your beliefs, almost everyone in the world is guilty, by some degree, of the crimes committed in the war in Iraq. I will no longer address you in this thread.

And it's on THEIR HANDS. The people who made the decision, not the common guy sitting at home, not the Senators who opposed it, not the soldier who had no choice, the people in charge, those that made that choice, that supported it, are the ones who have the blood on their hands. 'We', as Americans, are by and large, innocent.

Again it is we as in the Nation(s), change in leadership does not absolve the nation of its responsibility.

And the bolded is why I almost did not vote for him. agreed. I felt his promises were too big and catering more to what the public wanted to hear and not what can be done.

Wow, the president has access to information that the general public does not? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked! for alot of people, it is an eye opener. :wink:

And in my opinion he is going about it the correct way, by making an attempt to actually clean up the mess, not just run away and ignore it.
yep. and sometimes the way to clean it up is to do what looks like the same ole shit.

Mmm... no. Not at all. When war occurs, there are no innocents. Each and every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage a currently happening aggressive war is no longer innocent. Given the interconnected nature of the military industry and government, this means anyone who has a positive net value to the economy, no matter how small. The total war doctrines make this very clear, especially when it comes to defining legitimate targets.

The degrees of guilt vary, but the crime touches all. You are... accessories.

*posts something which the moderators would not approve of*, much?

It is ass-backward dumb. I constantly hear whining about how Obama is not spending on the military anymore. Hello! he is spending more than Bush did!
No, Bush just spent it outside of the budget.

It's sort of like electing a janitor! Only the Democrats are the ones who are supposed to do the cleaning up, while the Republicans get to shit all over the place.

Carter wasn't that great a Janitor, and Reagan didn't Shit all over the place... at least not before he left office.

U.S. forces that guard or might see combat. My recruiter does not carry a gun or wear a helmet.
So you honestly believe that the only time you will carry a gun and wear a helmet is if you are on guard duty or if you are in a combat zone? You are in for a rude surprise.
Aside: The troops in Iraq are seeing combat.
No, really?

Again it is we as in the Nation(s), change in leadership does not absolve the nation of its responsibility.
Absolve the nation? The Nation has no responsibility in this matter. Those who made the trouble, are the ones who must make amends.

So U.S. foreign policy has remained the same the entire time of its existence? New leadership has never meant new policy? :rolleyes:

Some would argue that's the situation we're looking at, yes.

No, Bush just spent it outside of the budget.

Show me a link to Bush's real defense budget, and I will show you how Obama still increased it.

No. Once again, Nixon cut the defense budget, ended the draft, and still managed to reduce American casualties in Vietnam.




;) I officially joined a few weeks ago, and I report for basic training in May. When I come back, I will TG you some pictures or my unit number if you would like.
So, wouldn't you say that your experience in the military is just a WEE BIT limited at the moment? Having not even reported for basic training yet?

Here's a question because I don't know: when exactly did Nixon's defense budget get cut?

Ash, Mura .. I was sorta teasing. But you are .. know it alls. Smunkee too and Bottle!

It's weird .. I agree with most of what you say but something annoys me. I think Sinuhue said the same about Jocobia once. I get it now.
And you are... making personal attacks?

Blame by association. I see. I'm afraid I can no longer debate this issue with you, as your kind disgusts me to no end.

And as a side note, with today's global economy, by your beliefs, almost everyone in the world is guilty, by some degree, of the crimes committed in the war in Iraq. I will no longer address you in this thread.

NAS is, IMO taking it a bit far, but the I agree that the nation as an entity is responsible for past actions. Bush getting replaced by Obama does not change the fact that the United States of America (not just Bush) invaded Iraq and destabilized the region. The United states still exists and the problems in Iraq that were caused by the U.S. still exist, therefore the U.S. is still responsible for trying to fix the mess that was created.

So you honestly believe that the only time you will carry a gun and wear a helmet is if you are on guard duty or if you are in a combat zone? You are in for a rude surprise.

No, really?

The point is that there are Iraqis who do not want us in Iraq--and most them are not even fighting U.S. troops; this is something Trve has failed to acknowledge.

The next point is the obscene cost, which Trve also failed to acknowledge.

I think the first step towards recognizing an invasion was wrong is by not continuing to occupy the land you invaded.


"Oh, we bombed your country, killed your people, and tried to make a mockery of a government. Well, it's not working and you'll collapse in the next breath of wind, but we were wrong, so we're leaving."

You are putting the cart before the horse.


Maybe we don't have the support of the populace because we invaded and occupied their nation. Being a nicer occupier isn't going to change that.


Because being an oppressive or just trigger happy occupier will produce no greater hatred than being a relatively nice one. Is that what you're saying? Seriously?

Well then clearly the East Germans, to use your analogy, must have liked the Soviet occupation as much as their counterparts under Allied occupation then hmm?


The "fix it" and "cleaning up the mess" analogies are still disgustingly dismissive. An invasion is an invasion, not a "mess." A mess is what my nephew makes sometimes in the living room.

Arguing semantics over word definitions and their aptness demonstrates the weakness of your argument.


We did the punishments; the prison sentences and hangings: Nuremberg Trials. The strategic bombing was a war effort.

The former was specific. The latter was everyone. In a total war, there are no innocents.


I like to think of it as the "take your penis out of the woman you are currently raping" option.

Of course you would. You would also think that setting a hospital on fire and then sprinkling a few drops of water would absolve you of your crime no doubt.

So, wouldn't you say that your experience in the military is just a WEE BIT limited at the moment? Having not even reported for basic training yet?

Sure. I just felt like slipping that in to show I am against abolishing the military altogether (a number of posters sarcastically said: "What? Obama is still paying our troops? Absurd!") As you can see, I am not trying to make my joining of the military the crux of any of my arguments.

Again it is we as in the Nation(s), change in leadership does not absolve the nation of its responsibility.

What about the fact hat 'we' largely changed leadership on the understanding that that responsibility was absolved?

Some would argue that's the situation we're looking at, yes.

And I would say that anyone saying that is being a bit hasty. Obama is not a magician, able to snap his fingers and make all the problems created by the previous administration go away in an instant.

What about the fact hat 'we' largely changed leadership on the understanding that that responsibility was absolved?

Then 'you' changed leadership for the wrong reason.

You're a fascist right?

For explaining the concepts and applications of total war? Hardly. I am pointing out the reality of it.

And since CM won't respond to me anymore, but raised a curious point, yes, I do hold the view that every single person contributing to the economy of the world shares some degree of guilt, from being the one pulling the trigger, to being an accessory, to being only marginally connected.

It isn't guilt by association. It is guilt by connection.

As a collective whole, humanity is responsible for what humanity does.

Mmm... no. Not at all. When war occurs, there are no innocents. Each and every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage a currently happening aggressive war is no longer innocent. Given the interconnected nature of the military industry and government, this means anyone who has a positive net value to the economy, no matter how small. The total war doctrines make this very clear, especially when it comes to defining legitimate targets.

The degrees of guilt vary, but the crime touches all. You are... accessories.

And what of those of us who opposed the war from the start and attended things like protests against the very war itself? I have no blood on my hands for an act I did not commit - in fact, attempted to avoid.

The fact is that you hold one to an impossible standard because, to you, any type of association leads to guilt. This means that to avoid association (and thereby guilt), one needs to separate oneself entirely from the United States. That's not a feasible standard to hold anyone to, because there's no guarantee anyone even has that ability (for social, economic, etc.) means or even can mentally (i.e., destroying all links with one's family).

Moreover, the standard that "every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage war" bears guilt in fact implicates all of us - including you. Given the globalization of our world economy, every economic act someone commits on another part of the globe influences prices, and thus the US economy, in some way. Are you saying we're all guilty? In the end your own argument mitigates its own impact.

Beyond that, if everyone is involved, there's no way of quantifying guilt (or punishment), so your argument is utterly inapplicable to the real world anyway.

And I would say that anyone saying that is being a bit hasty. Obama is not a magician, able to snap his fingers and make all the problems created by the previous administration go away in an instant.

But we are not looking at that choice - it's not about snapping fingers. Democrats are arguing this means we're actually getting deeper:

"This funding will do two things: It will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely"

More to the point, the Defense Secretary says it's either pay or pull-out:

"The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places"

..which does look like 'snapping fingers and the problems going away'.

Gee, too fucking bad. I still blame him for doing it. Bush did not run on decreasing military spending either; that does not pardon him. And Obama did lie about withdrawing from Iraq ASAP. Little sh*t.
Am I the only one amused by someone who's just posted that he's joined the military complaining of military spending?

Absolve the nation? The Nation has no responsibility in this matter. Those who made the trouble, are the ones who must make amends.

I know you won't respond, but how far will you take it then hmm? The ones who gave the command? The ones who profitted? The ones who pulled the triggers? The ones who gave the weapons that let them kill? The ones who brought them there so that they could kill? The ones who made the machines they use?

Deny it all you want, but the interconnected nature is a lot further reaching than you would like to admit.

NAS is, IMO taking it a bit far, but the I agree that the nation as an entity is responsible for past actions. Bush getting replaced by Obama does not change the fact that the United States of America (not just Bush) invaded Iraq and destabilized the region. The United states still exists and the problems in Iraq that were caused by the U.S. still exist, therefore the U.S. is still responsible for trying to fix the mess that was created.

The US is not responsible. Bush, the Senators still in Office, those who made the trouble are the ones who have to make amends, who have to fix it. It's no longer our problem, in fact, it never should have been our problem. According to that logic, any problems created by a country must be amended, no matter how long it takes. If that was the case, we still have a few countries we need to straighten out, because of our destabilization of the region, have been severely affected.

Am I the only one amused by someone who's just posted that he's joined the military complaining of military spending?
Well he could have a vastly different ideal of what the military should do from what is going on now.

Admittedly it is rather odd.

I know you won't respond, but how far will you take it then hmm? The ones who gave the command? The ones who profitted? The ones who pulled the triggers? The ones who gave the weapons that let them kill? The ones who brought them there so that they could kill? The ones who made the machines they use?

Deny it all you want, but the interconnected nature is a lot further reaching than you would like to admit.

I'll respond to this. Those who gave the order, those who had a real choice in the matter. If a soldier refuses to go, he could be court-marshaled. If a man refuses to work, he can lose his job, and his livelihood. Those who made a profit are guilty only if they continued to influence the ones who continually refused to pull out of the war.

Moreover, the standard that "every person who contributes to a country's ability to wage war" bears guilt in fact implicates all of us - including you.

Of course. I never denied that.

I am also certain you noted that I specified that there are varying degrees of guilt. From the barest of connections to the ones who pulled the trigger, so to speak.

The point is that there are Iraqis who do not want us in Iraq--and most them are not even fighting U.S. troops; this is something Trve has failed to acknowledge.
And there are Germans who want the U.S. to remove its bases from Germany? A nation is not answerable to individuals of other nations. If the Iraqi government comes out and says we want U.S. troops out of the country by the end of the month, then I will be in favor of said proposal.
The next point is the obscene cost, which Trve also failed to acknowledge.
And? I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't expensive.

"Oh, we bombed your country, killed your people, and tried to make a mockery of a government. Well, it's not working and you'll collapse in the next breath of wind, but we were wrong, so we're leaving."

You are putting the cart before the horse.

"Oh, we bombed your country, killed your people. That was wrong, so we're going to occupy your country with a continued military presence just long enough for us to discover the necromantic secrets which will allow us to make everything better for you.

"Trust me, just wait and see - ten, maybe twenty years - you're gonna LOVE it!"


Because being an oppressive or just trigger happy occupier will produce no greater hatred than being a relatively nice one. Is that what you're saying? Seriously?

Why no, that's not what I was saying, that's what you're saying. I was saying that no matter how "nice" and "non oppressive" an occupier you are, you are still an occupier, and you will be hated, and righteously so.

Well then clearly the East Germans, to use your analogy, must have liked the Soviet occupation as much as their counterparts under Allied occupation then hmm?

Obvious strawman is obvious.

Arguing semantics over word definitions and their aptness demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

That's not semantics, it's my whole fucking point. According to some estimates, over a million innocents have died. A country has been invaded and it is still occupied.

If you're going to call that a "mess" that we can "fix" by continued occupation, you might as well just out and out say it's a "minor issue of little importance."

The former was specific. The latter was everyone. In a total war, there are no innocents.

In total war, carrying out a bombing campaign is not any kind of justice, nor is it your victims "making amends" to you. Nor, to my knowledge, has the strategic bombing campaign ever been described as intended to mete out justice.

Of course you would. You would also think that setting a hospital on fire and then sprinkling a few drops of water would absolve you of your crime no doubt.

It's a lot fucking better than staying there, tossing gasoline onto the fire and then 'accidentally' making a 'mess' by lighting on fire the nearby elementary school.

The US is not responsible. Bush, the Senators still in Office, those who made the trouble are the ones who have to make amends, who have to fix it. It's no longer our problem, in fact, it never should have been our problem. According to that logic, any problems created by a country must be amended, no matter how long it takes. If that was the case, we still have a few countries we need to straighten out, because of our destabilization of the region, have been severely affected.

Yes, it is the U.S.'s problem. The last time I looked Bush didn't charge into Iraq by himself.