Bush cuts funding for Iraq war, abandons troops

[The Lurker]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050100968.html

President Bush today vetoed a $124 billion emergency war-funding bill that contains a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, calling the measure "unacceptable" and saying it amounts to setting a date for "failure."

The veto, only the second of his presidency, set up a confrontation with the Democratic-controlled Congress over his Iraq war policy.

Acting on the fourth anniversary of his so-called "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush carried out his veto threat shortly after returning to the White House from a visit to Florida, where he delivered a speech at the U.S. Central Command.

[King Kashue]

I hate this issue, I really hate it...

Yes, making a plan for leaving Iraq is utterly necessary. Yes, the war (or the "peace", if you want to make such a useless distinction) is going poorly and the methods being used are unacceptable.


However, setting a hard date for troop removal is one of the most astronomically stupid things ever. That alone is as poor a military decision as every other mistake that has been committed so far.

The entire Iraq war, up to and including this most recent nonsense from the Democrats, displays why politicians shouldn't plan wars...

Seriously, in the future, there will be a Textbook titled "How Not To Fight Wars" with the subtitle "Why Politicians Are all Idiots", and the entirety of the book will be a single page, with nothing more than the words "THE IRAQ WAR"...


Unfortunately, no politician will ever read it, since they're far to busy holding press conferences on how their opponents are obstructions to the democratic progress and how they are being faithful to the "mandates" of the last election by carrying out their constituents clear desire that they be in office by spending their entire term trying to get re-elected. Doubtless, they will have their assistants read the book and give a concise summary, as they do with all documents of lesser importance, like the drafts of legislation, election finance regulations, the Constitution...


I need to go lie down...

[Seethroughsouls]

Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!........whew! this could go on forever
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!
Tastes great!
Less filling!

[Les Izzmor]

I hate this issue, I really hate it...

Yes, making a plan for leaving Iraq is utterly necessary. Yes, the war (or the "peace", if you want to make such a useless distinction) is going poorly and the methods being used are unacceptable.


However, setting a hard date for troop removal is one of the most astronomically stupid things ever. That alone is as poor a military decision as every other mistake that has been committed so far.

The entire Iraq war, up to and including this most recent nonsense from the Democrats, displays why politicians shouldn't plan wars...

Seriously, in the future, there will be a Textbook titled "How Not To Fight Wars" with the subtitle "Why Politicians Are all Idiots", and the entirety of the book will be a single page, with nothing more than the words "THE IRAQ WAR"...


Unfortunately, no politician will ever read it, since they're far to busy holding press conferences on how their opponents are obstructions to the democratic progress and how they are being faithful to the "mandates" of the last election by carrying out their constituents clear desire that they be in office by spending their entire term trying to get re-elected. Doubtless, they will have their assistants read the book and give a concise summary, as they do with all documents of lesser importance, like the drafts of legislation, election finance regulations, the Constitution...


I need to go lie down...

I agree.

While I'm not at all happy about why we went in, and I'm not thrilled about how things have been handled since Saddam went away. We can't just leave, or pick a specific date for leaving.

[basslord1124]

I agree.

While I'm not at all happy about why we went in, and I'm not thrilled about how things have been handled since Saddam went away. We can't just leave, or pick a specific date for leaving.

Exactly, if we do...the terrorists win. :P:)

[lug]

<...trys to recall last war where finish date was supplied early to enemy>

[Zamfir]

Well, I guess I have to say it again: the troop withdrawal date is largely irrelevant.

Once you start withdrawing - and withdrawals have to be planned carefully, unless you like increasing the confusion in, and danger to, your forces -- it becomes pretty damn obvious after a few days to everybody looking what the pace of the withdrawal is. The enemy can then figure out a pretty good estimate of your timeline.

If the enemy wants and is able to harass you into hurrying it up, and if they see benefits outweighing costs in doing so, they will. You're not going to avoid that by hiding a date. Removing an entrenched occupation force is never as fast as inserting it.

Which is why both US parties and the Administration are moronic for arguing over setting a date so hard and so long. Some of the other coalition countries that have pulled out their forces set a month and year, and just did it, some of them completing their withdrawals early.

Just make the damn decision and get the troops out of what has been a failed cause for some time.

[lug]

Well, I guess I have to say it again: the troop withdrawal date is largely irrelevant.

Once you start withdrawing - and withdrawals have to be planned carefully, unless you like increasing the confusion in, and danger to, your forces -- it becomes pretty damn obvious after a few days to everybody looking what the pace of the withdrawal is. The enemy can then figure out a pretty good estimate of your timeline.

If the enemy wants and is able to harass you into hurrying it up, and if they see benefits outweighing costs in doing so, they will. You're not going to avoid that by hiding a date. Removing an entrenched occupation force is never as fast as inserting it.

Which is why both US parties and the Administration are moronic for arguing over setting a date so hard and so long. Some of the other coalition countries that have pulled out their forces set a month and year, and just did it, some of them completing their withdrawals early.

Just make the damn decision and get the troops out of what has been a failed cause for some time.

or...The dems are acting in a treasonous fashion for political gain at the expense of US foriegn policy and should all be taken out and shot (after a fair ands balanced trail at Gitmo). Just depends on your point of view. :)

[beam]

It is an interesting question though.
We obviously can't stay there forever, yet leaving it as it is now probably isn't the best idea either.
So we've decided we need to get out, but when? By what measure of things going well do we hold ourselves against for when it's ok to leave?

I'm glad it's not up to me to decide, that's for damned sure.
We really need to hammer out an acceptable set of circumstances that Congress and the President can agree on for when it's ok to leave, rather than a date.

[ahpook]

did anyone ever think that this was going to turn out nicely ?

[HackedByChinese!]

If nothing else, I'm glad for this because it finally gets that monkey thinking about how to conclude this bloody mess. Even if a solid date doesn't come out of this, which is what I expect to happen, it's clear that he no longer has carte blanche to bumble around and continually move the goalposts with regards to what "victory" is.

[Vanlatte]

I hate this issue, I really hate it...


.....


I need to go lie down...

Best worded response to this mess that I have ever seen.

*golf claps*

[takeout]

It's an either-or proposition - you either :

a) stay indefinitely, burning troops and treasure without end, or

b) you set benchmarks, which by definition have to have deadlines and consequences - otherwise they're just wishes. A "benchmark" without a due date is empty.

To anyone who's saying we can't leave Iraq in its current state: why not? Iraqis certainly aren't doing anything to improve the situation - it's like an American's worst nightmare about welfare - an ever-worsening money sink from which its beneficiaries feel no need to extricate themselves. Make them pass the oil revenue law. Make them whip their own troops into shape. Make them do something other than act exactly like the Bush Admin. (witness the link I posted yesterday). Otherwise, fuck 'em.

[Vanlatte]

It's an either-or proposition - you either :

a) stay indefinitely, burning troops and treasure without end, or

b) you set benchmarks, which by definition have to have deadlines and consequences - otherwise they're just wishes. A "benchmark" without a due date is empty.
.

Why does everybody feel this sense of entitlement as to what these "Benchmarks" are? How do you know that no such benchmarks exist?

Since when do major military operations have to be run by Joe Schmoe on the street corner for approval?


This whole thing just makes my head hurt.

[oldivor]

The Military hates the Media for a good reason. War is nasty shit, and the average guy on his sofa doesn't want to see it or think about. I'm not saying we should have gone in or not gone it, but we need to finish what we started. The politicians know that average guy doesn't like to see this type of stuff and they're using it to their advantage. Even though politicians make it worse, the general American population is what really decides especially around election time because if the politicians are on "their" side with a couple token issues they can get in office and then work on those few token issues and then do as they please with the rest. Personally, the average American is stupid as shit and the average politician is slimier and more spineless then a worm.

[takeout]

I'm not saying we should have gone in or not gone it, but we need to finish what we started.What is the measure of completion? How do you know when you're "finished"?

[takeout]

Why does everybody feel this sense of entitlement as to what these "Benchmarks" are? How do you know that no such benchmarks exist?Well, as a taxpayer whose dollars are in part funding this fiasco, I feel some entitlement. I know there are currently no benchmarks because Bush, much like oldivor, has expertly failed to define the word "finished".

Since when do major military operations have to be run by Joe Schmoe on the street corner for approval?Are you trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line? Because that's another Bush failure. He (a civilian, despite the title of CiC) has shitcanned every military expert who disagreed with the way he (a civilian) thought the war should be run. Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me".

[lug]

Honestly, if anyone somehow believes that broadcasting a drop dead date to leave is a good idea, they've taken enough Dramamine to not even notice the spin anymore.




......teehee!

[cdb]

Honestly, if anyone somehow believes that broadcasting a drop dead date to leave is a good idea, they've taken enough Dramamine to not even notice the spin anymore.


......teehee!

Why? Whats the worst that could happen? A civil war? :rofl:

[lug]

Why? Whats the worst that could happen? A civil war? :rofl:


Why do you hate nonAmerica? :(

[oldivor]

What is the measure of completion? How do you know when you're "finished"?

When the job is done correctly.

[takeout]

When the job is done correctly.The "job" being?

[takeout]

Honestly, if anyone somehow believes that broadcasting a drop dead date to leave is a good idea, they've taken enough Dramamine to not even notice the spin anymore.

......teehee!How is it a bad idea? Iraq goes to hell, or to the Iranians. If they want to inherit WrestleMania MCMXXLI: Shia vs. Sunni, let 'em have it.

[oldivor]

The "job" being?

I'm not the one to determine, seeing in the government knows a hell of a lot more then I do about it.

Personally though, when we can leave a stable democratic government or of the likes.

[Vanlatte]

Are you trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line? Because that's another Bush failure. He (a civilian, despite the title of CiC) has shitcanned every military expert who disagreed with the way he (a civilian) thought the war should be run. Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me".

Never mind, people like you remind me of why I need to stay out of this fucking type of shit.

Im out of here.

[takeout]

Never mind, people like you remind me of why I need to stay out of this fucking type of shit.

Im out of here.I was asking a question. If you want to take it personally, maybe the internet isn't the best place for you to hang out.

P.S. "people like [me]". Awesome.

[takeout]

I'm not the one to determine, seeing in the government knows a hell of a lot more then I do about it.Based on their performance post-"Mission Accomplished", this is highly debatable.

Personally though, when we can leave a stable democratic government or of the likes.No matter the cost? Worth it at any price?

[cdb]

Bush’s Definition Of Iraq Success Called ‘Naive’ By Cheney And ‘Frightening’ By Giuliani

BUSH: Either we’ll succeed, or we won’t succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.

During the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) explained that success against terrorism will occur when terrorist acts, such as those in Iraq, are reduced to the level that “they’re a nuisance.” Kerry explained gains can be made against terrorism when “it isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

For laying out an honest assessment of his counterterrorism approach, Kerry was mercilessly attacked by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani:

BUSH: Just this weekend we saw new evidence that the Senator fundamentally misunderstands the war against terror. … Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying the networks, and spreading freedom and liberty. <10/12/04>

CHENEY: Nor can we think of our goal in this war in the way Senator Kerry described it yesterday in The New York Times. Quote: “We have to get back to the place,” he said, where terrorism is “a nuisance,” sort of like - and these are his comparisons — sort of like gambling and prostitution. This is naive and dangerous. <10/11/04>

GIULIANI: “In a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush campaign, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, mocked Mr. Kerry for comparing terrorism to gambling and prostitution. ‘The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening,’ Mr. Giuliani said.”

But today in his remarks on Iraq, President Bush — without saying so explicitly — embraced Kerry’s definition of success against terrorism. “Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/02/bush-success-comfortable

[Zamfir]

or...The dems are acting in a treasonous fashion for political gain at the expense of US foriegn policy and should all be taken out and shot (after a fair ands balanced trail at Gitmo). Just depends on your point of view. :)

I'm missing something. Where was I slagging only Republicans? I believe I called both parties moronic for dragging out the debate over a date for withdrawal. ;)

Hide the withdrawal date, or announce it - my point was that either choice makes little to no difference, and both US parties are arguing pointlessly over it.

The most important thing is to get out of a morass of problems that is beyond US power to fix, and is costing us lives almost every day.

There will be no democratic government of any kind in Iraq for quite some time, so waiting for that is waiting for a mirage. It's not even clear if there will be something resembling a government assuring a minimum of order, let alone a "stable" one. The current one doesn't control jack squat outside the US perimeter around the Green Zone, and for that matter, is too factionalized within government ministries to control much *within* the zone with any coherence.

About the only exception, that is, the only semi-functioning government I can see is the Kurds' regional government up north -- so long as the Turks don't invade. The rest of the country is going to be a multi-faction slugfest for the short to medium term, and there is nothing the US can do to change that.

So there is nothing to be gained by staying, and all sorts of lives and money to be saved by getting the hell out.

[lug]

Nice clouds. The real question is should Bush have vetoed this bill or not. I say the veto is justified due to the dems political posturing and attempted point taking rather supplying a real monetary bill. Now that they got a veto to point to in the next election, they will quicly pass a real bill so they won't look anti-military. Having their cake and eating it, too. Nothing new when it comes to this war.

[Jugghaid]

So there is nothing to be gained by staying, and all sorts of lives and money to be saved by getting the hell out.

Maybe american lives, but not Iraqi lives.

Damned xenophobic money grubbing libs. What about the poor civilians? ;)

[lug]

I'm missing something. Where was I slagging only Republicans? I believe I called both parties moronic for dragging out the debate over a date for withdrawal. ;)






That's why there is a smilie at the end. :D

[Zamfir]

Nice clouds. The real question is should Bush have vetoed this bill or not. I say the veto is justified due to the dems political posturing and attempted point taking rather supplying a real monetary bill. Now that they got a veto to point to in the next election, they will quicly pass a real bill so they won't look anti-military. Having their cake and eating it, too. Nothing new when it comes to this war.

Oh, OK, I see. You were addressing the bill, less so my post. I agree, it was quite stupid, if predictable, for the Dems to stick the timetable in there to force Bush's veto. People will see through that in a minute. I hope.

It was also rather stupid of Bush to back himself into a corner over a non-issue, but that's Washington. :D

[takeout]

Maybe american lives, but not Iraqi lives.

Damned xenophobic money grubbing libs. What about the poor civilians? ;)It's xenophobia to want Iraqis to defend Iraqis, rather than having Americans defend Iraqis?

[Zamfir]

Maybe american lives, but not Iraqi lives.

Damned xenophobic money grubbing libs. What about the poor civilians? ;)

Xenophobia, nothin'. We already can't save Iraqi lives. It's hellaciously awful that we've reached the point that I have to say that, but that's the war Bush unleashed.

You save what you can, and that is American lives. I don't see alternatives. :(

[lug]

Xenophobia, nothin'. We already can't save Iraqi lives. It's hellaciously awful that we've reached the point that I have to say that, but that's the war Bush unleashed.

You save what you can, and that is American lives. I don't see alternatives. :(

Can't save Iraqi lives? :confused: Sure we can. By starting this war and ending UN sanctions, we've saved a metric shiteton of Iraqi lives, at least a 3 for 1 swap.

[Jugghaid]

Like a 747 on a sunday afternoon.......................

[takeout]

Can't save Iraqi lives? :confused: Sure we can. By starting this war and ending UN sanctions, we've saved a metric shiteton of Iraqi lives, at least a 3 for 1 swap.Don't worry; we'll catch up sooner or later.

[lug]

Don't worry; we'll catch up sooner or later.

Have to be later. We were averaging around 100,000 to 150,000 a year from most reports.

[takeout]

Have to be later. We were averaging around 100,000 to 150,000 a year from most reports.It took the sanctions a while, too. Now that the insurgents are going all Timothy McVeigh with chlorine trucks, the curve should start ramping up.

Incidentally, I read a post by a conservative blogger the other day that said chlorine counts as a WMD, hence "we" were right. Boggles the mind.

[Zamfir]

Can't save Iraqi lives? :confused: Sure we can. By starting this war and ending UN sanctions, we've saved a metric shiteton of Iraqi lives, at least a 3 for 1 swap.

By that definition of success, then we're done because we've already accomplished it. Meanwhile, the death toll from 2003 on keeps going out to a point no one can determine.

We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 130-150K coalition troops and we are unable to stop the steady rate of killing since the events you describe.

We have zero answers to solving the problem of multiple armed groups that have penetrated the government to the highest levels and whose loyalties are to their own faction first, secondarily to their confessional affiliation, and not at all to the needs of the Iraqi state or society.

So - if we can't stop the increasing violence since we invaded, if we cannot fix loyalties on the way to building the capacity of the Iraqi state, and if we thus cannot influence the adoption of a new government capable of assuring minimum conditions of order - what, exactly, is there left for us to do?

Other than to provide soldiers of the best military in the world for target practice?

[Jugghaid]

Anyone who thinks they DIDN'T have WMD before we went in there is completely naive.

We didn't find Jimmy Hoffa either, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. ;)

[Jugghaid]

By that definition of success, then we're done because we've already accomplished it. Meanwhile, the death toll from 2003 on keeps going out to a point no one can determine.

We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 130-150K coalition troops and we are unable to stop the steady rate of killing since the events you describe.

We have zero answers to solving the problem of multiple armed groups that have penetrated the government to the highest levels and whose loyalties are to their own faction first, secondarily to their confessional affiliation, and not at all to the needs of the Iraqi state or society.

So - if we can't stop the increasing violence since we invaded, if we cannot fix loyalties on the way to building the capacity of the Iraqi state, and if we thus cannot influence the adoption of a new government capable of assuring minimum conditions of order - what, exactly, is there left for us to do?

Other than to provide soldiers of the best military in the world for target practice?

That's because politicians are fucking stupid. Our military has 2 purposes when you get right down to it. Killing people and breaking shit. That's what they are trained to do. Period. They're not police and never have been. But our politicians are asking them to be exactly that.

[Zamfir]

That's because politicians are fucking stupid. Our military has 2 purposes when you get right down to it. Killing people and breaking shit. That's what they are trained to do. Period. They're not police and never have been. But our politicians are asking them to be exactly that.

Well, I'd phrase it slightly differently, but on that we agree. Our military can take any hill they're asked to. They should not be asked to reconstruct political systems as an open-ended mission, because frankly, they don't have the capacity to do that.

Which is something the entire neocon team in DoD and the vice-president's office should have known since Vietnam. Bunch of fockin' civilian pols and administrators with no clue, and even less willingness to listen to those who did (Powell, Shinseki...). Hell, some senior *civilian* policymakers told them that, and the neocons wouldn't listen.

And all of which underscores the point: US and coalition military forces can't do what we are asking them to do under current conditions, and they're dying in the attempt, so get them the hell out. :(

That decision is in Bush's court. I hope he mans up and takes it instead of passing it on to his successor.

[Jugghaid]

Well, I'd phrase it slightly differently, but on that we agree. Our military can take any hill they're asked to. They should not be asked to reconstruct political systems as an open-ended mission, because frankly, they don't have the capacity to do that.

Which is something the entire neocon team in DoD and the vice-president's office should have known since Vietnam. Bunch of fockin' civilian pols and administrators with no clue, and even less willingness to listen to those who did (Powell, Shinseki...). Hell, some senior *civilian* policymakers told them that, and the neocons wouldn't listen.

And all of which underscores the point: US and coalition military forces can't do what we are asking them to do under current conditions, and they're dying in the attempt, so get them the hell out. :(

That decision is in Bush's court. I hope he mans up and takes it instead of passing it on to his successor.

Good luck with that. Won't happen IMO.

[cdb]

That decision is in Bush's court. I hope he mans up and takes it instead of passing it on to his successor.

Right. I'm sure this will happen.:rofl:

[Jugghaid]

Right. I'm sure this will happen.:rofl:

Holy guacamole. Same thought, same time. :eek:

[cdb]

Holy guacamole. Same thought, same time. :eek:

As usual, we agree. Separated at birth, I'm tellin' ya.:wave:

[Seethroughsouls]

Why? Whats the worst that could happen? A civil war? :rofl:

Here or there?

[dogman]

Nice clouds. The real question is should Bush have vetoed this bill or not. I say the veto is justified due to the dems political posturing and attempted point taking rather supplying a real monetary bill. Now that they got a veto to point to in the next election, they will quicly pass a real bill so they won't look anti-military. Having their cake and eating it, too. Nothing new when it comes to this war.


+1!!!
Well said Lug, they definitely are using the veto for their political gain(it is all they have based this issue on anyway) This way, Bush can be pointed out as the 'mean evil president' to push their agenda and get a democrat in office to replace him. He stated very early on that he would veto any timetable presented on removal of the troops before things were secured and completed. They took it upon themselves to push this through and force his hand, thereby having an instant scapegoat to demonize while on the campaign trail. Telling your enemy the time that you are hanging up your gloves and running home is essentially saying that you're a pussy and wont fight,it's an invitation for them to launch a huge attack on the innocents as soon as they have little resistance left to slow their euthanizing of the so called 'infidels' ..come on, everyone knows what these terrorist types are capable of and have done in the past..THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN!! And here's something to chew on, if we arent fighting them there, then dont be surprised when we are having to fight them here in the streets as they are there. Let our military guys and gals do the jobs that they SIGNED UP FOR, are TRAINED FOR, and WANT TO ACCOMPLISH!! There is no draft,and while I hate the thought of anyone having to die in battle as much as the next person, our military people are there on their own accord, and were not forced to go there, they are our line of defense here by being there.:2c:

[Grant Sharkey]

Here or there?

Doesn't matter as long as Bush fights. :)

[takeout]

+1!!!
Well said Lug, they definitely are using the veto for their political gain(it is all they have based this issue on anyway) This way, Bush can be pointed out as the 'mean evil president' to push their agenda and get a democrat in office to replace him. He stated very early on that he would veto any timetable presented on removal of the troops before things were secured and completed. They took it upon themselves to push this through and force his hand, thereby having an instant scapegoat to demonize while on the campaign trail. Telling your enemy the time that you are hanging up your gloves and running home is essentially saying that you're a pussy and wont fight,it's an invitation for them to launch a huge attack on the innocents as soon as they have little resistance left to slow their euthanizing of the so called 'infidels' ..come on, everyone knows what these terrorist types are capable of and have done in the past..THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN!! And here's something to chew on, if we arent fighting them there, then dont be surprised when we are having to fight them here in the streets as they are there. Let our military guys and gals do the jobs that they SIGNED UP FOR, are TRAINED FOR, and WANT TO ACCOMPLISH!! There is no draft,and while I hate the thought of anyone having to die in battle as much as the next person, our military people are there on their own accord, and were not forced to go there, they are our line of defense here by being there.:2c:I love this line of thought - that we'll be "fighting them in our streets!!11!" As if al Qaeda has an air force for paratroopers, and a navy, and infantry.

On your first point: this isn't a schoolyard. If my president's prime directive regarding warfare is "well, I sure don't want us to look like pussies", then we are well and truly fucked.

On your second point: this is a ridiculous assertion. If you look at sheer numbers, al Qaeda can never defeat us. It took them over a decade to plan 9/11, and they got less than 3,000 confirmed kills. We didn't plan shit for Iraq, and we blew that number out of the water without breaking a sweat - figuratively speaking, of course.

On your last point: our military already did their job - defeating a foreign military power. Now they're doing a job for which they have not been trained - counter-terrorism and police action. We are using a hammer to drive a screw.

There's a top general who is in charge of war games for the Pentagon - his name escapes me. In a recent interview, he stated that he's beaten every single proposed gambit thus far with simple insurgent tactics. Including some that we decided to use anyway, with predictable results.

Lastly: "they are our line of defense here by being there". No. Being here means being our line of defense. Being there means being used as someone else's GI Joes.

[lug]

On your last point: our military already did their job - defeating a foreign military power.


shocked!

I've never heard a liberal admit that before! :eek:









j/k, you know I loves ya! :D

[Jugghaid]

On your last point: our military already did their job - defeating a foreign military power. Now they're doing a job for which they have not been trained - counter-terrorism and police action. We are using a hammer to drive a screw.


On this we agree whole heartedly.

[takeout]

"Takeout '08 - A Uniter, Not A Divider"

[Zamfir]

"Takeout '08 - A Uniter, Not A Divider"

Go unite with Obama Hussy-ein, you pussy liberal marriage-hater.




</iualum>










What? :confused:

[takeout]

Go unite with Osama Hussy-ein, you pussy liberal marriage-hater.Fixed it for you.

[Zamfir]

Fixed it for you.

But Osama never claimed to be a uniter. :confused:

:D

[Croissant Seven]

I think the CIA should introduce crack cocaine to the Iraqi black market.:badidea:
C7

[niomosy]

I think the CIA should introduce crack cocaine to the Iraqi black market.:badidea:
C7

:rofl:

They do need to increase profits :P

[takeout]

I think the CIA should introduce crack cocaine to the Iraqi black market.:badidea:
C7You forgot AIDS.

[niomosy]

You forgot AIDS.

Wouldn't that unnecessarily kill potential cocaine clients?

[oldivor]

I think the CIA should introduce crack cocaine to the Iraqi black market.:badidea:
C7

hahahahahaha

Winner of oldivor's P.O.T.D. award! :rofl:

[Vanlatte]

I was asking a question. If you want to take it personally, maybe the internet isn't the best place for you to hang out.


Bullshit. And take your "Maybe the internet..." comment and shove it. Sideways. Thanks for proving my point. But I will take the bait anyway:

Are you trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line?

Well who SHOULD we leave the war to? The likes of you? Micheal Moore? Tom Cruise? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

"Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me".

:rolleyes: See above.


P.S. "people like [me]". Awesome.

Go ahead, flatter yourself. It wasnt a compliment.

[ironfist]

We could commit genocide. We have the resources to do it, especially with our stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Nukes on all population centers, then liquidate the remaining populace with chemical weapons. Do you know what a few liquid tons of Sarin would do?

We could make the place completely uninhabitable! VICTORY!!!:badidea:

[takeout]

Well who SHOULD we leave the war to? The likes of you? Micheal Moore? Tom Cruise? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.As incredibly stupid as lumping me in with people with whom I have nothing in common, based on an unfounded stereotyping of my beliefs? "Rolleyes" indeed.

Your inability to not take things personally blinded you to my comment, which is: it is hypocritical for a civilian (Bush) in charge of the armed forces to criticize other civilians (Congress) who'd like some say in how the armed forces are deployed, simply on the basis that they are civilians. His title may be Commander in Chief - that doesn't automatically make him a military genius, "National Lampoon's Texas Air National Guard Vacation" notwithstanding.

Moreover, he has shitcanned generals, intelligence officers, Cabinet members who disagreed with the justification for war. And the consequences of that are plain to see. So the rhetoric about leaving it to the generals is just that - rhetoric.

Care to actually address anything I've said, or are you going to continue with the namecalling? I can already hear the Stern Moderator PM clock ticking down.

[takeout]

We could commit genocide. We have the resources to do it, especially with our stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Nukes on all population centers, then liquidate the remaining populace with chemical weapons. Do you know what a few liquid tons of Sarin would do?

We could make the place completely uninhabitable! VICTORY!!!:badidea:It would certainly be more intellectually honest than our current tack.

[Jugghaid]

As incredibly stupid as lumping me in with people with whom I have nothing in common, based on an unfounded stereotyping of my beliefs? "Rolleyes" indeed.

Your inability to not take things personally blinded you to my comment, which is: it is hypocritical for a civilian (Bush) in charge of the armed forces to criticize other civilians (Congress) who'd like some say in how the armed forces are deployed, simply on the basis that they are civilians. His title may be Commander in Chief - that doesn't automatically make him a military genius, "National Lampoon's Texas Air National Guard Vacation" notwithstanding.

Moreover, he has shitcanned generals, intelligence officers, Cabinet members who disagreed with the justification for war. And the consequences of that are plain to see. So the rhetoric about leaving it to the generals is just that - rhetoric.

Care to actually address anything I've said, or are you going to continue with the namecalling? I can already hear the Stern Moderator PM clock ticking down.

Why not? You lumped him in with Bush and only "leaving it to generals who agree with him" in your post. He simply stated that running the war isn't the job of Jow Schmoe on the street....and then you made assumptions from there. Your bad, not his.

[takeout]

Why not? You lumped him in with Bush and only "leaving it to generals who agree with him" in your post. He simply stated that running the war isn't the job of Jow Schmoe on the street....and then you made assumptions from there. Your bad, not his.I did no such thing. I asked him if he agreed with the current "plan". It wasn't innocent, but he could easily have kept his head in his response.

Instead, he chose to read a question as an assertion, then he lumped me in with Michael Moore. I expect that from Bill O'Reilly, not from fellow eBassists.

[Jugghaid]

I did no such thing. I asked him if he agreed with the current "plan". It wasn't innocent, but he could easily have kept his head in his response.

Instead, he chose to read a question as an assertion, then he lumped me in with Michael Moore. I expect that from Bill O'Reilly, not from fellow eBassists.

Not true.

Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me".

That looks more like an assertion than a question to me. And intentionally inflammatory. Don't be shocked when you get the reaction you're looking ffor. ;)

[takeout]

Not true.

That looks more like an assertion than a question to me. And intentionally inflammatory. Don't be shocked when you get the reaction you're looking ffor. ;)Well, if you'd quoted the whole thing:

"Are you trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line? Because that's another Bush failure. He (a civilian, despite the title of CiC) has shitcanned every military expert who disagreed with the way he (a civilian) thought the war should be run. Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me"."

You'd see that the entire first sentence is a question, on which the rest of the post is based. Inflammatory? Sure. But there was still a point, which I wanted to see addressed. Tellingly, it was not.

Selective quoting? Tsk tsk, JH.

[Vanlatte]

Well, if you'd quoted the whole thing:

"Are you trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line? Because that's another Bush failure. He (a civilian, despite the title of CiC) has shitcanned every military expert who disagreed with the way he (a civilian) thought the war should be run. Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me"."

You'd see that the entire first sentence is a question, on which the rest of the post is based. Inflammatory? Sure. But there was still a point, which I wanted to see addressed. Tellingly, it was not.

Selective quoting? Tsk tsk, JH.

Oh for crying out loud...."Tellingly, it was not."

I have already answered your loaded question, TWICE. But here it is again, just for good measure.

YES, I am trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line.


Happy now?

:rolleyes:

[Croissant Seven]

You forgot AIDS.

Nah. What we need to do is turn the imams and warlords into DRUGLORDS, because at least then they'll develop a taste for free market economics. At the very least, they'll stop trying to kill their new clientele, and the population will be easily placated by dropping in tons of drugs in wooden crates. The ones that don't die fighting over the crack will relegate themselves to Curtain Duty inside their houses.:badidea:
C7

[Jugghaid]

Well, if you'd quoted the whole thing:

"Are you trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line? Because that's another Bush failure. He (a civilian, despite the title of CiC) has shitcanned every military expert who disagreed with the way he (a civilian) thought the war should be run. Yet he (and maybe you) are saying "leave it to the generals", when the real intent is "leave it to generals who agree with me"."

You'd see that the entire first sentence is a question, on which the rest of the post is based. Inflammatory? Sure. But there was still a point, which I wanted to see addressed. Tellingly, it was not.

Selective quoting? Tsk tsk, JH.


Horsepuckey dude. That's like me saying to you

"Well, should we really have gone in to Iraq? It's obvious that only cowards and traitors like Kerry (and maybe yourself) would want to run from a righteous fight and not want to go in to liberate the country for the people".


But hey, there's a question first that the rest of the post is based on so that's okay right? ;)

The statement after the question really makes the question itself rhetoical, now doesn't it?

[takeout]

Oh for crying out loud...."Tellingly, it was not."

I have already answered your loaded question, TWICE. But here it is again, just for good measure.

YES, I am trying to push the whole "leave the war to the experts" line.

Happy now?

:rolleyes:I'm glad you finally answered, yes. Too bad it had to go through the name-calling evasion stage, but in the end you managed.

[takeout]

Horsepuckey dude. That's like me saying to you

"Well, should we really have gone in to Iraq? It's obvious that only cowards and traitors like Kerry (and maybe yourself) would want to run from a righteous fight and not want to go in to liberate the country for the people".

But hey, there's a question first that the rest of the post is based on so that's okay right? ;)

The statement after the question really makes the question itself rhetoical, now doesn't it?Not if you answer the question. Moreover, I didn't use any insults like the ones in your example - hence your example doesn't really match.

A straight answer, followed by or including an explanation, would've done me just fine. That I can understand, even as I disagree vehemently with it. Van chose not to take that road for some reason.

[Jugghaid]

Not if you answer the question. Moreover, I didn't use any insults like the ones in your example - hence your example doesn't really match.

A straight answer, followed by or including an explanation, would've done me just fine. That I can understand, even as I disagree vehemently with it. Van chose not to take that road for some reason.

Yes you did. You used the "Only listen to the generals that agree with me" line. That is an insult as it infers closemindedness.

No difference in your post and my parody of your post except who posted them and the fact that mine was not an actual opinion, but an example of your posting style.

If it makes you feel better and sleep better at night to think otherwise, more power to ya. But anyone reading the thread can see for themselves. :)

And rhetorical questions (which your became with the statement at the end) do not get answered, nor are they expected to be. Hence, being rhetorical.

:right:

[takeout]

Yes you did. You used the "Only listen to the generals that agree with me" line. That is an insult as it infers closemindedness.It only infers that if you want it to. I specifically referenced Bush; I gave Van an out with "maybe", which got thrown back in my face. You're reaching.

No difference in your post and my parody of your post except who posted them and the fact that mine was not an actual opinion, but an example of your posting style."Coward" and "traitor" are the same as what I posted? Seriously (not a rhetorical question)?

If it makes you feel better and sleep better at night to think otherwise, more power to ya. But anyone reading the thread can see for themselves. :)Again - if they want to. It's not my problem that certain people take "people like [me]" on the internet too personally.

And rhetorical questions (which your became with the statement at the end) do not get answered, nor are they expected to be. Hence, being rhetorical.
:right:You keep assuming that I didn't want him to answer. I find this confusing.

[Vanlatte]

Again - if they want to. It's not my problem that certain people take "people like [me]" on the internet too personally.

.

EDIT: King Kashue said it better with a pic than my rambling.

[King Kashue]

It only infers that if you want it to. I specifically referenced Bush; I gave Van an out with "maybe", which got thrown back in my face. You're reaching.

"Coward" and "traitor" are the same as what I posted? Seriously (not a rhetorical question)?

Again - if they want to. It's not my problem that certain people take "people like [me]" on the internet too personally.

You keep assuming that I didn't want him to answer. I find this confusing.

http://fifthlabor.net/misc/threadpics/catbird.jpg

[takeout]

Dude, get over yourself. I didnt take "you" personally, I said people like you remind me why I should stay out of this sort of crap. Even now you are still trying to bait me back into this with your "Who, ME?!? I was just asking a simple question " BS.

Juggs, forget it and just let him get the last word in.

With any luck I will just get banned so I won't be tempted to get sucked into this mudpit every other fucking week.See, this is why the Internet sucks. There seems to be no way for me to say that I disagree with your position (or even to ask you to clarify your position, albeit in an admittedly leading manner) without making you think that I'm saying "you fucking moron!!11". When in fact I'm not.

The fact that you got this worked up over what I posted implies some combination of the following:

- A text-only medium like a message board doesn't work for thoughtful discussion (possible)
- Only assholes discuss politics (probable, and I'm counting myself)
- My strict anti-smiley policy hurts more than it helps (but I'm too stubborn to change it - smileys are an affront to the English language)
- We are both bigger dicks than C7 (impossible)

Now hand me that shovel. This one's worn out, and I'm not done digging this hole yet...