US House rejects Bush Iraq plan

Solve all the world's problems in this forum.
NOTE: While debate is a good thing, we expect all parties to have respect for individual opinions here.

US House rejects Bush Iraq plan

Postby AJRC_CS » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:37 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6368985.stm

"The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of a resolution criticising President George W Bush's decision to send extra troops to Iraq."

Now i know this is a non-binding motion, but there are some very important facts to take into consideration. One fact is that 17 republicans joined the Democrats in criticising Dubya's planned troop surge. And the most important fact is that Dubya needs the legislators to support his $93bn emergency troop funding measure! So even though the vote is non-binding and Dubya could still send the troops with the funding. He can't do squat without the funding, and it looks like he's not going to get it.

Deal with Iran, or North Korea. But more troops in Iraq is just a recipe for making Iraq an even bigger disaster than it already is.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Skinjob » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:05 pm

That's strange for you to say. Iraq is only "a disaster" in the minds of those who want it a disaster, or want to make it a disaster.

The war should, and probably will, be expanded to include Iran. So be it. It needs to be done. Israel will probably light up Iran, and then it will be a moot point of discussion.

The current liberal policies, whatever they are, and as lame as they are, are directly responsible for the problems with North Korea today. They lost North Korea in the 1950s, and we see the results today. They are caught in closed-loop, and continue the same dumb actions.

Iraq is a suitable staging place to launch attacks against the other dictators of the region. (In a way, you might say that taking Iraq was like taking Okinawa, and making it a staging place to launch attacks against Japan in WWII.

We need Iraq. The Democrats know that, but they are doing a lot of political posturing, but nothing else. The war will continue because both the Democrats and the Republicans are basically the same. All parties fight the war for money, power, and territory. The religious aspects are food for the bubbas to keep them fighting for Allah. But, those leading terrorist Muslims fight for money, power, and territory, just like everyone else, not Allah.

I'm glad to see they've got you convinced. :lol:
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Bedford » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:00 am

Everyone thought 30 Republicans would be turncoats, so only 17 being turncoats is actually not that bad. As a percentage, that is better than the Senate.

The Democrats need an American defeat even more than Al Queda, and the fact they are sneaking it in just shows that they know they are doing the wrong thing for the country, as they don't want future blame for when it truly does become a disaster.
:teach: The Professor Penguin of Brainformation :GF:

<i>"This is the greatest concentration of talent and genius, except for those times when Bedford eats alone.”</i>-- JFK, were he alive today.
User avatar
Bedford
Holier Than Thou
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyside of Louisville

Postby StVandal » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:29 am

Don't we have a nuetron bomb? The one that kills people, but doesn't damage property? Why don't we just set a few of those off randomly all over the Middle East and get this whole thing over with in one fell swoop? Women, children.. who really cares? I mean, little ones grow up to be big ones, right? Just do it and get it over with.
Send a few more up to North Korea, a few to China.. hell, Germany's back together and you know it's only a decade or two before those Jerry bastards get another itch in their knickers. Let's do a little preemptive bombing over there, just to let them know we disapprove of that expansionistic behavior.

I think if there were more damned killing, we wouldn't have so much of this whining about population control!
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
User avatar
StVandal
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 4472
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby bermbits » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:00 am

I am getting the feeling it's career military people (no offense meant - just a limited observation) and people with little or no real-life experience who can't see the whole thing has been a mess from the git-go. This is all you need to see what our administration thought:

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

BTW, if the lefties had any stones, there'd be more than symbolic, non-binding votes.
"Veritas et probitas super omnia."
User avatar
bermbits
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:51 am
Location: New Hampshuh! Ayuh!

Postby AJRC_CS » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:20 am

I agree, Bermbits. Old warmongers just want more war, it's all they understand, peace confuses them. I remember back in 2002 when Iraq was like Iran and was just an idea, the old warmongers were already salivating at how many Arabs would die and how soon we would start dropping nukes. They love the nuke! :lol:

But no matter how many American troops die or how much of a disaster Iraq becomes they will still want more war. Obviously they have no vested interest in Iraq, it's just like a computer game to them. They just want more war.

Iran is coming if the negotiations break down. Iran will be Dubya's worst mistake to date. 3137 American deaths will be like loose change if Iran is attacked.

Israel won't do a thing, of this i am certain. The same people who say Israel will nuke Iran said that Israel would nuke Iraq four years ago. No nukes came, DOH!

I also agree that the Democrats should have had more balls and made it a binding resolution that no more troops go to Iraq. But the good thing about it is that the Dems control the funding for the troops and i don't think they are going to give it. No funds, no more troops. No funds, no Iran!

I think Obama is doing a great job at the moment, his main campaign strategy is to talk about getting the troops home in 2008. This may just be campaign talk, but his popularity shows the feelings of the majority of the American public. They want the troops home! Screw Iraq and to hell with their oil.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby van » Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:11 am

Kia ora

As always, those with no family within "cooey" of the frontline, where blood and guts are strewn far and wide, advocate escalation!
"For whatsoever a man soweth, he shall also reap, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind"
The day of reckoning always beckons and there is no escaping it
This being a predominantly American forum, I am bemused by the enthusiasm whereby its people seek warfare abroad, while tearing apart the Constitution which condemned it
But then world history was never a strong subject, yet they even deny their own history and the many men(women?) whom, seeking not to repeat history, crafted much wisdom to avoid it
Alas I fear it was all in vain
"Vanity, vanity, and a striving after wind"
An ill wind blows across the Earth and we shall all bear its consequence if this madness is not stopped
Those who are able to bring it to halt seem to have lost the will, those with most to lose, surely will

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby emanresu » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:40 am

Van, a closer look might suffice to alert you to the fact that those Americans who advocate war are seldom, if ever, the same ones who want to take the constitution apart. As to whether or not they have any family on the front lines, I don't think either one of us has the information to make any statements about that. I certainly don't know for sure, and I don't think you do either. Also, as a nation, many of us are quite aware of world history and many are not. Brain knowledge, as I'm sure you've noticed, is not always a catalyst capable of moving one's heart to do what is right. For that matter, the inability to learn from history's mistakes is not a predominantly American fault, especially when one considers the number of Holocaust deniers in Europe and other parts of the world. Back to the constitution, the warhawks don't have to tear it apart; they have the uncanny ability to cite it for whatever purpose they want without changing it one bit, much like those who constantly reference the bible. As to the rest of your discourse, I think you might be channeling one of the ancient prophets, who, it might be theorized, knew almost as much about us as we do about them which is little or nothing, and certainly not a strong source of inspiration for a world that doesn't even believe in itself.
Are we there yet?
emanresu
Trapped Under Ice
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:07 am
Location: u.s.

Postby kg5uc » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:38 pm

Skinjob: <i>"The war should, and probably will, be expanded to include Iran."</i>

The only question I have to this statement is; With what troops? From where are the extra troops going to come to expand this war to Iran? The only recourse I could see is the one that StVandal proposed, and <i><b>that</b></i> would certainly open up a smelly can of worms!
73 from KG5UC

Be nice to America or we'll bring Democracy to <u>your</u> country!
User avatar
kg5uc
Trapped Under Ice
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Godfrey, IL

Postby AJRC_CS » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:35 pm

The draft is sounding more and more realistic. I know we've had this discussion before where most say that the draft would be a bad idea and that a volunteer force is always better than a conscripted one. But as you have said, kg5uc, where are the troops going to come from to invade Iran?
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Bedford » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:11 pm

Well, if we retreat from Iraq, we can put them in Iran. :teach:
:teach: The Professor Penguin of Brainformation :GF:

<i>"This is the greatest concentration of talent and genius, except for those times when Bedford eats alone.”</i>-- JFK, were he alive today.
User avatar
Bedford
Holier Than Thou
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyside of Louisville

Postby Skinjob » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:04 pm

That's what the traitor liberals are afraid of, Bedford.

I believe that there are 1,400,000 in the U.S. military forces. The amount stationed in Iraq is miniscule by comparison with the total.

But, there are things to do that will soften up Iran without firing a shot. For instance, bomb them with tons of counterfeit currency. Or aim for their head like they did with 9/11, and kill that psychopathic dictator, while at the same time releasing millions of leaflets proclaiming help for moderates to build a western style democracy. There is a large factor of Iranians wanting western civilization again.

I like nation building because like the enemies of the past, we see them as friends now, and they live in democracies. Liberals won't say it, but since they are control-freaks, they can't stand democracy. That's why they love bureaucracies, taxes, and big government.

Fight them on their own soil now, or fight them on our soil later. They aren't going to stop, liberal butt-kissers or not. They outnumber us by the millions. The cold and dank little islanders will soon be part of the Muslim's jihad themselves. :cold:
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby kg5uc » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:20 pm

Bedford: <i>"Well, if we retreat from Iraq, we can put them in Iran."</i>

<b><i>WHAT?!!</i></b> Pull troops out of Iraq?! I thought that wasn't an option. If we pull out of Iraq, doesn't that mean the terrorists win and will bring the war over to U.S. soil?

:confused:
73 from KG5UC

Be nice to America or we'll bring Democracy to <u>your</u> country!
User avatar
kg5uc
Trapped Under Ice
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Godfrey, IL

Postby Bedford » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:35 pm

It won't be much of a win if we destroy their supplier. :teach:
:teach: The Professor Penguin of Brainformation :GF:

<i>"This is the greatest concentration of talent and genius, except for those times when Bedford eats alone.”</i>-- JFK, were he alive today.
User avatar
Bedford
Holier Than Thou
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyside of Louisville

Postby AJRC_CS » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:19 am

I will ignore the mindless flamebait from the usual suspect. :roll:

The troops are stretched thin as it is, Bedford. You take the troops from Iraq while attacking Iran and you're leaving your rear open to attack. Any military man worth his salt would tell you this would be madness.

When Israel was attacked by the Hezbollah, Israel asked the UN and the US for aid. The UN were the only ones who could send aid. The US were too committed in Iraq to help their ally.

Most countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq, Britain is in the process of doing so.

At the minute there are 140,000 US troops in Iraq. Now some think the US Army is vast, it is, but it's not as big as they think. The US Army consists of 488,579 soldiers on active duty, 333,177 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 189,005 in the United States Army Reserve (USAR). So the 140,000 in Iraq is a big chunk of the total of soldiers on active duty and the National Guard! And remember the recruitment of new solders is at record lows, record meaning it's the lowest ever recorded. Now think if you attack Iran, the troops are going to have to be pulled from somewhere else. North Korea would love it if some of the 30,000 US troops were taken away!

So as you can see, troops are going to have to be taken from somewhere. There's just no getting away from the fact. Where are they going to come from? Either take them away from another hot spot or it's the draft. As i said Iran will be Dubya's biggest blunder, so lets see just how big a moron he really is.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby bermbits » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:18 am

You know, there are lots of able-bodied young men and women who could sign up and take some of the pressure off - there are many unemployed or underemployed people as well. There are even some loud "cheerleaders" who scream their full support for the war and berate anyone who feels otherwise, but they do so safely on the sidelines out of harm's way.

If the shoe fits (apologies to CJ and the Fish):

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
We got ourselves led by a quack
And a hell of a mess in ol' Iraq
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
You're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
"Veritas et probitas super omnia."
User avatar
bermbits
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:51 am
Location: New Hampshuh! Ayuh!

You're missing the point

Postby dargla » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:46 pm

Guys, I love you all, but you're missing the point on this one. This is not a basketball game. You can't cancel a war just by not showing up on the field of battle.

The militant Islamists declared war on us back during the Carter administration when they invaded our embassy in Tehran. That was an act of war, and should have told us something, but it didn't. Since then, various other Islamist groups have declared war on us, and have carried out attacks during that war a number of times. We ignored the war for as long as we could -- until 9/11. Then we had to face up to it, which the Bush administration finally did.

Now, just saying that we don't really want to fight the war any more doesn't change anything. The Shi'as and the Sunnis may disagree on the tenants of their religion, but they agree on one thing: their hatred of the US and their desire to see us (and the rest of the non-Muslim world) fall. Obviously this applies to radical Islam rather than the majority of the religion -- but it's estimated that 10% of the Muslim world would participate in a Jihad against the west if they thought they could win. The estimates vary between 1 billion and 1.4 billion Muslims -- taking the bottom number, that still puts 100 million Muslims in the Jihadist camp, at least in spirit.

Since they're not going to stop fighting just because we do, then, we have to decide if we're going to win the war or lose it. Whether the Iraq war started off as part of the Global War on Terror or not, it certainly is a part of it now. We can either win or we can lose -- there are no other choices.
The Democrats seem to think they can talk their way into the hearts and minds of the militant Islamist world and get them to stop fighting. They feel they can go back to treating acts of terrorism as crimes rather than as tactical and strategic warfare, and the whole thing will just go away. That's why they felt that it was OK to vote on this "non-binding" resolution. The Democrats think they can win the White House if they keep opposing the war -- but the only way that will happen is if we lose in Iraq. So the Democrats have a vested interest in our surrender there -- they just figure they'll somehow deal with the fallout later.

Since the mainstream media has defined victory as no bombs going off in Iraq and no more American soldiers ever being killed there, there's no way we can win in their eyes, or in the eyes of the left. So the press will keep telling all of us that Iraq is a (pick your term for horrible unwinnable mess) regardless of what happens there. And the left will keep wringing their hands and agonizing over 3,400 troops (sadly) being killed in the same time period where more than 200,000 Americans died on our roads with scarcely a notice.

This is war, folks. People, it is sad to say, die in wars. But do you want to fight a little war now, or put it off until it becomes a world war at some time in the future? As Ronald Reagan said, "There's only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: surrender." If, as one Representative said during the debate, we show that the most powerful military in the world can be defeated by a ragtag bunch of fanatics, then who in the world will believe in our ability to win a war ever again?

And if you can't see how that kind of thing will embolden people like that warm, fuzzy president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, then you are purposely ignoring the lessons of history. I, however, am not. It has been said that the Nazis were a small minority who were dismissed by the intellectuals of their day -- but they were fanatics and they were ruthless, and they ended up taking over Germany and causing WWII. The Bolsheviks were a similar minority -- but they were fanatical and ruthless, and they ended up taking over not only Russia but a number of other countries and ruling them with an iron fist.

Two wars: one hot, one cold. What was the cost of both of those in terms of lives and money? We won both of those -- it wasn't easy, but we did it, because we were firm in our resolve to be victorious. But think of how much less costly it would have been to stop those ruthless fanatics when they were still small and relatively powerless?

Now, we are faced with another seemingly small group of fanatical, ruthless people. Ultimately, we're going to have to fight a much bigger military made up of their followers, or we're going to have to surrender. Or we can defeat them now, when they're still small and relatively powerless. But the one thing we can't do is put our heads in the sand and pretend that they're just going to go away. They're not. You all need to face that fact, as unpleasant as I know it is. To not do so is suicidal.
dargla
dargla
Helpless
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, California

Postby bermbits » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:51 pm

dargla!!!!

We love you too!

:D
"Veritas et probitas super omnia."
User avatar
bermbits
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:51 am
Location: New Hampshuh! Ayuh!

Postby bermbits » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:55 pm

If this works, this explains why we can never win:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomi ... db20070218
"Veritas et probitas super omnia."
User avatar
bermbits
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:51 am
Location: New Hampshuh! Ayuh!

Postby AJRC_CS » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:31 pm

Dargla, i agree the militant Islamists declared war on us. But Iraq didn't! It's like Britain declaring war on Eire because of the IRA.

I'd like to know how we can ever win this war? At the moment 140,000 US troops isn't enough, no point in sending more troops. As your representative said "the most powerful military in the world can be defeated by a ragtag bunch of fanatics." So what would be the point sending 20,000 more troops when 140,000 can't do the job?

I also don't ignore the lessons of history. It's been shown that the terrorist attacks are worse now than they ever were. Could this be because of Dubya? No one is sure, but one thing is, Iraq was a mistake. A mistake we are paying for now and in the future. Dubya opened Pandora's Box and with no way to shut it even hope has escaped for some. Me i'm not as paranoid as some of the more extreme right wing. I don't think we are in WWIII, i don't think the west has anything to fear from the Middle East. Over in Northern Ireland in 88 there were right wingers who wanted to roll in and wipe out the Irish, they were saying the same things. The Irish will rise up and kill us all, the Irish will get their hands on a nuke and nuke London, the Irish this and the Irish that. I hope those right wing nutjobs are sick to their stomachs at the peace we have had with Eire since 97. I see the same kind of right wing nutjob spewing venom about Iraq and Iran and anyone who dares disagree with all out war.

But talk of attacking nations because you think they might be a threat is ludicrous. I mean do you actually read what you type. It's like arresting someone because his eyes are close together and he looks shifty. You can't go to war because you think they might be a threat, well i know the GOP can, so it's a moot point really. But with the Dems on Capitol Hill the GOP have to think twice before just going off half cocked. Iraq didn't have WMD, Saddam didn't have links to al-Qaeda. Iraq was not a threat to the west. But Dubya made us, well he made the gullible, think that Iraq had WMD, had links to al-Qaeda and was a threat to the west. All misinformation and lies.

All Iraq was full of was oil. And surprisingly so is Iran!

So what does the future hold for Iran? Nukes falling on Tehran? Because that's the only way the extreme right wing think they can win this war. Because conventional forces ain't doing the job! So it's nukes or surrender. Funny how the extreme right wing always see peace as surrender. Sorry, it's never peace to them, it's appeasement :lol:
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Next

Return to Politics and Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron