I don't know about you guys but I was sitting down and waiting for my bus when I picked up today's newspaper. What I saw on the front page had me stop, read and I think maybe I blew an emotional gasket.
As of today's news, President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1 with the goal of a complete pullout six months later. Bush said that it was a "prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops." He also said that the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts and that it made no sense in telling the enemy what our plans were.
On the opposing side, the Democrats accused Mr. President that he was ignoring the American people's desire to stop the war. The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it that he wants a "blank check" but that Congress is not going to give it to him. Bush responded that we needed to put aside the politics and support the troops.
I don't know about you but that appealing to the support the troops was maddening. True I had never liked Bush for dragging us into a war that was never in the first place authorized by Congress. Congress is the only body of power that can wage and levy war. Apparently Bush used the Gulf of Tonken incident to plow ahead when in fact it was overturned. In fact it is like he is trying to uphold Wilson's policy of making the world safe for democracy.
As much as I would like everyone in the world to get along, there has to be a line drawn on how far we will go. It makes you wonder why the rest of the free world is pissed off at us in one way or another. To many people, us Americans are arrogant, greedy bastards who think they know what's best for everyone. I do believe that history repeats itself and our arrogance, the imperalistic and neocolonialism policies we have show it. It's funny how we fought for the right to be free and yet we turn around and do the same thing to others less fortunate. It's like the oppressed becomes the oppressor.
One of my favorite maxims is that history is written by the winners. However like any good story, there are two sides to the same event. What are your thoughts?
As much as I would like everyone in the world to get along, there has to be a line drawn on how far we will go. It makes you wonder why the rest of the free world is pissed off at us in one way or another. To many people, us Americans are arrogant, greedy bastards who think they know what's best for everyone.
Yes, arrogant and greedy bastards!
I agree, but some people in America still think that we rule the world and what we say goes for the rest of the world.
I'm tired of hearing statements like, "We are the best country in the world",
or what some christians say, ''God bless America'' and others, "We stand on the higher moral ground".
These statements are really tiresome! :disaprove
How are we suppose get along with the rest of the world if we keep labeling ourselves supreme citizens of the planet Earth.
I do believe that history repeats itself and our arrogance, the imperalistic and neocolonialism policies we have show it. It's funny how we fought for the right to be free and yet we turn around and do the same thing to others less fortunate. It's like the oppressed becomes the oppressor. Yes, JediMaster12 this is a recurring phenomenon.
JM12, Congress _did_ authorize (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_St) ates_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq) use of troops in the Iraq war on 10 Oct 02.
The problem is the US has backed intself into a corner were neither option is appealing by any means. Now it has to decide what is worse: sacrificing its troops and public support, or continue to alienate the Iraqi population (and the world at large?) and destablize the region even more.
No easy answers.
Congress can authorize war, but cannot itself wage war. While the legislature has the power to control funding, that's about as much real control as they have once the shots are fired (beyond trying to impeach or hamstring a president, I suppose). That's part of the executive branch's power. The interesting question may be why the US Congress hasn't since 1941 actually formally declared war on any of America's various opponents throughout the post war period (up to and including today).
One thing is for certain, cut and run (the Reid-Pelosi strategy) is the wrong policy for many reasons, not the least of which is that who'd trust America to ever have their back when the fur really flies. Too much micromanagement from DC will probably make a Vietnam-style loss in Iraq a certitude. Pretty sad when you have to consult a lawyer in the field before defending yourself from enemy fire in combat. Face it, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, people, this fight is for the long haul (possibly decades) and won't be won by taking a legalistic approach (Clinton's response). Let's just hope that if we are forced by circumstance to throw in the towel too early, that we don't get a domestic repeat of self-righteous people who spit on the vets for fighting a war they didn't approve of. Like Code Pink taunting soldiers with signs saying "Was it (ie: losing one or more limbs) worth it?"
Face it, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, people, this fight is for the long haul (possibly decades) and won't be won by taking a legalistic approach (Clinton's response). "
I don't get why people argue this. There is waning support in the US to continue this war. There is little to no support in the world for continuing this war. Troops are limited beings just like every other human. We have have a finite number of them and they WILL run out eventually. The US will never support a draft without some sort of massive, obvious, extra-national attack on the nation. Something that's not going to happen.
This fight won't last decades and all the Democrats have to do is stay in power after the next election and win the presidency and the war wont last past 2009.
No easy answers.
Too well said.
I’m against the “cut and run” strategy, but I’m also against the steer the course strategy. Why do we spending millions on studies and not use the so call recommendations of the so called “experts?” For months the Bush administration pointed to the Iraq Study Group, then the report came out and all they did was criticized it. I say why not give them a try, it can’t get much worst.
A few things I believe they should do.
1. Get the troops the equipment they needed since day one. This war has been going on too long for them not to have proper body amour and vehicle amour.
2. Set ambitious, but achievable standards for the Iraq government and police force to achieve. If they don’t reach them, then start pulling troops out.
3. Tell the American people the truth. We are not completely stupid. A lot of Bush’s problems stems from his administration’s inability to tell the truth about conditions on the ground in Iraq. Admit it when something goes wrong is not a weakness.
4. Plan for the unknown and let the military handle military affairs.
5. Keep your promise to the troops.
How are we suppose get along with the rest of the world if we keep labeling ourselves supreme citizens of the planet Earth.
Considering invading a country an act of self-defense is entirely different from considering ourselves "supreme citizens of the planet." While I find the war in Iraq distasteful to the extreme, it is not sanctioned killing of civilians.
Bush holds a higher moral ground than the terrorists, but just barely.
One of my favorite maxims is that history is written by the winners. However like any good story, there are two sides to the same event. What are your thoughts?
Less than a year left, less than a year left... Perhaps we'll have a less senseless President then who won't veto such sensible bills.
Considering invading a country an act of self-defense is entirely different from considering ourselves "supreme citizens of the planet." While I find the war in Iraq distasteful to the extreme, it is not sanctioned killing of civilians.
What are you talking about?
You have lost me, Devon. :)
I'm not talking about the war, I was talking about what some people in general in this country, see our country as supreme, in regard to the rest of the world,
it's about time we abandon that stance and stop saying we are extremely better than everybody else in the world.
We don't rule the world yet, we all still share the same planet.
How are we going to get along as a species if we are always looking for enemies on this planet.
With the discovery of a possible new Earth, it's time for our society to get along with each other.
New Planet Could Harbor Water and Life (
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html)
Hmm, Mrs. Moral has been by! ;)
Yes, yes I have. If you have an issue with it, talk to one of the Admins. --Jae
/sigh.
No American is willing to make the really harsh desicions that could easily end this Iraq War. For the sake of a devil's advocate, and for actually wanting this crisis to end on a happy note, I offer a possible solution, as a starting block for discussion, but not as an offical endorsement:
"Ally with Al-Sadr and wipe out the Sunni terrorists."
Al-Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist, and basically, he has a well-trained military force. He hates Sunnis for blowing up the Mosque, and Al-Sadr also wants US troops out of Iraq as well. He wants Iraq to rule itself...meaning he wants to rule Iraq. So, why not let him? Al-Sadr is rich, he's powerful, and he hates Al-Qadiah like the USA. So, why not work Al-Sadr, tolerating his death squads, and get rid of Al-Qadiah and all the Sunni terrorists? Let Iraq turn into a Shia government.
Indeed, it will only settle things...somewhat. Kurds will get mad at Al-Sadr indeed...being secular and wanting to rule themselves...so you can expect a Kurdistan succession that would widen the conflict (luckily, Turkey has experiences with dealing with the Kurds, so you got an Arab ally willing to contribute troops). Not to mention, you will make all Sunni nations hate you for attacking and destroying the Sunnis to form a puppet Shia regime. But you will win the Iraq War. The majority of the population is Shia after all...and if you ally with the strongest faction, you will win. Al-Sadr has became quite cozy with Iran, but if you ally with Al-Sadr and keep him happy, he could decide to cut off ties with Iran and assert Iraq as a powerful new Shia nation. In fact, he hates SCIRI, an Iranian-backed party of Saddam's exiles, and his Madhi Army fought them in some instances, so you can avoid having a Iranian rump state, and counter Iran's ambitions in the area.
So here. Here is a plan to win the Iraq War. I really think there are variables I may be missing, but it is an idea, and my 2 cents.
Now, let me ask another question: Is winning the Iraq War worth the consquences?
What are you talking about?
You have lost me, Devon. :)
I'm not talking about the war, I was talking about what some people in general in this country, see our country as supreme, in regard to the rest of the world,
it's about time we abandon that stance and stop saying we are extremely better than everybody else in the world.
We don't rule the world yet, we all still share the same planet.
How are we going to get along as a species if we are always looking for enemies on this planet.
yes, there are groups of select individuals, like PNAC, who see our country as the greatest thing ever. However, such people are not an American anomoly, as is often portrayed. Such people exist all of Europe, seeing as it WAS the general European attitude of themselves for much of history. Such people exist in the Orient and the Middle East.
While I completly agree with you that the elimination of such factions from America and the world would be a wonderful step towards a better tomorrow, such attitudes are almost part of our genetics. We LIKE to feel better than others, and we often look for any excuse to say that we are.
To: SilentScope, that's just setting up another Taliban situation. We allied with the Taliban to go play Cold War against the Ruskies, and then that bit us in the butt. We allied with Saddam against the Russians, and that too bit us in the butt.
Allying with Al-Sadr would simply be a repeat of an already failed strategy. Though, I have to admit that part of your response confuses me. I've debated this subject so long and hard on so many places, my sarcasm radar is broken. So, do I detect some obvious sarcasm there?
I don't get why people argue this. There is waning support in the US to continue this war. There is little to no support in the world for continuing this war. Troops are limited beings just like every other human. We have have a finite number of them and they WILL run out eventually. The US will never support a draft without some sort of massive, obvious, extra-national attack on the nation. Something that's not going to happen.
This fight won't last decades and all the Democrats have to do is stay in power after the next election and win the presidency and the war wont last past 2009.
You confuse the war in Iraq with THE war. It is only one front or campaign. Changing administrations won't change that, merely change the tactics or strategy used to deal with it. Are you perhaps clairvoyant? How do you know that something like that will NEVER happen? Or do you mean that another nation state won't attack the US? You are aware that asymetrical warfare is likely to be the MO the terrorists/opponents of the US and West in general. They can't win conventionally, so that is the only practical strategy open to them.
To: SilentScope, that's just setting up another Taliban situation. We allied with the Taliban to go play Cold War against the Ruskies, and then that bit us in the butt. We allied with Saddam against the Russians, and that too bit us in the butt.
For the first time, we merely funded any group willing to battle Russians. Once the Russians fled, all those groups started killing each other, and one group, the Taliban, finally previaled. And, for the second time, we set Saddam up against Iran. Both Russia and the USA, strangely allied to support Saddam, but only because they hated Iran's government.
But in both cases, the US won the Cold War. Sure, the US got stuck in a resulting war, but the fact was, the US won that first war. The US defeated the Commies. Sure, the US militrally invaded again, but I guess that's a Machvillean stratgery: Play your enemies against one another, and then take out the suriviors.
Allying with Al-Sadr would simply be a repeat of an already failed strategy. Though, I have to admit that part of your response confuses me. I've debated this subject so long and hard on so many places, my sarcasm radar is broken. So, do I detect some obvious sarcasm there?
Hm. Might be some sarcasm in the last point of my statement in saying that while this tactic can help to win the Iraq War, many consquences would result from it that it might not work. The American people are not willing to make the sacrifices (like, say, American ideals) needed to win a conflict.
I guess I am saying is that victory in the Iraq War may mean future consquences down the road that may not be pleasent to us. Like, as you claim, a possible Fourth Persian Gulf War against Al-Sadr (the First Persian Gulf War is the Iran-Iraq War, the Second Persian Gulf War is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Third Persian Gulf War is the Military). But I'm more thinking a bit short-term, with a war against Kurdistan, and many powerful people in Sunni nations finally giving up allying with the USA and start funding Al-Qadiah.
You are aware that asymetrical warfare is likely to be the MO the terrorists/opponents of the US and West in general. They can't win conventionally, so that is the only practical strategy open to them.
Never underestimate the power of time.
It took 500 years for the Barbarians to overthrow the Roman Empire conventionally. Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to march through D.C.?
Never underestimate the power of time.
It took 500 years for the Barbarians to overthrow the Roman Empire conventionally. Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to march through D.C.?Have 'the Terrorists' ever stated they want to invade and conquer the USA? Ever? Once? You may as well say 'Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to establish a computer gaming publishing monopoly and put Ubisoft and EA out of business'.
Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease, and there's not one single terrorist army with one single goal in the world.
The PETA terrorists who fire-bomb animal research facilities wants to end animal testing and meat consumption and have no plans to conquer the USA.
Christian terrorists bombing abortion clinics want to end abortion, homosexuality, and other 'abominations'. This group is in my eyes the only one that has at least a minimum of chance to one day 'march through the streets of D.C.'.
Kurdish terrorists want the Kurds to have their own nation, Kurdistan, where they won't be persecuted like sub-humans, and have no plan to conquer the states and march into Washington D. C.
The Chechen terrorists want their nation, Chechnya to be a sovereign state where the Chechnya people can live without being persecuted, and have no plans to invade the USA.
Al-Q'aida want the West to stop trying to liberate Middle Eastern women, and to stop interfering in the Middle East, and have no plans to invade the USA and march through the streets of Washington D. C.
The US defeated the Commies.Nonsense. Communism ended in Russia because the Soviets realized it could no longer be maintained. And as a side note, 'the Commies' still maintain a firm grip on Cuba and North Korea, and Vietnam as well as other countries maintain totalitarian regimes very similar to those in Communist nations, not to mention that the People's Republic of China is still a brutal dictatorship occupying Tibet.
The American people are not willing to make the sacrifices (like, say, American ideals) needed to win a conflict.Show me any kind of evidence whatsoever that the obliteration of Habeus Corpus, torture of detainees, wiretapping without warrants, and the other surrenders of American ideals are necessary to win the war in Iraq. Heck, show me some evidence torture is more beneficial than harmful to the practicing nation in the first place.
I thought one of the reasons why we were fighting them evil terrorists was that they wanted to overthrow our democracy and throw us into one big Sharia-style dictatorship. I even remember many pro-war people using Iraq's use of torture as a reason to invade them and overthrow Saddam's regime. And yet when Bush does it, it's suddenly totally OK.
Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease, and there's not one single terrorist army with one single goal in the world.
Well said, Dagobahn! ;)
Some people in this country (U.S.) need to stop being so naive in believing we are going to defeat terrorism one day and forever, terrorism will always be around.
There will always be groups of people who will use terrorism for specific demands be they personal or political, they are like cockroaches you kill 20, 20,000 pop up later on.
You can't smash them all out of existence, people. :)
Have 'the Terrorists' ever stated they want to invade and conquer the USA? Ever? Once? You may as well say 'Might take 500 years for the Terrorists to establish a computer gaming publishing monopoly and put Ubisoft and EA out of business'.
When I say terrorism, I refer to Islamic terrorism, but more generally, thee "Barbaranism" that the Roman Empire hated. Indeed, the Romans hated barbarianism, but they call all their enemies uncivilized savages, similar to how the USA sees each other.
Sure, all these ideologies want freedom. Al-Qadiah wants to form an Islamic state. Yeah. But what happens...AFTER that? After they take over territory? Expansion is necessary. And since the USA and Al-Qadiah is at logger-heads, Al-Qadiah wants to weaken the USA to help increase its power.
Eventually, far off in the future, any movement can grow more and more powerful, and someone, I don't know who, will march down D.C.. In fact, maybe this prediction could occur in 100 years...with China defeating USA in a war.
Nonsense. Communism ended in Russia because the Soviets realized it could no longer be maintained. And as a side note, 'the Commies' still maintain a firm grip on Cuba and North Korea, and Vietnam as well as other countries maintain totalitarian regimes very similar to those in Communist nations, not to mention that the People's Republic of China is still a brutal dictatorship occupying Tibet.
The USA say they won the Cold War. Wheter that is due to the USSR having a bad economy, or if it is due to the arms-buildup, I don't exactly care. USA is still standing, the USSR is not, and the USA is the world's sole superpower.
Show me any kind of evidence whatsoever that the obliteration of Habeus Corpus, torture of detainees, wiretapping without warrants, and the other surrenders of American ideals are necessary to win the war in Iraq. Heck, show me some evidence torture is more beneficial than harmful to the practicing nation in the first place.
...That's not the Ideas I'm talking about here.
What I am advocating is talking to insurgent groups, trying to get negogiations and peace treaties with them, and in the end, letting "terrorists" run their own nations. Pitting enemies against one another, and not exporting democracy or calling people good or evil. Machvellican and Realistic political thought.
The Ideas that the American people want to hold onto is that America is the best nation in the world, and that it must safeguard liberty and democracy, instead, of say, safeguarding their own national interest by working with the Enemy instead of against them. That's the Ideas I'm talking about. And no one is going to go and throw that Idea away.
Mama Jae: Thanks for correcting me on that one bit.
Less than a year left, less than a year left... Perhaps we'll have a less senseless President then who won't veto such sensible bills.
You and both know that it is highly unlikely. Everyone is trying to push their own agenda and trying to stick with their campaign platform.
For the first time, we merely funded any group willing to battle Russians. Once the Russians fled, all those groups started killing each other, and one group, the Taliban, finally previaled. And, for the second time, we set Saddam up against Iran. Both Russia and the USA, strangely allied to support Saddam, but only because they hated Iran's government.
And look where that got us.
With this war many people are saying that Bush is trying to finish what Daddy started in the Gulf War. Could be so considering that now that most people are seemingly blind to the covert ops our agencies are doing.
What will be achieved by pulling out? This is not Vietnam. When the United States pulled out of Vietnam, the Vietnamese had no intention of invading the US or supporting any kind of regime that would send terrorists to America. Pulling out then was the right decision, as it was a blatantly imperialistic war, a war of proxies in the first place.
However, is it the right choice now? Prime summed it up quite well. Neither solution is good. If you stay, you lose political capital in your country. If you pull out, you risk a civil war with Iran numero dos coming out of it. Bush should not have lied in the first place. Establishing a democracy does not take a year or two, at least not always. It can be a long process.
Well if we're blind to covert ops that occur then the people who do them are doing their jobs arn't they? The purpose of them is to not let the media, or governments or terrorists, know they happen. Personally I don't know why people are so dark on the idea of a secret attack on some terrorist camp. Are such operations to be advertised in the paper a week before they occur?
If Clinton or Obama get in I can safely assume that there will be action taken on Iraq. It should be their main vehicle if it's not already.
I'm going to throw the idea of negotiating with terrorists and letting them rule away. Here's why. A friend of mine put this forward.
America, allies with America, with Iraq, against terrorism, western countries, Al Qaeda want you dead because they hate the west. We saw that with September 11, with Bali since Jimaar Islamiah is an ally of Al Qaeda, Spain, London, Indonesia again. Christians, they want you dead because you do not follow Islam, we saw that with the terrorist attacks I just mentioned. Israel, they want you dead because you are an example of the west working, they are meant to be a supporter of terrorist attacks against Israel and have said of their condemnation of Israel. Jews, Al Qaeda want you dead for the same reason they want Christians dead, when you look at Palestine you see Al Qaeda celebrating every Jew killed. Eastern countries, they want you dead because you are not Muslim, we saw that with Bali and you could make a case with Eqypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Muslims, Al Qaeda want you dead because you are not militant enough, we saw this with the above attacks and when one of the London bombings as specifically targeted in a Muslim suberb.
As far as torture goes, if you want Private England's blood over Abu Gharib, go for it, what happened there was exactly the criticisms we rightfully levelled at Saddam. Torture for information however that would save lives, as opposed to torture for fun, I'll say this. I think any and all means nessecary to preserve life should be utilised, and that includes torture. With that said however there are two things to consider with this. One is what you class torture as; if it's something such as truth serum then no I wouldn't class that as torture but some of the things that are used as interrogation, as well as some of the things you may see in 24 and the Punisher, that would be torture (though it was funny seeing a thug scream when a piece of steak and an icy pole was used). The other thing is not only is torture a very difficult skill that few get right, it hardly does work. There are other means to get the information you need that won't get the media treating you as though you're the **** of the world.
I'm not sure if terrorists want to conquer America, I think it has more to do with driving them out of the Middle East, but there objectives can be summed up in two words: wholesale murder, and as the post I put above on terrorism indicates they don't care who dies.
With Bush hell bent on keeping troops in Iraq, he of all people must do what is best for the Iraqis, especially considering he invaded their country. To do anything less is heartless and thoughtless. Now he believes that we must keep forces in Iraq, that this is the best thing for them. As has already been said, we're trapped. We can't leave because it could well open the floodgates and we can't stay because it fuels further aggression to Iraq as well as all involved.
The title of this thread, 'taking it out on the troops', has me wondering if this would happen. Could we be seeing returning soldiers dumped with red paint like they were after Vietnam? It'd be an outright disgrace if this were to occur, as it's not the soldier's fault for Bush invading and continuing the occupation of Iraq.
Insulting and crapping on the troops is both disgraceful and repugnant. Canada is involved in a mission in Afghanistan right now. There's a University here called UQAM, which is an ultra-left den. It makes us people at the Universitй de Montrйal look like a punch of right-wing extremists. And we're not!
Anyway, at the UQAM, there's a program that lets our soldiers get some education there. See, the problem is that you're having soldiers around what we can seriously call hippies (yep, with the clothing and all), not just leftists mind you, hippies. Peace loving? Not at all. They constantly fling insults such as "fascists" and "imperialist pigs" at the soldiers who often became joined the army because they could not afford to pay for their education otherwise. It makes me sick just to think about it. Love the poor they say, hypocrites they are.
I'm not sure if terrorists want to conquer America, I think it has more to do with driving them out of the Middle East, but there objectives can be summed up in two words: wholesale murder, and as the post I put above on terrorism indicates they don't care who dies.
I think I heard somewhere Nancy where al-Qaida want to conquer the world; they want a Muslim world or Muslim empire.
Okay, whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is moot we're there now. As far as the situation in Iraq, pulling out would be just plain stupid. As far as Pelosi and Reid, if it were World War II and they went to meet with Hitler, they would be executed for treason.
The media, isn't telling people everything, only what supports their leftist agenda. The reason the mainstream media was so timid after 9/11 was due to TIME getting its head handed to it for releasing a story supporting and sympathizing with someone that bombed police stations during the 1960s and the day when the story came out was September 11, 2001.
You can't run a war by committee, and I'm going to go even further and accuse the Democrat leadership of wanting the United States to lose for political purposes.
The title of this thread, 'taking it out on the troops', has me wondering if this would happen. Could we be seeing returning soldiers dumped with red paint like they were after Vietnam? It'd be an outright disgrace if this were to occur, as it's not the soldier's fault for Bush invading and continuing the occupation of Iraq.
I named it so because in another article regarding this, a local civilian thought that this would amount to taking it out on the troops. As far as I can see however, people in America support the military in this case. LIAYD is right in pointing out that this isn't Vietnam but if we aren't careful we can be thrust into similar situations. We have already heard of the conduct unbecoming towards prisoners by American troops though the military claims that they are isolated incidents. From my understanding there is a certain form of etiquette involved. We hear often about the rules of war and to be honest we still follow them to a degree. I am sure there are those who say that in war there are no rules but in a way these are the unspoken rules that are obeyed by the recognized military forces. Unfortunately the insurgents in Iraq do not recognize those rules that are often referred to as the Geneva convention. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
As far as the troop pullout, there has to be some point in which we have to realize that not everybody is going to agree with our way. As I pointed out before, though Iraq was secularly ruled under Saddaam, the imams had much say over the people by using the Koran and the hadiths. I find it rather difficult that Bush believes he could bring democracy to Iraq when the democratic system itself is considered the devil's invention to the conservatives.
Regardless of the religious beliefs America's invasion alone is enough to incite the hatred and violence it has. I can only imagine what their religious teachings would add to this, considering that Saddam was not considered a true believer and probably cherry picked those that supported his cause.
@windu: Now that you mention it I do remember hearing Al Qaeda saying they intend to force the world to Islam, it was on the news and the papers. I looked in the Internet but couldn't find anything about it but this has been their stated goal: Worldwide submission to Islam, their intolerant and blasphemus version of Islam at that.
At the risk of adding nothing but petrol to the fire...
I was against this war before the damn thing began. Febuary 2003, I was marching with over 5000 other Seattle residents. Spring Equinox 2003, I was standing with a Port Angeles coven in front of the Federal Building and praying this mistake would be over soon.
When Bush and Cheney were deluding themselves and everyone in earshot with the fairytale that the troops would be greeted with rose petal parades and celebrations, we were predicting the chaos we now find ourselves in. For this, we were called "Terrorist lovers," "Traitors," "Unpatriotic," and "Troop haters" (apparantly they didn't see the Vietnam Vets for Peace or the elderly fellow in the wheelchair who showed up in full WW2 uniform).
I was arguing the hypocritical "Support the Troops = Blind support of the war" attitude, since two of my best buddies are disabled vets, and I just saw their benefits slashed. Oh, and Walter Reed? Well, a lot of VA hospitals have the same problem with run-down buildings and anemic staffing. Judging from my sister's roomie, a fellow who just came back from 2 tours in Baghdad, and discharged for PTSD, it hasn't done any better since. I also come from a military town where at least half of my classmates went into the military. Soldiering can be an honorable profession. It's the jackasses (and yes, I used the term deliberately - most of the Democrats don't have the spine the Gods gave a snake, and most Republicans I think are snakes) in charge I wouldn't trust with my car keys, much less with the lives of others.
Speaking as a dedicated, angry-as-hell, bonna fide member of the Anti-War Movement: only a marginal faction of the movement would do something as dumb as spitting on the guys who didn't have much of a choice. It's like the jerks who smashed windows during the 1999 WTO demonstration and effectively smeared 50,000 of their brethren portesting peacefully. They give the movement a black eye.
Speaking as a dedicated, angry-as-hell, bonna fide member of the Anti-War Movement: only a marginal faction of the movement would do something as dumb as spitting on the guys who didn't have much of a choice. It's like the jerks who smashed windows during the 1999 WTO demonstration and effectively smeared 50,000 of their brethren portesting peacefully. They give the movement a black eye.
I think this is an important element to point out; how only a few trouble makers and more extremist members of a group actually do such violent acts. Unfortunately for every social movement, it's those who cause violence that get on the evening news. With the state the American "media" is in (I say American, but Canada is starting to sink into this whirlpool too), they only report what makes the biggest headlines. "Violent protest" is always "cooler" sounding then "Peaceful protest".
My question is why the heck was Al Sadr in the then tightest police state in the world, if Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Al Queda.
I'd also like to know where several tons of Anthrax went. Seriously, even though I know I can't prove it, I personally feel a lot of Iraq's WMDs were moved to Syria while we were tied up trying to get support from the UN.
Then there is the Oil for Food Scandal that involved: China, France, Russia, and several other countries as well as senior members of the UN.
Then there was the French military equipment we found in Iraq that was made AFTER the first Gulf War.
Sure the war could have been handled better, but pulling out is the absolute worse thing we could do.
Sure the war could have been handled better, but pulling out is the absolute worse thing we could do.
What if that is the best thing we can do? From a Machviellian standpoint, of course...and I'm not advocating a pull-out, I am only going to tell what is going on, and any good effects that comes out of a pull-out.
Sure, the Middle East will suffer from tension, but...we already have that. Al-Qadiah and Batahists will battle over Anbar, SCIRI and Al-Sadr will battle in the streets of Baghdad, and Kurdish terrorists and Turkish military forces do military strikes. There will be violence in Iraq...and?
That's it. Violence. Sooner or later, Iraq may permenatly break up...or it may reform under a more effective tyranny. If the latter, it might be allied towards one of the nearby nations (Iran if Shia, Saudi Arabia/Syria is Sunni), and will play a role in Middle Eastern politics. If the earlier, then the entire area might stablize itself into three different nations, and everything will be fine, somewhat. Tensions will be between the many different powers...and Iraq will remain in a percaious balance.
Hey, if you think USA is in a quamire, what about Al-Qadiah, SCIRI, Al-Sadr, and the PKK? They too could also be sent in a quamire, and may be forced to waste lots of resources in killing each other...resources that could be used for other purposes that would undermine more important American interest. Like American lives.
All that will really be shot up is the idea of "regime change" to establish pro-American democracies and America's credbility in fighting a war against another enemy.
If we manage to succeed in Iraq we will have dealt a crippling blow to Al Queda and possibly set off things in Iran and Syria, best case a revolution.
Revolution is never a best-case scenario....
Revolution is never a best-case scenario....
The best case is obviously that all terrorists and radical regimes renounce their ways, instate peaceful democracies, and lay down arms and differences. That's a given. That said, I think he meant "the best realistic scenario." Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was the people themselves fighting a revolution as opposed to us fighting a foreign war for them.
I don't know about you but that appealing to the support the troops was maddening. True I had never liked Bush for dragging us into a war that was never in the first place authorized by Congress. Congress is the only body of power that can wage and levy war. Apparently Bush used the Gulf of Tonken incident to plow ahead when in fact it was overturned. In fact it is like he is trying to uphold Wilson's policy of making the world safe for democracy.
Are you in high school by chance?
Anyways. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that President Bush is quite right. Withdrawing from Iraq is a recipe for disaster. As it stands, we don't have many options. The nutjobs who want us to pull out right-now-this-very-instant are, in my opinion, doing so out of a desire to crowd-please more than to actually help the world's situation.
Whether or not going into Iraq was appropriate, smart, or even legal is not the issue (and in this thread I will claim no stance on any of those issues). That's done, nothing anyone can do about it. Fact of the matter is, leaving Iraq to fall (as we let South Vietnam fall, though in my opinion the parallel stops there, will get to that) is a terrible idea.
Why? Suffice to say the Mid-east is not a stable region. Not to mention it is a region generally not friendly to America, and it's volatile enough to be dangerous. There are few who would debate that matter. It's simply not geopolitically intelligent to walk in, destroy a country's government, try to instate a new one, and then give up. The troops aside, Leaving Iraq puts America at risk. Who wouldn't want an allied regime on the border of a potential enemy (Iran)?
Secondly, about the troops: I have yet to hear of any drastic morale issues among the troops. Let's remember that we have an all-volunteer force. Now more than ever, enlistees know exactly what they're getting into. It's basically a given that if you enlist in the Marine Corps or the Army, you've got yourself a ticket to Iraq. If you have a problem with that, you don't join. That's simply a fact. So in my opinion, belly-aching for a withdrawal from Iraq on behalf of the troops is pointless. It was their decision, and I don't think they'd appreciate our questioning it.
My few cents.
Without rehashing things that others have already said, and being former military myself (I got out two months ago) there are many valid points on both sides of this argument.
My biggest problem with the recent attempt to set a timetable for bringing our guys home is that it was attached to a bill that was meant to finance those very same troops. It angers me greatly that the Congress decided to push their political agenda and make a statement on a bill that was meant to provide money for bullets, body armor, food, uniforms, tanks, parts etc... It angers me that the military may have to cut back on programs that benefit our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines because the politicians are too busy arguing with one another over a timetable.
They want to hash out a timetable, fine, but do it at a damn conference table. Don't use it to deprive the people over there getting shot at of the things they need.
Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.
Since Clinton practically gutted the CIA, it is rather probable that Bush was being completely honest with the American People, however he was given bad intelligence.
George Tenat was a Clinton appointee, and he also scrubbed a mission that would have blown Bin Laden's head off.
George Tenet was a Clinton appointee, and he also scrubbed a mission that would have blown Bin Laden's head off.
Was George Tenet a Supreme Court Justice? No, then Mr. Bush could of replaced him the moment he took office. After that he became a Bush appointee. One that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 6 months after Tenet resigned from the CIA.
As for his or anyone else’s reluctance in assassinating Bin Laden before 911 I don’t have a problem with it. After all it was against our own law at the time (see Executive Order 12333). Even after 911, I believe assassination should be used only as a last resort. What good is it to protect our way of life if we lose our morals and everything we stand for in the process.
Are you in high school by chance?
If you thought that then you must have not been reading the posts. I am in college and the errors I made I apologized for after Mama Jae corrected me. I actually saw Sept. 11 in high school and the war in Afghanistan.
Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.
That pretty much struck my mind from day one which is why I support neither party and perfectly content to watch the Gladiator duels unless I want to march on Washington :D
The best case is obviously that all terrorists and radical regimes renounce their ways, instate peaceful democracies, and lay down arms and differences. That's a given.
And I've said that you cannot enforce democracy in a society where the imams have tremendous influence and the radicals of Islam claim it is the devil's own invention. The radicals see us as the devil incarnate. True we may be friendly at times when pushing our own means but for the most part, us Amerkia are hellspawn of the devil.
Note: Oh that word is American in Arabic.
Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.
Yes, that's exactly why it annoys me so much. They would rather push their political agenda than ensure the those that protect their right to do so have the supplies they require.
Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.
Ever occur to you that the repubs+Bush are more concerned about pushing their agenda than they are about the troops?
Please, they're politicians, that's what they do. The president is attempting to prove that he holds the world of 'god', that he can tell the Congress and the country what they're gonna do, when they're gonna do it, and where they can stick it if they don't agree. The democrats are attempting to prove that they hold the final say, that they control what's gonna happen, when it's gonna happen, and where we can stick it if we don't agree.
That's just what politicians do, it's what they've always done. We can't fund Bush forever, aside from growing dissent against the War in Iraq, we simply DONT have that kind of money, unless we want China to own the US outright, we have to cut the funds at some point. What point? I'm not really sure, but at least the Dems are trying to say "this point." it's far better than the alternative of "the point...down the road, some time, ya know, when we're ready".
Alot of misconception and propganda comes from the fact that IF the military does not get it's monstrous budget approved, they're not out of funds. And if they were, you can expect to see the troops home. Aside from the soldiers stopping fighting when no longer being paid, companies will stop making equiptment without contract money, and the people as a whole will simply not allow the government to say "oh, we control the military, they're gonna keep fighting till they die, fully loaded or not." Additionaly, their current weapons are not on lease, they're not going to vanish when the budget runs out, aircraft carriers arent going to dissapear, armored trucks arent gonna be airlifted away by the chinese company that made them.
yeah, they may run out of money, but thats not going to magically make the soldiers naked in the sand.
Money Issue: Remember, this is the US we're talking about here.
We have the ability to run up a huge national debt without any problem. We got infinite money, since this is the government we're talking about here! Why dig us out of the hole now? Just go and spend all the money we can on the troops? We throw trillions of dollars at the problem, and then let see if this would do the trick.
Problem is that we're just going to increase inflation, and we're risking an economic collaspe just like what happened after the Vietnam War. Still, this option is there. I don't see the reason why the "funding the troops" issue is so important, since this is the USA who can easily fund anything for that matter.
We have the ability to run up a huge national debt without any problem. We got infinite money, since this is the government we're talking about here! Why dig us out of the hole now? Just go and spend all the money we can on the troops? We throw trillions of dollars at the problem, and then let see if this would do the trick.
Well the damned Rep. in office is a spendthrift which totally goes against the pennypinching credo of the Rep. party. I don't think he cares as long as he has some sort of funding to wage his little wargames with Iraq. Personally I think we would be better off if wars were fought by the same morons that started them.
Problem is that we're just going to increase inflation, and we're risking an economic collaspe just like what happened after the Vietnam War. Still, this option is there. I don't see the reason why the "funding the troops" issue is so important, since this is the USA who can easily fund anything for that matter.
I don't know about you but I would rather be somewhere else than to be in a country that could eventually be ownd by China if our debt keeps rising and rising. I miss the days when Clinton was in office. He actually brought down our national debt. I remember when the dollar was worth more and when gas at one time was 99 cents/gallon. I do agree that inflation will get worse if we keep spending the way we are on this campaign that has got us nowhere.
Congress isn't taking it out on just the soldiers. When Jimbo was on active duty, we had to use military health care (which is not bad, just slow) and other services. If funding got cut off, that could affect not just soldiers but families as well.
Money Issue: Remember, this is the US we're talking about here.
We have the ability to run up a huge national debt without any problem. We got infinite money, since this is the government we're talking about here! Why dig us out of the hole now? Just go and spend all the money we can on the troops? We throw trillions of dollars at the problem, and then let see if this would do the trick.
Problem is that we're just going to increase inflation, and we're risking an economic collaspe just like what happened after the Vietnam War. Still, this option is there. I don't see the reason why the "funding the troops" issue is so important, since this is the USA who can easily fund anything for that matter.
we may have a faux money system here in the states, where money is simply valuable because the government says it is, but the funding the troops issue is not really a matter of funding. Everybody knows that we have the money to fund the troops, or at the very least, we can invent the money to fund the troops. The issue is who's waving the bigger stick. The president is attempting to say that Congress needs to just give him the money to do as he pleases and shove their dissent. And Congress is trying to say that they, as representatives of the people, can't in good concioncince just keep forking over the money to him for his war.
I don't know about you but I would rather be somewhere else than to be in a country that could eventually be ownd by China if our debt keeps rising and rising. I miss the days when Clinton was in office. He actually brought down our national debt. I remember when the dollar was worth more and when gas at one time was 99 cents/gallon. I do agree that inflation will get worse if we keep spending the way we are on this campaign that has got us nowhere.
Clinton brought it down, but we still had it, and Clinton would have probraly risen the National Debt again, thanks to the Democrats wanting to spend the surplus on government programs. A recession can quite easily reverse a surplus, meaning that the Democrats' goal of getting rid of the national debt becomes quite hard.
I am a deficit hawk, and I think something has to be done. But, we dug ourselves into this hole, and I see no way out. Why stop the train wreck now?
The president is attempting to say that Congress needs to just give him the money to do as he pleases and shove their dissent. And Congress is trying to say that they, as representatives of the people, can't in good concioncince just keep forking over the money to him for his war.
Thing is, you can fund the troops while still retreating from Iraq and rebuking Bush. Why cut off funds now? Just state: "We're going to continue funding, but here's a timetable. Violate it, and then we'll cut." Some of the more extreme verisons call for a reduction in troops levels, and also a reduction in funding for the War (since those troops are not going to be in Iraq), and these reduced troops would deal with Al-Qadaih.
If funding got cut off, that could affect not just soldiers but families as well.
I would say the death of there love ones will have a greater impact; the funding they was geting before the delay was disgraceful, they had to upgrade their armor themselves because of that pitiful so called funding.
The funding for the people who still support this war, is funding to pay the big business who have been siphoning off resources from the troops.
They are the big supporters of continuing the war in Iraq, for they can continue to get their paper.
That damn war is a stalemate !
To be honest, congress has absolutely no business giving the Generals on the ground time tables. The Generals have more knowledge of the situation than congress.
To be honest, congress has absolutely no business giving the Generals on the ground time tables. The Generals have more knowledge of the situation than congress.
This is not a military dictatorship. Our elected officials have every right to tell the Military leaders what to do. Our elected officials would be smart to listen and take the advise of the experts in Military Warfare (namely the soldiers themselves), but our legally elected officials make the final decision. That is why the President is called the Commander and Chief, he and not any General or Admiral has the final say. The President is usually not an expert in warfare and should listen to his advisories and military before making decisions.
Congress also has a say in this too. They are the ones that declare war. They also control the money. Our founding father felt it important to have checks and balances between the three branches of government. They did not want any one to become all powerful. While this system has been frustrating at times, it has worked for over 200 years. The American people also must have felt the need for checks and balances or we would still have a Republican controlled Congress.
You are right Congress should not have a say on the operational activity of day to day operations of the military. However, they do have a say on funding a war.
I don’t want the military to pull out of Iraq; however I do want some accountability for the price our country, our allies and the Iraqi people have paid in blood for this war.
In the end funding will not be cut off. The bill will pass and be signed into law. Eventually both sides will set down and find some middle ground. A place where most American already are.
Thing is, you can fund the troops while still retreating from Iraq and rebuking Bush. Why cut off funds now? Just state: "We're going to continue funding, but here's a timetable. Violate it, and then we'll cut." Some of the more extreme verisons call for a reduction in troops levels, and also a reduction in funding for the War (since those troops are not going to be in Iraq), and these reduced troops would deal with Al-Qadaih.
but thats what they're trying to do. Saying: here's the money....BUT...you have to be out of there by X. Or you have to have X soldiers in there by X or no money.
But Bush has repeatedly said the only legislation he WONT veto, is one that says "here's your money, no strings, have fun."
but thats what they're trying to do. Saying: here's the money....BUT...you have to be out of there by X. Or you have to have X soldiers in there by X or no money.
But Bush has repeatedly said the only legislation he WONT veto, is one that says "here's your money, no strings, have fun."
/shrugs. I heard that he is attempting a discussion to come up with some objectives to measure progress, I don't know how long that is going.
As for vetoing...It's his right, inscrined in the Consitution. The one thing the Founding Fathers hated was rule by the Mob, and the President has to power to overrule the Legalstive Branch if he feels it is necessary for a greater goal in mind. Besides, if the Democrat held the Presidency and the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Republicans wanted to cut something terrible, and most people are for the Republicans, the Democrat would veto it too, because he believes in something greater than poll numbers.
Balance of power seems very strange in this era, no? Still, best to protect it, lest you be on the receiving end.
but thats what they're trying to do. Saying: here's the money....BUT...you have to be out of there by X. Or you have to have X soldiers in there by X or no money.
But Bush has repeatedly said the only legislation he WONT veto, is one that says "here's your money, no strings, have fun."
Well Congress has no business telling the commander and chief how to run a war. Seriously, running a war by committee is just plain stupid.
If you want to run a war, all you need to do is unlock the cages of those who fight the wars for you, those who know more about fighting and how to wage and win war than you ever will.
Well Congress has no business telling the commander and chief how to run a war. Seriously, running a war by committee is just plain stupid.
Well, the President is incompetent failure, GarfieldJL he has fail his job as commander in chief; he is not a dictator or a warlord so the committee do have say so in a democracy.
He is accountable for his actions, so far respect to the Iraq War his commanding have been scandalous and pathetic, he is a terriable commander, which should be obvious to the sane people in this country, only the insane and his pathetic worshipers would believe he is doing a superb job in Iraq. :lol:
Unless there is no democracy in the U.S. no more, he don't have the last word on the decisions for runing a war.
As far as I know he don't rule the United States (unless I'm missing something), so Congress still have a say so on how to run that war, GarfieldJL. :)