Iraq General Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

 

Something like that. But honestly, I have seen enough of that crap to last me a lifetime. Unfortunately, there will be more of it.

Not in here. You keep wanting to fire shots at the extremists, but those extremists don't post here, for the most part. How about some discourse for those of us not in the small minority of extremes (one side or the other)? I thought the article was important. I think its pretty scary that we are relying so heavily on private contractors for what are really military tasks. At the least, its worth some discussion. I was not saying that was what the war was about - not at all.

 

What do you think about it?

 

[Texsox]

 

Something like that. But honestly, I have seen enough of that crap to last me a lifetime. Unfortunately, there will be more of it.

 

I don't believe there was any crap in the post you replied to. Sorry if you did. Like NSS, I am interested and concerned how we are fighting this war, in part, with private companies. This is the first time I've been aware of it and there are so many angles to explore. Are they recognized as an army, and receive Geneva protections, etc. What are their rules? Are there limits on prosecuting them?

 

And I don't believe our government can enter into a project that will spend hundreds of billions of dollars and not have the financial interests of companies who will benefit come into play. And that is for law makers on both sides of the aisle.

[kapkomet]

No guys, with the exception of probably two to four people in here, YOU ALL are not the ones I mock - it's really these knuckleheads in Congress who want to keep fanning the flames to cater to the moveon.org fringes. It disgusts me.

 

Most people in here post pretty reasonably (with the exception of four people that come to mind).

 

I'll address the other questions you asked later.

 

 

Edit: You all also have to realize that your Democratic Party is being hijacked by people who DO believe in the hyperbolic s*** I post every day. And that is why I point it out, to be honest. And if they themselves don't believe it, they at least cater to it, and that's just as dangerous, IMO.

Edited September 27, 2007 by kapkomet

[NorthSideSox72]

No guys, with the exception of probably two to four people in here, YOU ALL are not the ones I mock - it's really these knuckleheads in Congress who want to keep fanning the flames to cater to the moveon.org fringes. It disgusts me.

 

Most people in here post pretty reasonably (with the exception of four people that come to mind).

 

I'll address the other questions you asked later.

Edit: You all also have to realize that your Democratic Party is being hijacked by people who DO believe in the hyperbolic s*** I post every day. And that is why I point it out, to be honest. And if they themselves don't believe it, they at least cater to it, and that's just as dangerous, IMO.

Do you actually think that is happening any more in the Democratic party than it is in the Republican? I personally think it already happened on the right, and is just now catching up on the left.

 

[StrangeSox]

OH OH OH OH BUT THIS IS WHY WHY WHY WHY WE WENT TO WAR! HALLIBURTON! BLACKWATER! DYNCORP! BUSHCO!

 

 

I've asked this once before and don't remember a response: what do you actually hope to accomplish by always resorting to hyperbole? Has it actually ever raised the level of discourse here? If its directed at Congress, using it to shut down discussions here doesn't do much good.

Edited September 27, 2007 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

I've asked this once before and don't remember a response: what do you actually hope to accomplish by always resorting to hyperbole? Has it actually ever raised the level of discourse here? If its directed at Congress, using it to shut down discussions here doesn't do much good.

You want the truth?

 

Generally, you have about 20% of the Democrats that believe this s***. I mean, truely believe it. So, I basically mock it, because you see these assholes running around Congress and in front of their kooks being a parrot to these asshatery idealogues. I say it here, because people here need to realize that is what their party stands for at the end of the day.

 

I have also mocked BushCo on a number of occations, just not as blatent. NSS was alluding to it, and I agree, that there are fringe elements of the Re-pube-licans as well - which is why I call them Re-pube-licans. They are a disgrace to their party as well. They have given up on their conservative principles to pander to the fringes of their party.

 

A lot of times, you start to see elements of the "fringes" come out around here, but most of the time, people know when to stop. You can still see it in the majority of posts and the subjects that people here choose to start as conversations, or steer the conversations.

 

The God's honest truth is I don't like the Re-pube-licans of today, either. I've said it a lot. But, I think the Democratic party is just completely off their rocker and want to take control of everything that they can. I don't want my government interfereing with anything I choose to do. If they TRUELY help people, fine. It scares the s*** out of me when people like John Dingleberry tell me that he is going to take away my deduction because that motherf***er thinks I live in too big of a house. Who the f*** does he think he is? And the Democrats continue to do this s*** ad naseum. The healthcare issue, the same damn thing. Give people the choice to take care of themselves. It's not my fault that people choose to do stupid s***. I chose the path I did to try and take care of my family. I want my government to stay out of my life and not tell me what doctors to see, or how much I can earn without them taking it all away for redistribution to feed their pet projects.

 

This all is meant to say what more of some of my "true" beliefs are. I can't do that in one post, and I would say that half of my posts are hyperbole - but it does call attention to what the Democrats really are pandering to, and it's sad.

[Texsox]

Any proposal that increases revenue, no matter the manner in which it is being done, comes back to balancing the budget and the fairest way of doing it. I dislike the inherent dishonesty in a system where we pay dozens of different taxes. Too many are hidden here and there and we never see the amount. I'm thinking the dozen different property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains, inheritance, gift tax, and could go on and on.

 

This also comes down to balancing our own checkbooks and the cost of living in the US. I agree that choice should be the part of any health plan. What is being left out are the millions of working Americans who have no choice. If we can put together a national health plan that is more cost effective than my current plan, I'd go for it. If we could put together a national health plant that helps small business keep their employees, that is a great thing. I have know through the years small business owners who lost some great employees because they needed benefits that could not be provided.

 

I don't think rhetoric defines any group, you have to look at what gets put into action. I appreciate both parties for having a far ranging debate with many points of view expressed. I think in end, a better product comes out. I disagree with a small amount of actual laws and policies that have come out the past 10 years. I've disagreed with a lot of people's opinions during that debate. Focus on the end result, not the debate leading up. We're all about compromise in this country.

[NorthSideSox72]

You want the truth?

 

Generally, you have about 20% of the Democrats that believe this s***. I mean, truely believe it. So, I basically mock it, because you see these assholes running around Congress and in front of their kooks being a parrot to these asshatery idealogues. I say it here, because people here need to realize that is what their party stands for at the end of the day.

 

I have also mocked BushCo on a number of occations, just not as blatent. NSS was alluding to it, and I agree, that there are fringe elements of the Re-pube-licans as well - which is why I call them Re-pube-licans. They are a disgrace to their party as well. They have given up on their conservative principles to pander to the fringes of their party.

 

A lot of times, you start to see elements of the "fringes" come out around here, but most of the time, people know when to stop. You can still see it in the majority of posts and the subjects that people here choose to start as conversations, or steer the conversations.

 

The God's honest truth is I don't like the Re-pube-licans of today, either. I've said it a lot. But, I think the Democratic party is just completely off their rocker and want to take control of everything that they can. I don't want my government interfereing with anything I choose to do. If they TRUELY help people, fine. It scares the s*** out of me when people like John Dingleberry tell me that he is going to take away my deduction because that motherf***er thinks I live in too big of a house. Who the f*** does he think he is? And the Democrats continue to do this s*** ad naseum. The healthcare issue, the same damn thing. Give people the choice to take care of themselves. It's not my fault that people choose to do stupid s***. I chose the path I did to try and take care of my family. I want my government to stay out of my life and not tell me what doctors to see, or how much I can earn without them taking it all away for redistribution to feed their pet projects.

 

This all is meant to say what more of some of my "true" beliefs are. I can't do that in one post, and I would say that half of my posts are hyperbole - but it does call attention to what the Democrats really are pandering to, and it's sad.

What you are getting at with voting GOP because you want less government in your life, is why I have voted Republican more often than Democrat (for both Prez and US Congress seats) over the years. But here is the thing - if you pay close attention, I think you will find that the GOP no longer can say that with a straight face. They have been far too busy this decade telling people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms, who they can and cannot associate with, running up huge deficits and spending far more than they take in, intruding in their lives without the fuss of a warrant, getting all up in arms about the occasional nipple on TV (while ignoring violence on it), and stealing money from what 70% of the country wants to spend it on in favor of a war supported by only 30%. That's not less government - its more government.

 

Frankly, neither party can say they are the smaller government party anymore. I hope one of them tries to regain that ground, but right now, I just don't see it.

 

[Texsox]

What you are getting at with voting GOP because you want less government in your life, is why I have voted Republican more often than Democrat (for both Prez and US Congress seats) over the years. But here is the thing - if you pay close attention, I think you will find that the GOP no longer can say that with a straight face. They have been far too busy this decade telling people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms, who they can and cannot associate with, running up huge deficits and spending far more than they take in, intruding in their lives without the fuss of a warrant, getting all up in arms about the occasional nipple on TV (while ignoring violence on it), and stealing money from what 70% of the country wants to spend it on in favor of a war supported by only 30%. That's not less government - its more government.

 

Frankly, neither party can say they are the smaller government party anymore. I hope one of them tries to regain that ground, but right now, I just don't see it.

 

Amen

 

And let me add, I miss tax and spend Democrats. Now we have spend and spend in both parties. Give me the golden years when Dems had to get past a skeptical GOP party who would shut down these spending bills unless they were funded. No one is guarding the treasury. Not only do we not demand they only spend what we send them, we demand they borrow a trillion more and give it to us.

[kapkomet]

What you are getting at with voting GOP because you want less government in your life, is why I have voted Republican more often than Democrat (for both Prez and US Congress seats) over the years. But here is the thing - if you pay close attention, I think you will find that the GOP no longer can say that with a straight face. They have been far too busy this decade telling people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms, who they can and cannot associate with, running up huge deficits and spending far more than they take in, intruding in their lives without the fuss of a warrant, getting all up in arms about the occasional nipple on TV (while ignoring violence on it), and stealing money from what 70% of the country wants to spend it on in favor of a war supported by only 30%. That's not less government - its more government.

 

Frankly, neither party can say they are the smaller government party anymore. I hope one of them tries to regain that ground, but right now, I just don't see it.

You're absolutely right. But I also don't hear Re-pube-licans running around telling me that they have to raise taxes to fund 85 billion pet projects either, during this next election cycle.

 

Both parties disgust me, the Democrats much more so.

[Texsox]

You're absolutely right. But I also don't hear Re-pube-licans running around telling me that they have to raise taxes to fund 85 billion pet projects either, during this next election cycle.

 

Both parties disgust me, the Democrats much more so.

 

Of course not, the Re-pube-licans will jiust borrow the money and fund their pet project. And convince you someone else will be paying for it down the road.

 

Both sides suck. Pick your poison.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're absolutely right. But I also don't hear Re-pube-licans running around telling me that they have to raise taxes to fund 85 billion pet projects either, during this next election cycle.

 

Both parties disgust me, the Democrats much more so.

No, the Re-pube-licans want another $200 Billion for THEIR pet project - a disaster of a war. Oh, and, all THEIR pork too.

 

By the way, I've suggested this before, but it bears repeating here... I think the Chicago City Council has the pork thing down right. None of the budget-related bills have amendments, they are on-point. But the know the Aldermen need to show their wards some local money. So, the budget contains a chunk of money specifically to be distributed to each ward for local, "pet" projects. The money in the ward pot is partially dictated by the population in the ward, as well as TIF money and other ward-level tax in-take. Those pet projects are usually helpful to the community, because the aldermen use the money for parks, road repairs or whatever, that makes them look better, to get elected. In essence, they found a way to keep "pork" under control by sanctioning a certain amount of it, but building the system in such a way that the needs of the citizens are aligned with those of the aldermen.

 

I'd love to see Congress set up a similar system - no spending amendments EVER, but based on population or land area or some combo, you get a chunk of money per unit of measure to spend on the projects your area needs (but that aren't covered by major legislation).

 

[Texsox]

And here's the trillion dollar question, place a group squarely in the middle of all this. Would they stand up and say, you have our votes if you cut this crap out? Or would they say, we need $150,000,000 for this road, a new community center, a research grant for our local college, and so on and so on?

[kapkomet]

No, the Re-pube-licans want another $200 Billion for THEIR pet project - a disaster of a war. Oh, and, all THEIR pork too.

 

By the way, I've suggested this before, but it bears repeating here... I think the Chicago City Council has the pork thing down right. None of the budget-related bills have amendments, they are on-point. But the know the Aldermen need to show their wards some local money. So, the budget contains a chunk of money specifically to be distributed to each ward for local, "pet" projects. The money in the ward pot is partially dictated by the population in the ward, as well as TIF money and other ward-level tax in-take. Those pet projects are usually helpful to the community, because the aldermen use the money for parks, road repairs or whatever, that makes them look better, to get elected. In essence, they found a way to keep "pork" under control by sanctioning a certain amount of it, but building the system in such a way that the needs of the citizens are aligned with those of the aldermen.

 

I'd love to see Congress set up a similar system - no spending amendments EVER, but based on population or land area or some combo, you get a chunk of money per unit of measure to spend on the projects your area needs (but that aren't covered by major legislation).

Fine. I would rather see the money spent on getting things right in Iraq then have the whole Middle East blow up because of a power vaccuum. But I know that 90% of you disagree. That's where the conversation stops. Their pork is pork, but it's not fallacy pork, like "FREE" healthcare for everyone!!! It's not free, and I don't want those assholes telling me what I can do with my health care coverage and who and who I cannot see while taking the money and robbing us blind on a plan that will come in double what it's supposed to, and then we'll hear OOPSIE!

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And here's the trillion dollar question, place a group squarely in the middle of all this. Would they stand up and say, you have our votes if you cut this crap out? Or would they say, we need $150,000,000 for this road, a new community center, a research grant for our local college, and so on and so on?

Another way to control this that people have suggested is line item veto power for the President. I think maybe a restricted version of that - budget item veto power. In other words, the President has line item veto power over any given spending item, and can say for those items he/she chooses, no money allowed.

 

[Texsox]

I don't think anyone is proposing that health care plan. I keep hearing choice has to be a part of it. The only ones who are talking about choice getting taken away are the ones opposed to any form of national health care.

[Texsox]

Another way to control this that people have suggested is line item veto power for the President. I think maybe a restricted version of that - budget item veto power. In other words, the President has line item veto power over any given spending item, and can say for those items he/she chooses, no money allowed.

 

I'm uneasy with the Executive Branch having that much power. I see the benefits, but like any changes, there isn't a free lunch.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm uneasy with the Executive Branch having that much power. I see the benefits, but like any changes, there isn't a free lunch.

Like any other veto, it can be overriden by 2/3 of the houses. And my suggestion is less broad in power than a plain old line item veto that some have suggested.

 

[Texsox]

Like any other veto, it can be overriden by 2/3 of the houses. And my suggestion is less broad in power than a plain old line item veto that some have suggested.

 

That is the first time I've heard that suggested and IMHO an excellent proposal. I'd like to hear the debate against, and how it differs from the usual things brought up in a straight line item veto debate. Gridlock would be my first thought. Then would it eliminate half the pork? And if one party would be facing having their pork vetoed, what would that do to budget negotiations?

[kapkomet]

Nice. The Washington (Com)Post is turning on the Democrats. I LOVE the last paragraph.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7092701658.html

(registration req'd)

 

Wanted: Democratic Straight Talk on Iraq

 

By Eugene Robinson

Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A19

 

Yes, you heard it right: At the Dartmouth College debate Wednesday evening, not one of the three leading Democratic candidates could pledge that all U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his or her first term as president.

 

That's the end of a first term. Which would be January 2013. Which would be 5 1/2 years from now.

 

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," said Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Barack Obama.

 

"I cannot make that commitment," said John Edwards.

 

Makes you wonder what kind of Kool-Aid they were serving backstage. Let me suggest that everyone stick to bottled water next time.

 

In geopolitical terms, I think the answer they all gave is wrong; I think this represents the same kind of old-paradigm thinking about foreign policy and America's role in the world that all three candidates claim to reject. In just-plain-political terms, I think such temporizing -- delivered with furrowed brow and an air of wise gravitas -- is, at the very least, unwisely premature. The time for a Democratic candidate to start taking the antiwar vote for granted and scurrying toward an imagined "center" is after securing the nomination, not before. Democratic primary voters are smart enough to recognize the difference between saying you oppose the war and pledging to end it.

 

I'm also wondering what leads anyone to think that by the time the general election campaign gets underway, anything short of a clear promise to pull the plug on George W. Bush's debacle will look like a centrist position. By then, "U.S. troops out in a year" may look like the height of caution.

 

 

With all due respect to Clinton, we have a pretty good idea of what the next president will inherit. I can't imagine that at this point anyone thinks Bush -- who still thinks he's a latter-day Churchill -- is going to change his mind or his basic policy in Iraq. We'll roll into 2008 with a bigger U.S. presence in Iraq than we had at the beginning of 2007, and even if Bush agrees to a series of token withdrawals -- necessitated by the fact that we're running out of soldiers, Marines and guardsmen to send -- it's almost certain that on Election Day we'll still have well over 100,000 U.S. troops bogged down in the sands of Mesopotamia.

 

One thing we don't know is whether Bush will have sought to tie the next president's hands by ordering some kind of attack on Iran. Yes, that would complicate the situation in Iraq. So why did Clinton vote Wednesday for a Senate resolution encouraging Bush to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization? Having voted to authorize the Iraq war -- she says Bush pulled the wool over her eyes -- why would she vote for anything that Bush might try to use as justification for yet another potentially catastrophic war?

 

With all due respect to Obama (who missed the Iran vote), it's his obligation to "project four years from now." He opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning; he is familiar with the mess Bush created and, like all the Democratic candidates, he says he will promptly begin to end the war. But four years is a long time -- longer than the United States fought in World War II, certainly long enough to bring home the troops. Either Obama sees a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq or he doesn't.

 

With all due respect to Edwards, of course he can make a commitment to have all American troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- if he wants to. Of course it's possible that unforeseen events will intervene. But does his intended course of action entail complete withdrawal, or not?

 

What we need to hear now from Clinton, Obama and Edwards is "the vision thing," heavy on specifics. How do they see the long-term U.S. role in the Middle East? ("Different from the way George Bush sees it" isn't good enough.) Do they buy Bush's distinction between "moderate" and "extremist" elements and regimes, as proxies for good and evil? Is U.S. involvement in the region about oil? Is it about religion? What do they intend to do with the permanent-looking bases the Bush administration is building in Iraq -- including one just five miles from the Iranian border?

 

And please, no hiding behind "I don't do hypotheticals." The Republican candidates' view of Iraq, Iran and the Middle East is dangerously apocalyptic, but at least it's a vision. What's yours?

 

 

[Balta1701]

Yup. This about sums up how I feel about that Biden Resolution.

As meaningless, non-binding symbolic Senate resolutions go, Joe Biden just managed a doozy. By passing with 75 votes a meaningless, non-binding symbolic Senate resolution in favor of the partition of Iraq, Biden managed to simultaneously: infuriate nearly all Iraqis, who have virtually unanimously condemned the resolution (as have the Arab allies of the US, for that matter); let Senate Republicans off the hook by allowing them to say that they voted for change even though they continue to vote against anything real; and endorse an unworkable plan which would massively increase human suffering while working against American interests in the region and not actually solving the problems.

[kapkomet]

Yup. This about sums up how I feel about that Biden Resolution.

Someday, you all might learn that the Democrats never intended to leave Iraq. They just wanted to get their power back by SAYING they were going to leave. None of them want to "lose the war".

 

It's a bad thing over there, but again, duped comes to mind. [bUSH]DEMOCRATS LIED, TROOPS DIED. OK, that's not totally fair, but think about it - it holds about the same merits as when the "other side" said it, depending on which side your on.

[Mplssoxfan]

I guess my biggest nagging question about Iraq is: when can the US decide that enough is enough? I know that we're going to stand down when the Iraqis start to stand up. Since most of the Iraqis have shown no inclination to do so, when are we going to force them to do it?

 

Sink or swim? Or do we keep forces there until 2042?

[kapkomet]

Somehow, they have to get the message. But, putting a drop dead date isn't the answer. There are other diplomatic ways to make that happen, and it better be soon.

 

[Balta1701]

Somehow, they have to get the message. But, putting a drop dead date isn't the answer. There are other diplomatic ways to make that happen, and it better be soon.

Haven't you been saying pretty much exactly that for the last couple years? That something needs to change and soon?

 

How long does soon last?