PDA

View Full Version : Taking it Out on the Troops


JediMaster12
05-02-2007, 01:39 PM
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?

Windu Chi
05-02-2007, 02:22 PM
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.

Jae Onasi
05-02-2007, 02:45 PM
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.

Prime
05-02-2007, 02:48 PM
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.

Totenkopf
05-02-2007, 04:10 PM
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?"

Web Rider
05-02-2007, 05:56 PM
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.

mimartin
05-02-2007, 06:01 PM
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.

Emperor Devon
05-02-2007, 07:25 PM
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.

Windu Chi
05-02-2007, 07:48 PM
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

SilentScope001
05-02-2007, 08:11 PM
/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?

Web Rider
05-03-2007, 12:08 AM
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?

Totenkopf
05-03-2007, 12:35 AM
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.

SilentScope001
05-03-2007, 11:47 AM
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.?

Dagobahn Eagle
05-03-2007, 02:03 PM
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.

Windu Chi
05-03-2007, 02:34 PM
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. :)

SilentScope001
05-03-2007, 02:45 PM
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.

JediMaster12
05-03-2007, 05:25 PM
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.

lukeiamyourdad
05-03-2007, 07:06 PM
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.

Nancy Allen``
05-03-2007, 09:09 PM
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.

lukeiamyourdad
05-04-2007, 02:34 AM
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 Université de Montréal 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.

Windu Chi
05-04-2007, 03:26 AM
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.

GarfieldJL
05-04-2007, 09:04 AM
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.

JediMaster12
05-04-2007, 12:16 PM
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.

Nancy Allen``
05-04-2007, 06:23 PM
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.

Allronix
05-05-2007, 03:08 PM
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.

lukeiamyourdad
05-07-2007, 05:35 PM
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".

GarfieldJL
05-07-2007, 07:17 PM
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.

SilentScope001
05-07-2007, 08:32 PM
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.

GarfieldJL
05-07-2007, 08:37 PM
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.

Jae Onasi
05-08-2007, 12:19 AM
Revolution is never a best-case scenario....

Ambrose
05-08-2007, 12:57 AM
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.

JediAthos
05-08-2007, 01:00 AM
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.

GarfieldJL
05-08-2007, 11:02 AM
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.

mimartin
05-08-2007, 02:02 PM
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.

JediMaster12
05-08-2007, 02:12 PM
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.

JediAthos
05-08-2007, 03:16 PM
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.

Web Rider
05-09-2007, 12:55 AM
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.

SilentScope001
05-09-2007, 11:20 AM
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.

JediMaster12
05-09-2007, 12:26 PM
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.

Jae Onasi
05-09-2007, 07:20 PM
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.

Web Rider
05-09-2007, 08:17 PM
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.

SilentScope001
05-09-2007, 09:13 PM
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.

Windu Chi
05-10-2007, 01:52 AM
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 !

GarfieldJL
05-10-2007, 12:52 PM
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.

mimartin
05-10-2007, 02:02 PM
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.

Web Rider
05-10-2007, 07:06 PM
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."

SilentScope001
05-10-2007, 08:24 PM
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.

GarfieldJL
05-10-2007, 10:14 PM
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.

Nancy Allen``
05-10-2007, 10:36 PM
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.

Windu Chi
05-10-2007, 11:14 PM
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. :)

Web Rider
05-11-2007, 12:08 AM
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.

So if the CnC told his army that the best way to conquer the enemy is to eliminte the threat from within, and started rounding up, executing and "dissapearing" citizens of our nation, husbands, children, wives, for a vague or plainly false reasons, you'd say: "more power to 'em!" ?

No, the president is a public servant. He does what we want him to do. Congress, as our representatives, our our voice in the political process to tell the president what we want.

he bows to OUR wishes, first and formost, now and forever. We elect him, we tell him what to do, and he dosent say "your wrong." When we say jump, he asks "how high?" That's the president's job.

That is EVERY politicians job, to jump when we say jump and to dissent when we dissent. Anything else and they're not doing their job, they're representing somebody else or some other agenda. We must force the government to back down when they do things we don't like, the government should never be able to do what it wants and tell the people they have no say or that they're opinions are "wrong".

people should never fear their government, and governments must always fear the power of it's people.

/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.

Dont get me wrong, I don't disagree that veto is an important part of the system, and if the opposing faction had the votes, they couldoverride the presidents veto. And if they do, then they should. As proof that the representatives of the people are willing to go all out to prove he's in the wrong.

That's why I've always supported the filliabuster. There's a way to end it, and if you don't have the power to do so, then you just gotta take it. Otherwise, to those who hate the fillibuster I say: Use your mighty congressional powers to get a cloture vote.

Totenkopf
05-11-2007, 04:05 AM
So if the CnC told his army that the best way to conquer the enemy is to eliminte the threat from within, and started rounding up, executing and "dissapearing" citizens of our nation, husbands, children, wives, for a vague or plainly false reasons, you'd say: "more power to 'em!" ?

No, the president is a public servant. He does what we want him to do. Congress, as our representatives, our our voice in the political process to tell the president what we want.

he bows to OUR wishes, first and formost, now and forever. We elect him, we tell him what to do, and he dosent say "your wrong." When we say jump, he asks "how high?" That's the president's job.

That is EVERY politicians job, to jump when we say jump and to dissent when we dissent. Anything else and they're not doing their job, they're representing somebody else or some other agenda. We must force the government to back down when they do things we don't like, the government should never be able to do what it wants and tell the people they have no say or that they're opinions are "wrong".

people should never fear their government, and governments must always fear the power of it's people.

Dont get me wrong, I don't disagree that veto is an important part of the system, and if the opposing faction had the votes, they couldoverride the presidents veto. And if they do, then they should. As proof that the representatives of the people are willing to go all out to prove he's in the wrong.

That's why I've always supported the filliabuster. There's a way to end it, and if you don't have the power to do so, then you just gotta take it. Otherwise, to those who hate the fillibuster I say: Use your mighty congressional powers to get a cloture vote.


Yes, the president is a public servant, but in wartime the president is often granted far reaching power. Lincoln succeded, despite howls of protest, in suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War and FDR in moving foreign nationals into internment camps. Wilson even had someone (I forget her name) deported for sedition in WW1. Many things can apparently be done if a state of national emergency is declared. Part of the problem with taking the attitude that a politician jumps when "we" say jump is that there is no monolithic "we" in this country (or any nation, really). The president's job is not to rule by poll results, but to try to serve the nation w/in the bounds of the Constitution. If he fails to do so, it rests upon the Congress to try to remove him. Barring that, there's always revolution (though even the one from England wasn't universally popular).

The only problem with the filibuster is when certain parties in Congress try to contort the conditions surrounding it's use. The concept of "supermajorities" come to mind.

JediMaster12
05-11-2007, 12:28 PM
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.
I said the same thing. It would be so much better if the morons who started the wars fought them themselves. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. But that is a dream world there.

mimartin
05-11-2007, 01:48 PM
It would be so much better if the morons who started the wars fought them themselves. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. But that is a dream world there.

If the planners fought the war hopefully they would have the equipment they should have had before they were deployed.

They also would not be lied to about the length of their deployment.

If the people that plan this great debacle fought it, then the hospitals their wounded comrades stayed in wouldn’t have mold on the walls.

If (as you wrote) “the morons who started the wars fought them themselves,” then maybe there would be fewer wars in this world. We would look for peaceful alternatives and use war itself as truly a last resort. However that is all just a pipe dream. These “morons” are just after two things power and money. They achieve their goals at the cost our young men and women’s blood. These “morons” don’t have the courage or the honor to be a US soldier.

The Source
05-11-2007, 03:43 PM
When I noticed how inaffective the Democrats were, I began to become very displaced with the over all issues. If you have a president that doesn't do shnite about anything, and a congress that has no power at all, you are left with, "Who gives a snot." I am getting tired of watching the 6:30 news to find out that we have gone nowhere in all directions. We have not made progress in Iraq, we have not made progress in congress, we have not made progress anywhere. Our domestic deficit is at an all time high, our stock market is being fuled by foreign investors, our gas prices are being gauged by oil tycoons, our domestic economy grew at 1%, and terrorists are building bases in South America. WT@#%^! If we do not do something about anything, something will no doubt happen without being in our control.

Grrr...

I say that we should pull out of Iraq, go after the bases in South America, stablize Afganiztan (sp?), some how lower gas prices, and then let god sort out what results from all this shnite.

Nancy Allen``
05-11-2007, 06:38 PM
I said the same thing. It would be so much better if the morons who started the wars fought them themselves. Then we wouldn't be in this mess. But that is a dream world there.

Certainly, I think Bush and those who are very much for war should spend a week in combat, not just at some secured site for a public appearence, but taken twenty miles behind enemy lines. That's not what I'm talking about though. How much do you think Bush knows about war? More than a SEAL platoon? A Delta squad? A Ranger batallion? Who does he think he is trying to tell these people how to fight war? They've been doing it at the absolute elite level, for maybe twenty years or more. He's more or less uncaging the animals to fight the war for him and then tieing their hands because he wants them to fight his way, by his timeline, budget, ect.

SilentScope001
05-11-2007, 07:29 PM
That's why I've always supported the filliabuster. There's a way to end it, and if you don't have the power to do so, then you just gotta take it. Otherwise, to those who hate the fillibuster I say: Use your mighty congressional powers to get a cloture vote.

The fillibuster just seems like an overused parlmeintary tactic that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind. Still, it is used, of course, and I'm not against it or anything. It's there, let have it.

A note however: The clouter rule means that you need 60 Senators to vote For Closing the debate. If at least 40 Senators want to go and 'continue debate', Cloture Rule means nothing. The Cloture Rule therefore can be used to protect the minority party in the Senate, and I can't wait to see the Republican Party start to use that rule to block the Democrats.

GarfieldJL
05-13-2007, 12:03 AM
Okay, first of all people seem to be neglecting several key points.

1. Congress did basically authorize the war in Iraq.

2. Article 2 of the United States Congress states that it is the President of the United States that is in charge of our armed forces, not Congress, once they authorized the use of troops the only recourse congress has is to cut off funding. Any time tables they enter into legislation would likely be thrown out by the United States Supreme Court.

3. While the United Nations didn't support us going into Iraq, the motives for not supporting us was not at all noble.
- France, Russia, and China were selling military equipment to Saddam after the Persian Gulf War despite the UN resolutions which they supported to bar the sales of military equipment to Saddam.
- Saddam was manipulating the Oil for Food Program to get millions if not billions of dollars in kickbacks. Bribing various people in different governments and the UN. If we hadn't invaded this wouldn't have been brought to light.

4. There was legitimate reason to believe Saddam still had Chemical and biological weapons.
- Something that's been bugging me is what happened to several tons of Anthrax, he couldn't have incinerated it all without someone noticing.

5. There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.
- The United States delayed for several months trying to get the UN to support the invasion. During this time there was a lot of traffic to and from Baghdad, the areas where WMDs were according to intelligence and to and from the Iraqi/Syrian border. Several months is plenty of time to bury and or move all that stuff out of the country.
- There were a bunch of Hazmat suits that were made in France that were still unopened made after the 1st Gulf War, that were found in Iraq. What possible use did the Iraqi troops have for Hazmat suits when the US doesn't use Biological/Chemical weapons.
- At least one of the Rockets/missiles fired into Kuwait by Iraq exceeded the range limit designated by at least one UN resolution which basically stated Iraq couldn't have missiles that could fire beyond a certain range. So yes, Saddam was still violating UN resolutions.

6. Saddam had been shooting at US aircraft which were enforcing the no fly zone.

7. Saddam was providing aid to terrorists which were attacking Israel, an ally of the United States.
- Bush did state the United States was at war with terrorists and any country that supported terrorists, Saddam started harping on the fact he was providing aid to terrorists attacking Israel. If he figured Bush was bluffing he failed to take into account many Texans don't know how to bluff, when they say something, they mean it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Next the reason we have to stay in Iraq is simple, if we leave before Iraq is able to stand on its own, then we'll have to go into Iraq a few years later because Al-Qaeda is using it as a base of operations and it would cost us more money and lives than it would to just stay and finish the job in the first place. Then there is the fact that Iran is providing weapons, training, and personale to attack our forces in Iraq. So the question is how much is Iraqis actually attacking us, how much is the Iranians, and how much is Al-Qaeda.

Then there is the fact that unlike the situation in Vietnam, our troops believe they can win in Iraq. Pulling the rug out from under our troops while saying you support them is like lying to their faces.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, Bush isn't exactly as dumb as people would like to believe, having a language learning disability combined with a southern accent, doesn't make a person stupid. He went to the same university as John Kerry and got better grades than Kerry did, so if Bush is as stupid as people say he is, then Kerry wouldn't even be able to talk at all cause he would be functionally Braindead. I know Dan Rather whom used to work at CBS and other liberals in the media would love for everyone to believe Bush is below average intelligence, but in all actuallity it just shows they have a problem with telling the truth when it doesn't suit their left-wing agenda.

Windu Chi
05-13-2007, 02:53 AM
Okay, first of all people seem to be neglecting several key points.
3. While the United Nations didn't support us going into Iraq, the motives for not supporting us was not at all noble.
I think people should already beaware that the U.N. is a useless organization,
their failure over the years is very apparent.
They aren't noble period !

There was legitimate reason to believe Saddam still had Chemical and biological weapons.
- Something that's been bugging me is what happened to several tons of Anthrax, he couldn't have incinerated it all without someone noticing.
Maybe he didn't have none in the first place, maybe it was all a lie.
The U.N. weapons inspectors destroyed all the chemical and bioweapons, maybe that is what happen to the Anthrax.

Did you ever consider that ?

There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.
WHAT ? :lol:
I can't believe people are still talking about those imaginary WMDs after 4 YEARS.
Well, it seem more like six years.
How long is people going to keep believing he had WMDs ?
Until the sun fissile out? :lol:

- The United States delayed for several months trying to get the UN to support the invasion. During this time there was a lot of traffic to and from Baghdad, the areas where WMDs were according to intelligence and to and from the Iraqi/Syrian border. Several months is plenty of time to bury and or move all that stuff out of the country.
Having you been watching the news ?
The intelligence officials said that intelligence was flawed.

- There were a bunch of Hazmat suits that were made in France that were still unopened made after the 1st Gulf War, that were found in Iraq. What possible use did the Iraqi troops have for Hazmat suits when the US doesn't use Biological/Chemical weapons.
The US doesn't use Biological/Chemical. :lol:
I doubt that.
They may not use it publically, but I supect they do do experiments with bio and chemical weapons.
Everything the government do isn't always public, they have many BIG SECRETS.
I don't trust them. :)

- At least one of the Rockets/missiles fired into Kuwait by Iraq exceeded the range limit designated by at least one UN resolution which basically stated Iraq couldn't have missiles that could fire beyond a certain range. So yes, Saddam was still violating UN resolutions.
Yeah, I agree with that, he was in violation of the missile range limits.
But UN resolutions is funny, though.

6. Saddam had been shooting at US aircraft which were enforcing the no fly zone.
Of course he was shooting at them, he wasn't going to let them just fly over his air space, because they are the U.S. .


7. Saddam was providing aid to terrorists which were attacking Israel, an ally of the United States.
Where is this evidence ?
As the skeptics would ask.

- Bush did state the United States was at war with terrorists and any country that supported terrorists.
Saddam started harping on the fact he was providing aid to terrorists attacking Israel. If he figured Bush was bluffing he failed to take into account many Texans don't know how to bluff, when they say something, they mean it.
Still where is this evidence?
Unless the news media is lying as neo-cons would say, there is no evidence that Saddam supported terrorists. :lol:


Next the reason we have to stay in Iraq is simple, if we leave before Iraq is able to stand on its own, then we'll have to go into Iraq a few years later because Al-Qaeda is using it as a base of operations and it would cost us more money and lives than it would to just stay and finish the job in the first place.
Yeah now, Al-Qaeda is using it as a base of operations.
What about we just make Iraq the 51st state.
It will probably make things more easier. :)
It just don't look like they are going to stand up on their own soon, maybe 20-50 years from now.




Then there is the fact that unlike the situation in Vietnam, our troops believe they can win in Iraq. Pulling the rug out from under our troops while saying you support them is like lying to their faces.
Why it got to be about what the troops believe, it's what the officials believe.
I think the troops is more concern about getting the hell out of there before
they lose a arm, eye sight, hearing or their lives.
The troops are in a meatgrinder.
That war is a stalemate, now.
And don't say that cut and run crap. :)
They are in a civil war.
Keeping the troops there will just make them targets of opportunity.

The Iraqis seem to show no interest in taking charge of their country's future.
All I keep hearing from them is keep the troops there, keep the troops there and keep the troops there...
They seem be more interested in relying on the U.S. military to take care of them, until Bush's useless ass is ejected out of office.


Finally, Bush isn't exactly as dumb as people would like to believe, having a language learning disability combined with a southern accent, doesn't make a person stupid.
Who said it did?
But trust me he is a fool.
Believing that the war is going good, after of 4 yrs of no progress, is anserine.
It's time for him to be evicted.


He went to the same university as John Kerry and got better grades than Kerry did, so if Bush is as stupid as people say he is, then Kerry wouldn't even be able to talk at all cause he would be functionally Braindead. I know Dan Rather whom used to work at CBS and other liberals in the media would love for everyone to believe Bush is below average intelligence, but in all actuallity it just shows they have a problem with telling the truth when it doesn't suit their left-wing agenda.
What do that got to do with anything?
Oh, this left left-wing, right wing bull. :rolleyes:

It's more like secret government agenda, but that is another topic.

GarfieldJL
05-13-2007, 05:31 PM
Actually, it is well known that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on the Iraqi Kurds...

Windu Chi
05-13-2007, 07:03 PM
Actually, it is well known that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on the Iraqi Kurds...
I know about that, I'm talking about, I doubt he had any left on March 17, 2003 when "Shock and Ahh" occurred. :)

Allronix
05-13-2007, 08:02 PM
Actually, it is well known that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he used them on the Iraqi Kurds...

Yeah, because we GAVE them to the ~snipped~! We blessed his actions, propped him up, and looked the other way during his abuses. Do I have to dig up the articles from the 80's where Rumsfeld and Cheney call him a "wonderful human being" and the photo ops of them shaking hands with him? Our government didn't give a rat's arse that he was bombing and raping his own people, and we didn't give a rat's arse about the women being prisoners in their homes, and reduced to chattel under the Taliban, either. Just three weeks before we invade the place to smoke out Bin Laden (and why did we waste resources in Iraq instead of hunting down the scoundrel? My guess is that he makes too good a boogeyman to actually kill), the Bush adminsistration gives them 16 million dollars as a reward for burning poppy fields as part of the War on Drugs (another war that's gone into stalemate).

And no, it's not totally Bush, because the abuses under the Taliban and the profiteering in Iraq was also benefitting Slick Willie Clinton. Activists from all sides were hollering about the Taliban since 1995, and the "food for oil" deal was being protested since it started, but no one paid any attention to it!

The Republican elephants are full of crap and the Democrat ~snipped~ live up to their image. It's one of the reasons I declare myself Green or Freedom Socialist on my voter form.

Nancy Allen``
05-13-2007, 08:15 PM
Y'know what I absolutely love? How people take all responsibility away from the people who commit these acts; Saddam, Al Qaeda ect and instead places the blame on America for training them against the Soviets or what not.

Allronix
05-13-2007, 11:23 PM
Y'know what I absolutely love? How people take all responsibility away from the people who commit these acts; Saddam, Al Qaeda ect and instead places the blame on America for training them against the Soviets or what not.

The argument I have for that is that we created these monsters because they were out to hurt those who were our enemy at the time, and the things we now use to justify going to war were done with our blessing in the first place. Not saying they aren't dead wrong, and not denying thoise guys are zits on the face of humanity, but there are no saints or angels writing foreign policy. There is no one with the moral high ground, no innocent party in world government. Kings reap the benefits, peasants pay all the price. Doesn't matter if it's a corporation that promises to build infrastructure and skims millions off the top, an official that supports war but never has fought in one, or a rich religious nut that convinces the poor and desperate to blow themselves up, but would never risk his own neck.

And what monsters are we making for the next generation with the war we fight today? What kind of mess are we going to have when those troops come hope to a VA system that still can't handle Vietnam's casualties?

Nancy Allen``
05-14-2007, 08:36 AM
Just explain again how mass murder isn't the fault of those who flew the planes into the buildings but rather the blame is on those that trained them.

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 01:13 PM
You might as well blame the education systems that taught these people how to think and add and spell. W/out those tools many of these people would be walking vegetables. If I show you how to use an axe to split wood, then you take it and cleave the skull of someone you don't like....how is it my fault that you did that? We have become a culture that seems to want to make excuses for all behavior, mostly I suspect b/c people wish to shed the idea of personal responsibility. Therefore, it's not SH's fault he killed/tortured so many of his own people. It's the evil *snip* @the CIA who "put him in power". Or pick anyone of the atrocities commited in Africa over the last 50 years and blame it squarely on european colonialism. Or better yet, blame the 3 Stooges the next time someone kills someone with a pick-axe. :rolleyes:

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 01:19 PM
If I show you how to use an axe to split wood, then you take it and cleave the skull of someone you don't like....how is it my fault that you did that?

It is your fault.

You gave him the weapons and the training needed to do the crime. Sure, he wanted to do the crime, but without those weapons and training, he wouldn't have done them in the first place. He could have gotten them elsewhere, but if he did, the people that gave him the training would have been responsible.

Oh, and France, USSR, Kuwait, and Britian helped to support Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Should we blame them as well?

mimartin
05-14-2007, 02:45 PM
Finally, Bush isn't exactly as dumb as people would like to believe, having a language learning disability combined with a southern accent, doesn't make a person stupid.
Trust me, I don't think a southern accent makes someone dumb, or even sound dumb. Stuttering or become tongue tied isn’t a sign of stupidity either.

What makes me think Bush has below average intelligence is his inability to accept that he could possibly make a mistake. To me it is more intelligent to admit you are wrong, when evidence to the fact is clear, and then work hard to correct your error, instead of just continuing to state you are right no matter the evidence to the contrary. It all the more important to evaluate your decisions when others may die based on those decisions.

Has Bush admitted that we have troops in the middle of a civil war? No, then that proves my point. While saying something 50 times the same way does not make it a fact, by the same token, ignoring something all together does not make go away. Bush as yet to learn either and that is what makes me question his intelligence. Much the same way he has question mine by not being straight with the American people.

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 03:19 PM
SS, you're wrong. It is only the fault of the perp himself/herself for the actions they commit. Once again, are you're educators at fault for teaching you how to read, write, and add if you then take that knowledge and go to the internet to learn how to construct pipe bombs? No, you are for misapplication of that knowledge. Nobody else is responsible for YOUR decision. Just b/c you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 03:35 PM
SS, you're wrong. It is only the fault of the perp himself/herself for the actions they commit. Once again, are you're educators at fault for teaching you how to read, write, and add if you then take that knowledge and go to the internet to learn how to construct pipe bombs? No, you are for misapplication of that knowledge. Nobody else is responsible for YOUR decision. Just b/c you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.

I disagree. You indeed play a role, and you need to realize that. You cannot totally claim that a person is TOTALLY responsible for his deed, and it's not your fault as well. You gave someone the tools, and if they use them right or wrong, you are responsible for that. He used the tools, but you gave it to him. Therefore, you share in the pain.

You said you didn't know the guy was going to use the deed for evil? Well, then, you should have done a background check to make sure that person was not going to do it for evil. It's like handing out axes to the local asylum and then wondering why they became mass murderers.

Education can be used for anything, both good and evil. Therefore, if I teach a person something, and that person used that knowledge for something wrong, why should I escape punishment? I gave him that knowledge. He used it for something wrong, but I gave him it. It's like giving a person a loaded gun and having that person use that loaded gun. The person is responsible for firing the loaded gun, but who gave him that loaded gun? ME. I should get punished for that, no? It was me who gave him the tools, and it is me who gave the gun that allowed for HIM to kill. I killed, alright? I cannot stress that enough. Anyone could have gave him the gun, but I was the one who gave him the gun, and therefore, I was the one who made him be what he is, I made him kill.

How much punishment should you get though? There's the question. The answer is likely none. But I do believe you are responsible, and you must accept that responsiblity instead of blaming it totally on the the murderer. This discussion on responsiblity has very little to do with this topic, and it's all based on personal belief. (I don't even believe in free will and personal responsiblity.)

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 03:59 PM
We're going to have to disagree. You might as well blame the mother simply for bringing that child into the world in the first place.

But, technically, various posts throughout this thread don't actually address taking it out on the troops, but rather the mechanics of governance in the US, a somewhat tangential topic as well.

GarfieldJL
05-14-2007, 04:44 PM
Okay, what really irks me is people blaming the US for the fact that some people buy into religious extremism...

Nancy Allen``
05-14-2007, 05:53 PM
How much blame, if any, do the following people carry for September 11?

Mohamed Atta al-Sayed. Hani Hanjour. Majed Moqed. Khalid Almihdhar. Nawaf Alhazmi. Ziad Jarrah. Osama Bin Laden. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. George H. W. Bush. George W. Bush. Bill Clinton. Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell.

Lord Spitfire
05-15-2007, 09:25 AM
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.

But I guess that means that Bush is really a Sith Lord in disguise and that he plans to turn the US into his Empire once he has enough power over the congress.

It's not a matter of balance of power. It's a matter on how the power is being used. I don't think that the troops are being misfunded at any rate, jst mistreated. And I live on the other side of the world to the US, BTW, just so you know.

But people are dying at Bush's hands becaues of his blind stubborness. He has become a crusader! He forces every country to be a democracy, and if they don't agree, he basically tears down the country, hiding behind the words of "For the good of both countries!" Iraq was a stable country before the war, and now its a mess. Did anyone ever think of the troops, fighting against their will most of the time? You can say that I am something of a pacifist, but I would preffer the suffering of a stable dictatorship that the daily bombing and geonice that Iraq is now. "OMG! its da troops falt! dey fought! OMG! blam de troops!" It's Bush's damn fault!

GarfieldJL
05-15-2007, 11:11 AM
Is it blind stubborness, or is Bush right and Congress wrong? Seriously there are some pretty good arguments that support Bush's stance, Bush isn't good at communicating things to others, but that doesn't mean he's stupid or wrong.

A President should not cater to popular opinion when fighting a war. That's also why he tends to be closed mouthed about things. Should the US have pulled out of WW 2 due to the casualties we were taking after finally entering it?

Should Lincoln have given up on fighting to preserve the United States because it was unpopular?

mimartin
05-15-2007, 12:25 PM
3401 and 25,245 are the only polling numbers that matter. These numbers represent an American father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister that has been killed and wounded in this war. Another important number is 63,610 the conservative number of civilians reported killed in Iraq since the war began.

Those are the “numbers” that Bush should be watching. I don’t care if this is the most popular or unpopular war in history, that has nothing to do with this leadership inability to stage a successful campaign. The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers, but these numbers should and must be taken into account. These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.

Is it being taking out on the troops? With 28,646 killed and wounded and who knows how many affected mentally for the rest of their lives, I’d say yes, it is being taken out on the troops.

GarfieldJL
05-15-2007, 12:41 PM
Comparied to 618,000 people killed on both sides in the American Civil War? Seriously, I know this sounds cold, but people die in war.

mimartin
05-15-2007, 01:34 PM
Very true and technology advancements have made the killing and the protecting of human life more efficient since the Civil War. If we were fighting this war with Civil War technology then the loss of life would be greater than the number killed thus far in this war. War gives us great advancement in medical technology and we have gone from a wounded soldier being killed to merely being disfigured for the rest of their life.

I understand they are soldiers and that is their job. Their job is to protect our freedoms even at the cost of their limbs or very life. Remember the government and the people also have a responsibility to them due to their service to us. We should not unnecessarily be putting them in harms way. We must keep our promises to them and not be extending their duty beyond the agreed limits. We must get them any and all equipment necessary to protect them from harm.

What I’ve been trying to say is Bush needs to be more flexible. When something is not working he needs to be willing to change our strategy. I’m not saying pull out! Even though it was Bush that made the promise to the Iraqi people, he is our legally elected President, so it was a promise made by the American people. If the Iraqi government and people are unwilling to make their country work then and only then we need to get out. I just want Bush to listen to the so called experts and be willing to modify his strategy and do what is the best interest of the American soldiers and the Iraqi people.

If this does turn out to be a full born Iraq Civil War then we must be willing to pull out. The world was told by Bush that we are there to liberate the Iraqi people, not as conquers.

GarfieldJL
05-16-2007, 11:15 AM
The problem is that a fair bit of the violence is due to Iranian special ops trying to incite violence as well as providing IEDs.

JediMaster12
05-16-2007, 01:52 PM
There is a distinct possibility that the Saddam's chemical and biological weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and/or buried somewhere before we invaded.
You have any idea what the shelf life is of biological weapons like say anthrax? Not very long. To be honest I haven't trusted anything the govt. has said about his supposed weapons of mass destruction. I haven't trusted anything since the fool in the big white house with the pillars in the front came into office.

Those are the “numbers” that Bush should be watching. I don’t care if this is the most popular or unpopular war in history, that has nothing to do with this leadership inability to stage a successful campaign. The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers, but these numbers should and must be taken into account. These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.
I do think that better attention should have been paid as to how this campaign was to be staged. Of course the hardcores say that it is war and in war people die. Yes people do die in war but at what point do we stop and take a look as to how it affects the bigger picture?

Windu Chi
05-16-2007, 06:25 PM
The Commander and Chief shouldn’t fight a war based on polling numbers,

You do realize this Commander and Chief is a useless failure? :)

These numbers should tell us that our strategy has not been working up to this point.
I think that is obvious now. :)

GarfieldJL
05-16-2007, 08:31 PM
Seriously, I think you give the President far too little credit. Clinton would have just gone to the UN after 9/11 and whined.

Darth Manus
05-16-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't know about that, but a self righteous trigger happy dumbass cowboy isn't what I'd consider an improvement over Clinton.

mimartin
05-16-2007, 09:12 PM
Seriously, I think you give the President far too little credit. Clinton would have just gone to the UN after 9/11 and whined.


After 9/11 Clinton and any other elected official would have done what they were elected to do and been the Commander and Chief. One difference they would of headed straight for Washington instead of hiding out till the danger was gone. The major difference between Clinton or any other sane and intelligent President in our history and the current George Bush is we would still have world support for our fight against terrorist. After 9/11 we had the world’s sympathy and support, but thanks to President Bush’s outstanding leadership we only really have England’s support now. With Prime Minister Tony Blair stepping down even that support is weakened. Even his father knew the importance of world support in fighting a war. This go it alone and we are always right mentality is not appropriate for five years old and certainly not appropriate for the leader of the free world (although I do not see the US as leader of the free world any longer).

I don’t understand why Bush supporters want to go after Clinton all the time. After all he is one of the few people on earth that say you can’t blame Bush for the lack of WMD in Iraq. He stated on CSPAN from the University of Arkansas that he would have made that same mistake. However, he felt the there was still not enough evidence to overthrow the countries leadership and that it was more important to go after the instigators of 9/11.

Clinton had/has a flawed personal life, but overall he was a successful President. Will Bush Presidency be considered a success? Only time will time and Iraq will tell. If he doesn’t solve the problem with Iraq before the end of his current term (highly unlikely), then it was a failed Presidency.

I don't know about that, but a self righteous trigger happy dumbass cowboy isn't what I'd consider an improvement over Clinton.

He isn't a cowboy, he really is a city boy that wants to be a cowboy.

Nancy Allen``
05-16-2007, 10:41 PM
Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 12:34 AM
Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.


Sad thing is I think I can believe that Nancy, that people would believe the left wing lunatics in the Media whom paint Bush as being Hitler reincarnated, even though it is complete garbage.

Seriously, Clinton had several terrorist attacks occur during his administration, and he let Bin Laden go anyways, he also pardoned terrorists so Hillary could get elected as Senator of New York. So the idea of Bush not being an improvement over Clinton is laughable putting it mildly.

Windu Chi
05-17-2007, 03:34 AM
Sad thing is I think I can believe that Nancy, that people would believe the left wing lunatics in the Media whom paint Bush as being Hitler reincarnated, even though it is complete garbage.
I don't believe Bush is evil, I do believe he is a racist (Hurricane Katrina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina) ) and a idiot.
So the idea of Bush not being an improvement over Clinton is laughable putting it mildly.
Laughable !
What in the hell are you talking about, this guy is the worst president in the history of presidents. :lol:
This is not a wise commander in chief, his policies are wasting lives over there in a war that is an obvious stalemate.
About 2 U.S. soldiers die everyday, that means death rates, if the rate continue as is, factor in as 14 (2x7 days) per week and 60 (2 x 30 days) per month and if the rate continue about 730 (2 x 365 days) per year, base on the death toll now which is 3,401 as of May 16, 2007.
But two deaths may result tomorrow.
And the wounded is huge, at least 25,378 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.
That include loss sight, loss hearing, loss limbs, loss feeling in the limbs and etc.
You might as well say, it includes everything that can be related to being wounded, like PTSD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_Stress_Disorder) (Post-traumatic stress disorder), with that some soldiers who survive and came back home have blown their brains out because of that nightmare there.
The things this guy does is nonsense, GarfieldJL. :disaprove
Not to mention how he is destroying our liberties with that damn patriot act or probably something else he maybe working on.

If you think this guy is a good president then you are lost.

Also I know some will argue that those fatality figures
are small, but this isn't WWII as some have compare Iraq to, we aren't fighting for survivable of the planet in Iraq, we aren't fighting the Nazis, the Nazis are all but extinct, Hitler is not in Iraq.
It was suppose to be a peace keeping operation, not a war.
You don't suppose to lose this many people in a peace keeping operation, but
thanks to that idiot's polices, he have gotten us into a stalemate, that is a disgrace to the troops and dishonorable. :disaprove
They are dying for nothing over there.
The Iraqi government is useless and corrupt, I don't see them taking control of their future for a long time to come.
Only if someone in the civilian population, step up.
If there is someone who really still give a damn about their country's future.

Our troops should be in Darfur stoping that genocide from happening, but because of racist Bush, in which he don't give a damn for Africans, so they continue to perish, when is someone is going to get mad as hell in that administration and do something about the
genocide in Darfur, how many more have to be murder there, I guess a million in like in Rwanda.

Totenkopf
05-17-2007, 04:06 AM
About 2 U.S. soldiers die everyday, that means death rates, if the rate continue as is, factor in as 14 (2x7 days) per week and 420 (14 x 30 days) per month,

That should read 60/month, not 420.

Also, Clinton wasn't a good president. However, Bush has proven a big disappointment as well. Think massive govt spending, poor border security and immigration policies and ineffective management of the war in Iraq. However, it will be interesting to see where presidential historians place these men in about 15-20 years. Reagan was roundly abused during his terms in office, but has since become more highly rated with the passage of time.

Windu Chi
05-17-2007, 04:20 AM
That should read 60/month, not 420.
You are right, Totenkopf, well when you work with complex differential equations like I do you forget simple arithmetic. :)

However, Bush has proven a big disappointment as well.

An extreme disapointment, Totenkopf. :)

Allronix
05-17-2007, 05:01 AM
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. ... War settles nothing."
-Dwight Eisenhower

Too bad he'd never make it in the modern GOP

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 01:40 PM
Okay Windu, you're saying George W. Bush is a racist, when he appointed the first Hispanic American to the supreme court and had the first African American Secretary of State, and then the first African American Woman Secretary of State. The Katrina fiasco was primarily due to the Governor of Louisanna, not the President. Simply put Bush would have violated federal law if he had brought in the National Guard without the permission of the Governor. The reason this little fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media is because the Governor of Louisanna was a Democrat. So why don't you do some research before you accuse someone of being racist. (Though calling people racist is a common tactic of the Democrats and the ACLU).

mimartin
05-17-2007, 02:35 PM
GarfieldJL is the Governor of Louisiana in charge of FEMA? No, then she isn’t the only one to blame for what happen during Katrina. The federal government (which Bush presumably is in charge of), the state government, the Parish government and the city government all failed in their responsibility to their citizens.

Did it have anything to do with the race of those in need? I would like to think it didn’t. Did it have anything to do with the economic status of the victims? Again I’d like to think not, but I’m not that stupid. Compare the response to 9/11 and you get your answer. When the financial capital of the world was struck every government agency was there almost before the towers hit the ground. You can say that was because of the location differences, but that does not wash. There was no warning to 9/11, but with a Hurricane you do some type of warning.

The media also failed miserably by focusing too much on who was to blame and New Orleans. Parts of Mississippi were wiped off the face of the earth, but all we heard about was New Orleans.

Much like Iraq, Bush focused on the wonderful job everyone was doing instead of kicking his agencies in the seat of their pants and getting the job done. That and flying Air Force One 10,000 feet over the area gave people the impression Bush was out of touch or just didn’t care.

Do I believe Bush is a racist? I have no way of seeing into his heart. Therefore I do not believe anyone but George Bush can answer that question. Do I believe he is to blame for what happen during Katrina? Yes and so are a lot of other people. I just hope we have learned our lesson and don’t let history repeat itself. I also hope we don’t have to put those lessons to use this year.


Do I think Bush is evil? No. I actually think he is a good man. I just question his leadership ability or lack there of. Something he was actually good at as Texas Governor. I’ve heard people say that he is listening to the wrong people and blaming everything that has gone wrong on Chaney and/or Rumsfeld, but they are there/were there at the President’s pleasure. He can get rid of them at anytime. I question Bush's intelligence because he got rid Colon Powell and kept them.

Windu Chi
05-17-2007, 05:23 PM
Okay Windu, you're saying George W. Bush is a racist, when he appointed the first Hispanic American to the supreme court and had the first African American Secretary of State, and then the first African American Woman Secretary of State.
Don't give me that bull about Condoleezza Rice, that women is a puppet of Bush, she is just a token brown women, to make Bush look like he care for African Americans, he don't give a damn about people with my brown skin color.
I thought she would be p--- off about what's happing in Darfur, but she isn't doing nothing, useless Secretary of State.
Thousands continue to die under her watch in Darfur.
Why do you think Colin Powell left?
Because Bush policies made him look like a fool when he went to the U.N. over a lie.

The Katrina fiasco was primarily due to the Governor of Louisanna, not the President.Simply put Bush would have violated federal law if he had brought in the National Guard without the permission of the Governor. The reason this little fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media is because the Governor of Louisanna was a Democrat. So why don't you do some research before you accuse someone of being racist. (Though calling people racist is a common tactic of the Democrats and the ACLU).


If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking.
And don't give that bull about federal law.
Bush is violating the law now with his spying programs.
Bush should have said, damn that and did something, that is a useless excuse, if it won't brown people out there drowning, I bet he would got his ass up and done something, I assume, unless he is completely useless.

Also I'm about tire of hearing about this left wing media, to put it clearly I don't trust media anyway because they don't investigate UFO reports, like some other media around the world.
There is no left wing media there is a lying media.
But if the news about Katrina, his spying programs and other reports are a lie then you can't trust nothing completely from the news.
Not even the weather.
So, to me it's 50/50 when it come towards the media info.
I'm damn sure not going to watch FOX news they are obviously bias toward everybody except republicans.

Jae Onasi
05-17-2007, 08:30 PM
If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking.
windu6, I've seen this kind of statement a couple times in the last few days. It's flamebaiting. Please stop. This is your public warning.

Nancy Allen``
05-17-2007, 09:35 PM
On Bush, a lot of it goes back to the 2000 elections when people were outraged that he won. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that people have been looking for a reason to attack him, and Iraq has been by far the biggest and most legitimate reason to go after him. Is that his only crime? No I don't think so. Is he evil? Absolutely not, Is Bill Clinton better or worse than Bush? The biggest criticism I can label at him is cutting the military, cutting away muscle rather than fat. But the problem is he was crucified over the Monica Lewinski scandal, just the same as Bush is now being crucified for Iraq.

Windu Chi
05-18-2007, 03:36 AM
windu6, I've seen this kind of statement a couple times in the last few days. It's flamebaiting. Please stop. This is your public warning.
Ok, Jae, I'm not trying to entice no one into a argument.
I guess my red colors is threating to some, I'm not trying to start no arguments with anyone.
Let me clear some things up here, for you won't think all the time when I use red colors I'm mad at someone.
These the words I usually color in red and don't think that I'm mad at you when post this below, this is how I'm. :)
I hate death, I hate the Holocaust, I hate genocide I hate the Nazis, eventhough they are extinct I still hate them same for Hitler, I hate evil
and racist= Holocaust.

I'm not a mean person, I'm extremely far from that, Jae. :)
I care far to much for what happen to the people in the Holocaust, to be evil. *

I'm not saying you think about me that way, but I suspect some here do.

You are completely beside the point: it's not a matter of who is evil and who isn't. It's not about the colors of the fonts either. It's about the content of your posts and the fact that you've been calling other members "ignorant", "closed-minded", "naive and crazy" or telling them things like "If you believe that then I don't know what you are smoking" when they don't agree with you. Criticize the ideas/opinions if you want but do it in a respectful manner and avoid attacking the person behind those ideas. You've been doing it a lot recently and we won't tolerate this any longer. I hope this clears things out.

Now, back on topic - if you wish to answer this post, PM me. I'll pass on the messages to the rest of the staff. -d3

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 12:47 PM
windu, I actually looked at wikipedia and actual Federal Law to cross-reference the Katrina stuff. Federal Law clearly points out that it is the Governor has to give permission for the National Guard to be called in, which the Governor did not do. Thus President Bush's hands were tied on the matter. What you're saying Bush should have done was against Federal Law. The reason I consider Fox to be more trustworthy is because they are under a lot more scrutiny by the Left-Wing Mainstream Media hoping that Fox News will screw up so they can bash them into the ground.

Prime
05-18-2007, 01:47 PM
The reason I consider Fox to be more trustworthyIn what sense? To provide unbiased journalism?

Totenkopf
05-18-2007, 01:51 PM
Perhaps he means "less biased".....

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 01:57 PM
I mean the mainstream media outlets are waiting with baited breath to bash them if they misreport something because they can't stand the fact that Fox News exists.

Allronix
05-18-2007, 02:07 PM
Windu, I agree with most of your points. I did wonder a lot whether things would be handled differently in Katrina if the folks were white, rich, and Republican. The cynic in me has a lot of ideas as to how it would have been different. However, the presentation? Well, it is getting a little carried away.

FOX news? It's like the Daily Show. Sure, there's news there, but there's about 70% commentary to 30% news. Jon Stewart presents his as a liberal-tilted comedy show. FOX pretends it's a legitimate news service. (Yes, I've watched both, and thought FOX News WAS a comedy show until I found out otherwise).

And the media? It's not liberal. It's not conservative. It's an Aurora Avenue whore, showing off and promising whatever sex, sleaze, and scandal will get the john pulling over to buy the goods. How else do you explain crap like Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith crowding out Darfur?

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 02:19 PM
Most media outlets aren't slanted to the left, sorry but I have stuff to debunk your statement right there.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

Allronix
05-18-2007, 02:40 PM
Most media outlets aren't slanted to the left, sorry but I have stuff to debunk your statement right there.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf


Back at you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8782509076175388309
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/16wed1.html?ex=1268629200&en=cd8cabb11aec0b9a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html

Prime
05-18-2007, 02:41 PM
OK guys, obviously we can go around and around about media biases and whatnot, but lets not get too off-topic by arguing what is legit and what isn't. So if someone posts a link to back up a claim, if you disagree with it, please respond to points made in the link to show why they are wrong, and not just disregard it wholesale because of a bias, real or imagined. :)

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 03:08 PM
OK guys, obviously we can go around and around about media biases and whatnot, but lets not get too off-topic by arguing what is legit and what isn't. So if someone posts a link to back up a claim, if you disagree with it, please respond to points made in the link to show why they are wrong, and not just disregard it wholesale because of a bias, real or imagined. :)


Media bias is actually easily proven, I just wish I hadn't loaned out one of my books that have some specific examples. Including at least one that went beyond bias to actually supporting a terrorist. The thing that got them though was when it was printed. 9/11 happened. I'm talking about the NY Times.

Media bias is relevant, when it can be shown that they are deliberately distorting things to promote an agenda, like the pullout of troops from Iraq for instance.

Example of reporting fraudulent stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents -- CBS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_photographs_controversies
------------------------------------------------------------------------


The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

In same article:

Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias

I haven't even gotten started yet, some of what I've posted thus far I didn't even bother using as sources in my paper because I felt I had enough sources.

Prime
05-18-2007, 03:55 PM
Media bias is actually easily proven...Media bias is relevant, when it can be shown that they are deliberately distorting things to promote an agendaRead what I wrote again.



(And you may want to avoid quoting wikipedia articles, since they have a history of being riddled with innaccuracies, as they can be edited by anyone with any agenda of their own. Your argument would be much better served if you would quote/link to the original articles that have the actual facts that support your points. ;) )

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 04:03 PM
As I said, I'm trying not to dig out my paper which has a lot more sources, furthermore I posted the actual study by UCLA already.

Prime
05-19-2007, 01:40 AM
I think you missed the point. I'm saying respond to specific points to show why they are true or false, not whether segments of the media have an agenda or not.

Windu Chi
05-19-2007, 04:30 AM
Media bias is relevant, when it can be shown that they are deliberately distorting things to promote an agenda, like the pullout of troops from Iraq for instance.


I just don't believe the media is bias, they are lying most likely to all sides; left wing, right wing and the middle.

It's media lying, not bias, GarfieldJL. :)
Flip a coin when you watch the news. :lol:

lukeiamyourdad
05-19-2007, 12:02 PM
Journalists are biased. True. They are human beings. However, they're also bound by principles and a code of conduct.

For example, in the recent provincial election here in Québec, two journalists joined the ranks of two different political parties. I was quite surprised because I would never have guessed their political allegiance. Perhaps it's just an up North phenomenon. Still I think the BBC is also a good source for information, as well as many other European news sources.

American medias prefer to give a good show over giving proper information.

GarfieldJL
05-19-2007, 07:27 PM
Okay for those of you that don't know

Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

President Bush, couldn't send the National Guard into Louisanna for law enforcement assistance among other things.


Insurrection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act)

I don't think the state of Louisanna was in the state of Rebellion...


Also Journalists being bound by a code of conduct isn't exactly true, as demonstrated by Dan Rather, if not for Bloggers and Fox News he might have gotten away with fraud and slander. The other News networks weren't going to call him on it.

Nancy Allen``
05-19-2007, 08:04 PM
Dan who?

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.12.DownMountain-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.13.UpInSmoke-X.gif

I heard of American not being able to go after domestic terrorists but this is rediculous.

mimartin
05-20-2007, 07:56 PM
Okay for those of you that don't know

Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

President Bush, couldn't send the National Guard into Louisanna for law enforcement assistance among other things.

All he had to do was sign another signing statement and ignore this law just like he has many other laws that got in his way.

Examples:

1. Even though the law says the FBI must keep Congress informed on how it is using the USA Patriot Act as it pertains to the searching of homes and the seizer of papers.
Bush: Sign that the president can order the Justice Department to withhold any information to Congress that HE decides could impair national security or executive branch operation.

2. Law states US interrogators can not torture prisoners or other wise subject them to cruel degrading or inhuman treatment.
Bush signing statement stated that “the president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if HE decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.”

3. Law states that when Congress request “scientific information prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted to Congress uncensored and without delay.”
Bush’s signing statement “The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if HE decides its disclosure could impair foreign relation, national security or the workings of the executive branch.

4. Law state, “The military cannot add to it files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about American in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush’ signing statement “Only the president, as commander in chief, only HE can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.”

Need some more examples because he has done this over 100 times including when he sent active US military forces into New Orleans. Oh, all my examples come from before the Democrats took over Congress.

I blame the lack of National Guard troops on the Governor, but the State, Federal and local governments are all to blame for what happen during Katrina. I’ve asked this before but haven’t gotten a reply isn’t FEMA a part of the Federal Government?

Web Rider
05-20-2007, 08:52 PM
I blame the lack of National Guard troops on the Governor, but the State, Federal and local governments are all to blame for what happen during Katrina. I’ve asked this before but haven’t gotten a reply isn’t FEMA a part of the Federal Government?

if we're all going to argue about Katrina, there's plenty of blame to go around. The governor could have easily contacted the federal government and gotten the Nat Guard down there. The Fed could have contacted the governor to see if he needed them down there asap.

Hurricanes are tricky buggers, and you can look at your satellite imagery and just miss one of these state-size storms powering it's way towards the gulf coast.

There are plenty of people to blame and there's absolutly nothing that can be done about it right now. 5 days late in the scale of the year+ that's passed is so infintessimal it's silly to squabble over it.


on Journalists: A code of conduct is just that, a "code" it's rarely laws and often includes vague things like "you SHOULD report honestly". One should never expect the truth to be told to them. If you want to truth, find it for yourself, don't assume that whoever is willing to tell it to you has no agenda to push.

On media bias: Yes, the media is biased, just like every political part, organization and human being in the world. They have an agenda, some right, some left, some inane. Is it left? is it right? that depends on which stations your watching at what times and who happens to be on them. We act all shocked and amazed that something like TV would lie to us. *gasp!* TV, Lie?! Never!

Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.

this is indeed the great hipocracies of many, both inside and outside the US. It's kinda sad that a nimrod can go down as worse than Stalin. Pol Pot must be rolling in his grave.

Our troops should be in Darfur stoping that genocide from happening, but because of racist Bush, in which he don't give a damn for Africans, so they continue to perish, when is someone is going to get mad as hell in that administration and do something about the

look, if you put the red letters together, it says: Bush is a racist nazi genocidist. Horray for Goodwin's Law!

In any case, the Genocide in Dafur is much the same as the "civil war" in Iraq. Although in Dafur one side has guns and the other dosent, it's still largely the same. These aren't people with differences to be resolved. Genocide is the intentional killing a group of people for whatever. They don't want to strike a deal, they want them dead. And if you throw our troops in the middle of it, they'll end up dead too. Only in Dafur, they'll likly end up dead faster because the government is against us too, or corrupt enough to be bought/blackmailed against us.

Windu Chi
05-21-2007, 05:16 AM
look, if you put the red letters together, it says: Bush is a racist nazi genocidist. Horray for Goodwin's Law!
I've said, He don't give a damn about the people with my brown skin color.
I'm going to leave it at that, before somebody here start thinking I'm trying to flambait you. ;)
Ha! You would've already known if I thought of Bush as a Nazi.
You would have seen my red protracted rage and anger. :)
If that was the case.
And if you throw our troops in the middle of it, they'll end up dead too. Only in Dafur, they'll likly end up dead faster because the government is against us too, or corrupt enough to be bought/blackmailed against us.

Yes excuses ! :rolleyes:
So, let the massacre continue, it's not a big deal.
Forget it !

GarfieldJL
05-21-2007, 10:42 AM
mimartin, the Democrats in congress would have loved Bush ignoring that law because then they'd actually have a legitimate excuse to impeach Bush.


As far as the wikipedia sources Prime, I will agree to an extent, however I do remember the stories airing in 2004 and 2006 respectively and it's rather hard to find stories concerning these when CBS tried to cover it up after they got their head handed to them, and Reuters finally pulled the doctored photos after being called on it in both cases by bloggers and Fox News. MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. did not even bother to cover the story about the memos being false, a media giant being involved with slander concerning the President of the United States, that's a pretty big story, yet except for Fox News, bloggers, and maybe some local broadcasters, there was absolutely nothing concerning this.

The memos were in a font style that wasn't even in use when the memos were apparently typed. Top that off the memos had variable spacing which wasn't even possible for typewriters of that era. Plus if they were scans of original documents it would still be in the original font. Then CBS tried to prevent people from printing out the memos to look at for themselves trying to impede people from proving them to be forgeries. That goes way beyond bias, that goes into something that people can go to jail for.


windu, the idea of pulling out of Iraq just to go to Dafur is like just leaving one place to fall into a massive case of genocide to try and stop another. It makes little sense.

Plus the fact that we have absolutely no responsibility for the mess in Darfur, since we don't trade with Sudan anyways. Iraq is something where we made a mess going in to take down Saddam, so Bush is being responsible by trying to clean up the mess.

In Darfur's case it could be argued that several European countries turned a blind eye to the situation continuing to trade with Sudan, so in my opinion the Europeans need to fix it. People complain about the US always getting into everyone's business and they can handle it themselves, then they turn around saying we need to do something about some other crisis. To be blunt, it's highly annoying.

Web Rider
05-21-2007, 02:36 PM
I've said, He don't give a damn about the people with my brown skin color.
I'm going to leave it at that, before somebody here start thinking I'm trying to flambait you. ;)
Ha! You would've already known if I thought of Bush as a Nazi.
You would have seen my red protracted rage and anger. :)
If that was the case.


Yes excuses ! :rolleyes:
So, let the massacre continue, it's not a big deal.
Forget it !

The part about red was sarcasm, I see Goodwin's law pulled all the time, it's a running joke.

and....No! You misread me. I did not say it wasn't a big deal, in fact I never said anything regarding the situation in Dafur. All I said was that our troops would likly get killed faster there.

It IS a big deal, however, I don't think our troops would make ANY difference, other than adding to the body count. It's one of those kinda of situations that you could pour the entirety of the world's collective power into and nothing would be accomplished.

Much like Iraq, it is a mindset, and killing people never changed anyone's mind. it only make them think it harder or hide it. And neither one of those solutions lasts for any sort of long term.

Windu Chi
05-21-2007, 07:24 PM
and....No! You misread me. I did not say it wasn't a big deal, in fact I never said anything regarding the situation in Dafur. All I said was that our troops would likly get killed faster there.
Well, the U.N. is useless, so nothing isn't going to get done, otherwise.

It IS a big deal, however, I don't think our troops would make ANY difference, other than adding to the body count. It's one of those kinda of situations that you could pour the entirety of the world's collective power into and nothing would be accomplished.


It IS not a big deal, since we are still discussing it on forums and nothing haven't been done about it, by the officials in power. :disaprove

GarfieldJL
05-21-2007, 07:30 PM
Oh so now you're saying the UN is worthless, that's basically why Bush finally ended up going into Iraq in the first place. It is also possible that we would have found WMDs if we hadn't wasted several monthes trying to get UN backing and had just gone in from the get go.

urluckyday
05-21-2007, 07:44 PM
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.


If you hate it so much, no one is forcing you to stay...that's what I really hate about America...that no matter how much people complain, and how much the government complies, people will continue to complain...but w/e...it's not the government that makes America look bad...it's the general public that complains and complains no matter what...that's what is greedy...

What people dont realize is that...one of the responsibilities of a superpower is to defend the "free world" as you call it, from tyranny...but of course...the killing of thousands in Iraq (under Saddam) isn't enough for the "majority" to care...but w/e...I can't change the opinion of people that can only be pessimistic...but just remember...the world is inherently good, but those that do not act on what is wrong...are doomed to the same fate...that's kind of what the Declaration of Independence is about...

Web Rider
05-21-2007, 08:48 PM
Well, the U.N. is useless, so nothing isn't going to get done, otherwise.

It IS not a big deal, since we are still discussing it on forums and nothing haven't been done about it, by the officials in power. :disaprove

And I have not once mentioned the UN. I said nothing about talking to them, asking them for help, or whatever. Either address the points I make or don't bother responding to me.

And we, the people, have been in charge of where the government goes to war and who they go to war with for how long? Oh, thats right, never.

So our discussion of this topic is entirely irrelevent to our involvement status regarding Darfur.

SilentScope001
05-21-2007, 09:38 PM
If you hate it so much, no one is forcing you to stay...

I don't speak for JediMaster21, but I personally am forced to stay in the USA. Society's pressure, cultural norms, my inablity to speak a langauge other than English, and the lack of a good income outside of the USA all combine to form an "Axis of Forcing People to Stay Within One Country" and is forcing me to stay within the United States of America. I'm trapped. No wonder many people are upset, being trapped and all.

Now, I could stay within this one area and form a milita and leave the United States of America, creating my own nation, and maybe, maybe then this criticism would end. Maybe then people could leave the Union and be done with it, taking away all the good things about the Union, like the land, the territory, and the economy, and leaving the bad parts of the Union. Oh wait. I can't, last time someone tried that, they got stuck in a Civil War.

An interesting solution: Allow anyone to seecde from the Union, and then maybe people will actually do such a thing.

EDIT: Oh, and to get on topic:

Blaming the troops is bad.

Nancy Allen``
05-21-2007, 09:41 PM
It may be hard to believe but they don't all speak French in Canada. In fact out at Vancouver they film part of the X Files, particularly episodes such as Darkness Falls IIRC. Interested?

SilentScope001
05-21-2007, 09:46 PM
It may be hard to believe but they don't all speak French in Canada. In fact out at Vancouver they film part of the X Files, particularly episodes such as Darkness Falls IIRC. Interested?

I have been there to Canada.

But, really, I still am trapped in the United States of America. While the lanaguage barrier can be crossed, what about Universal Health Care? Bad, bad socialist-style health care. Or the fact that Canada seems, well, boring and inactive. Or the fact that I secretly love being a citizen of a hyperpower. Or the fact that prehaps I don't know if I can get jobs in Canada but I can get jobs here. And on and on...

I don't complain about being trapped here, I just admit it. I'm trapped in any sort of country I go to anyway, and if I go to Canada, I'll be trapped by their own rules. Really, I don't care, because in the end, we all die anyway, and when that happens, who care what country you born into or fight for? It doesn't matter in the end.

Jae Onasi
05-21-2007, 09:50 PM
Hmmm--topic is "Taking it Out on the Troops" and we should return to that. If you all want to start a separate thread on citizenship/patriotism, that would be cool.

JediMaster12
05-23-2007, 12:53 PM
If you hate it so much, no one is forcing you to stay...that's what I really hate about America...that no matter how much people complain, and how much the government complies, people will continue to complain...but w/e...it's not the government that makes America look bad...it's the general public that complains and complains no matter what...that's what is greedy...
I don't hate America and I do my part by voting down what I think is right and carry on in campaign. I have lived here all my life. I complain because at times I can't understand the logic of people or am pissed off that they misconstrue things into their own twisted ideology. I was also making a point that while we care so much for the idea of freedom, we don't stop and think that we are doing exactly what England has done to us so many years ago.

What people dont realize is that...one of the responsibilities of a superpower is to defend the "free world" as you call it, from tyranny
And my good sir are we supposed to do it in such an arrogant manner with no consideration to other cultures or beliefs? We presume so much that the US is better and right and in most cases yeah we are to those that flock to our shores. However when we force it upon a place that has been governed by thousands of years of tradition, you are going to poke the stick at the sleeping giant. That is why I think and have said that, in regards to Iraq, that by forcing a democratic system upon the people, you are coming into conflict with a religious ideology that sees democracy as a devil's invention. Plus you are dealing with tradition and tradition is hard to break.

GarfieldJL
05-23-2007, 03:40 PM
Recently Declassified Information (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274893,00.html)

By the way, I watched the speech live. This was up top on Fox News.


However, MSNBC Report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18809646/) was towards the bottom of the page ahead of it included something about a kid sleeping in a trash can being named student of the year. Of course they devote a significant amount of time bashing Bush.


However this declassified information makes the Dems look like idiots.

Totenkopf
05-23-2007, 04:12 PM
And I have not once mentioned the UN. I said nothing about talking to them, asking them for help, or whatever. Either address the points I make or don't bother responding to me.

And we, the people, have been in charge of where the government goes to war and who they go to war with for how long? Oh, thats right, never.

So our discussion of this topic is entirely irrelevent to our involvement status regarding Darfur.

I think the one thing that Windu doesn't take into account, or perhaps discounts entirely, is that foreign policy isn't dictated by racism so much as by resources. If the Sudan had as much oil as the Saudis or Iraq, there'd likely be more involvement by outside forces to maintain some kind of stability for, if nothing else, the purposes of commerce. I don't really believe that much attention is paid to what goes on in places like Burma/Myanmar or Tibet (outside of Hoolywood, I s'ppose) for that very reason.

One thing does appear clear this time around, thankfully. That seems to be that the bulk of America won't put up with much of the antics of Vietnam era anti-war/anti-soldier behavior.

Web Rider
05-23-2007, 05:29 PM
I think the one thing that Windu doesn't take into account, or perhaps discounts entirely, is that foreign policy isn't dictated by racism so much as by resources. If the Sudan had as much oil as the Saudis or Iraq, there'd likely be more involvement by outside forces to maintain some kind of stability for, if nothing else, the purposes of commerce. I don't really believe that much attention is paid to what goes on in places like Burma/Myanmar or Tibet (outside of Hoolywood, I s'ppose) for that very reason.

One thing does appear clear this time around, thankfully. That seems to be that the bulk of America won't put up with much of the antics of Vietnam era anti-war/anti-soldier behavior.


While I have yet to see any viable resources come out of Iraq, I would probly agree. But then, the government of that country, whatever it is, would also likly exert some control of it's own if they knew they had some kind of commodity the world wanted. As would the people, as the people would know that what they have, somebody wants.

But mainly what I was getting and at Windu didn't seem to get was that the guys killing people in Darfur and such areas, are doing it simply because they think a certain group of people needs to die. There's no rhyme nor reason to it beyond that, it's not for money, it's not for great ideals, it's not for resources, it's just because they feel it needs to be done. And if we throw our troops in there, regardless of resources or racism(note both start with an "r" how curious), they're just gonna get added to the list of people who need to die. And that's what they'll do, they'll die, and everybody knows we don't want that. And there's nothing to gain other than improving our image in the worlds eyes. And the world can sit and spin if they think we ought to kill our soldiers for no other reason than to make them happy.

I may not like wars, but lets at least fight a war where we stand to gain something valuable. The favor of elitists and snobs who wont go do it themselves is a commodity we can do well without.

If we were truly humanitarian, we'd all run down to Darfur and help, but we're not, lets be honest with ourselves, we want something in return for our deaths other than favorable opinions. Playing a martyr is great publicity, but you can only do it once.