Iraq General Thread

[kapkomet]

You keep turning one point into something else. Iraq was, and still is, a distraction from the war on terror. It is only not a part of it because they created such havoc in Iraq. So the one who say it was not about terror are right - but now, Iraq has become a battle ground in that fight. So no, Mr. Bollinger made no such case.

It doesn't matter, that's what you people don't get. It WAS, and IS, and WILL BE, a part of the war on terror. Why is that SO hard to get? Why doesn't anyone want to admit that? Because it might make Bush partially right?

 

It doesn't matter - it WAS a part of the war on terror, WMD's or not, because of the situation over there. The case was made VERY poorly, but it was a part of the larger war on terror. Period.

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

It doesn't matter, that's what you people don't get. It WAS, and IS, and WILL BE, a part of the war on terror. Why is that SO hard to get? Why doesn't anyone want to admit that? Because it might make Bush partially right?

 

It doesn't matter - it WAS a part of the war on terror, WMD's or not, because of the situation over there. The case was made VERY poorly, but it was a part of the larger war on terror. Period.

In their mind it was part of their idea of the war on terror. In reality, by trying to mix the battle against terror with a greater push for a "changed" Middle East and a frankly colonialist bent, they went off the tracks and into Iraq. Now, because they created a nest for terrorists in Iraq, of course, terrorists showed up. In some twisted way, I suppose they like the idea of creating their own battleground. Too bad about that country we invaded and decimated though.

 

[Texsox]

It doesn't matter, that's what you people don't get. It WAS, and IS, and WILL BE, a part of the war on terror. Why is that SO hard to get? Why doesn't anyone want to admit that? Because it might make Bush partially right?

 

It doesn't matter - it WAS a part of the war on terror, WMD's or not, because of the situation over there. The case was made VERY poorly, but it was a part of the larger war on terror. Period.

 

Sure it was apart of the war on terror, we needed to get those WMD

 

Now shall we debate if it serves our current needs to have our military stuck there without many forces to deploy elsewhere? I'd say absent of the WMD, it makes for an even worse case to invade Iraq. I don't see where this makes Bush (and I think it is wrong to give Bush all the credit or blame, but since he's your guy you want him to be "right") right, in fact I think it ultimately makes us wrong.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Back on the Blackwater topic...

In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department's authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event," the official said.

 

"This is a nightmare," said a senior U.S. military official. "We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term." The official was referring to the prison scandal that emerged in 2004 in which U.S. soldiers tortured and abused Iraqis.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Senate today voted heavily for an amendment to the Iraq spending bill, to essentially endorse the Biden plan for Iraq. The amendment has bi-partisan support and a veto-proof majority, with a 75-23 vote. Unfortunately, as it is only a plan and a set of goals, it is essentially non-binding. BushCo can sign the bill into law, and choose to ignore the amendment if they'd like.

 

So, Congress agrees a change in course is needed, they endorse that change in course, but fail to put any teeth whatsoever in the amendment. What good does that do? I do have to ask though - since Congress has no authority over Iraq's government per se anyway, and the executive branch can pretty much implement their end of things how they want to... could Congress even do anything binding along these lines anyway?

 

[Balta1701]

So, Congress agrees a change in course is needed, they endorse that change in course, but fail to put any teeth whatsoever in the amendment. What good does that do? I do have to ask though - since Congress has no authority over Iraq's government per se anyway, and the executive branch can pretty much implement their end of things how they want to... could Congress even do anything binding along these lines anyway?

Congress could do anything it wants to do if it was willing to use the funding for the war as a negotiating tool. Basically, Congress has the ability to say "Either you will agree with our plan, or we will not fund this war any farther". Until it does that, it has given up its only negotiating tool with this President before it starts. If the President vetos whatever plan the Congress comes up with, then the Congress can give him the same plan right back, and eventually the Executive branch winds up having no choice between agreeing with Congress or ending the war entirely with the funding already appropriated. But the Executive branch knows right now that the media will buy into the "The Democrats aren't funding the troops!" meme, as they already have done, so it's already a given that if Congress actually tries to use its power, the Democrats are going to be the ones capitulating.

[NorthSideSox72]

Congress could do anything it wants to do if it was willing to use the funding for the war as a negotiating tool. Basically, Congress has the ability to say "Either you will agree with our plan, or we will not fund this war any farther". Until it does that, it has given up its only negotiating tool with this President before it starts. If the President vetos whatever plan the Congress comes up with, then the Congress can give him the same plan right back, and eventually the Executive branch winds up having no choice between agreeing with Congress or ending the war entirely with the funding already appropriated. But the Executive branch knows right now that the media will buy into the "The Democrats aren't funding the troops!" meme, as they already have done, so it's already a given that if Congress actually tries to use its power, the Democrats are going to be the ones capitulating.

But they did that. They amended the spending bill. Now, maybe they didn't word it usefully, I don't know. But if they have an amendment saying the funding is contingent on doing X, then there it is. Perhaps they didn't do that - maybe the amendment just said "we think you should do X". If that is the case, then I guess they just wimped out again.

 

[Balta1701]

But they did that. They amended the spending bill. Now, maybe they didn't word it usefully, I don't know. But if they have an amendment saying the funding is contingent on doing X, then there it is. Perhaps they didn't do that - maybe the amendment just said "we think you should do X". If that is the case, then I guess they just wimped out again.

Yes. This was a specifically non-binding part of the Senate bill. I'll let ABC sum it up repeatedly how pointless it actually is:

The nonbinding, so-called Sense of the Senate resolution calls upon the Bush administration to pursue three federalist, semi-autonomous regions in Iraq -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish entities -- with a modest federal government located in Baghdad.

 

...

"This begins the political surge," said Brownback, paraphrasing New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, as is the Kansan's wont.

 

The bill, however, does not require any action by the president -- it merely expresses the Senate's opinion. And it's an opinion with which the president would seem to disagree.

 

Asked about the Biden plan on Fox News Channel last October, Bush said, "I don't think that's the right way to go. I think that will increase sectarian violence. I think that will make it more dangerous"

It is totally non binding. So yes, Bush can simply ignore it, laugh at it, and use it as toilet paper, and it doesn't matter at all.

[kapkomet]

Uh huh... and it is all starting to come back around full circle: the Democrats know, if we leave, that THEY have blood on their hands. That's why the meaningless amendments and empty threats. It's all about showing the kook fringes that they are "serious" with this, and they are not.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...H.DTL&tsp=1

 

My DemocratIC (feel better, Chet), you've been duped.

 

Instead of playing this political power game, if everyone would decide to get on board, the troops would be home TWICE as fast because the dirtbag inusrgents over there would have nothing left to fight for if they know our resolve is not shaken. But apparently, that's too much to ask.

 

The bottom line is, we're there, even if it is for the "wrong" reasons. So why do we have to play this political pandering bulls***? Let's come together, get something done, and get our people back home where they belong. I know part of it is the Democrats know they have to be "anti-war" to have a prayer at the White House, but I think you would find that if they were just straight with the American people and got something done over there, they would have just as good a chance... BUT WAIT, then Bush and the Republicans would get credit, and we CAN'T have THAT!

 

What a f***ed up situation.

 

One more thought: how much do you all want to bet that the "bring the troops home" s*** TOTALLY stops if a Democrat (Mrs. Bill Clinton) gets elected? Think about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Uh huh... and it is all starting to come back around full circle: the Democrats know, if we leave, that THEY have blood on their hands. That's why the meaningless amendments and empty threats. It's all about showing the kook fringes that they are "serious" with this, and they are not.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...H.DTL&tsp=1

 

My DemocratIC (feel better, Chet), you've been duped.

 

Instead of playing this political power game, if everyone would decide to get on board, the troops would be home TWICE as fast because the dirtbag inusrgents over there would have nothing left to fight for if they know our resolve is not shaken. But apparently, that's too much to ask.

 

The bottom line is, we're there, even if it is for the "wrong" reasons. So why do we have to play this political pandering bulls***? Let's come together, get something done, and get our people back home where they belong. I know part of it is the Democrats know they have to be "anti-war" to have a prayer at the White House, but I think you would find that if they were just straight with the American people and got something done over there, they would have just as good a chance... BUT WAIT, then Bush and the Republicans would get credit, and we CAN'T have THAT!

 

What a f***ed up situation.

 

One more thought: how much do you all want to bet that the "bring the troops home" s*** TOTALLY stops if a Democrat (Mrs. Bill Clinton) gets elected? Think about it.

Did you read the articles about the amendment? Because it says nothing of leaving. Its about how to manage the Iraqi government. Its basically the Biden plan - as a suggestion.

 

 

[Texsox]

Uh huh... and it is all starting to come back around full circle: the Democrats know, if we leave, that THEY have blood on their hands. That's why the meaningless amendments and empty threats. It's all about showing the kook fringes that they are "serious" with this, and they are not.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...H.DTL&tsp=1

 

My DemocratIC (feel better, Chet), you've been duped.

 

Instead of playing this political power game, if everyone would decide to get on board, the troops would be home TWICE as fast because the dirtbag inusrgents over there would have nothing left to fight for if they know our resolve is not shaken. But apparently, that's too much to ask.

 

The bottom line is, we're there, even if it is for the "wrong" reasons. So why do we have to play this political pandering bulls***? Let's come together, get something done, and get our people back home where they belong. I know part of it is the Democrats know they have to be "anti-war" to have a prayer at the White House, but I think you would find that if they were just straight with the American people and got something done over there, they would have just as good a chance... BUT WAIT, then Bush and the Republicans would get credit, and we CAN'T have THAT!

 

What a f***ed up situation.

 

One more thought: how much do you all want to bet that the "bring the troops home" s*** TOTALLY stops if a Democrat (Mrs. Bill Clinton) gets elected? Think about it.

Is there any point where we have spent enough money, had enough soldiers killed? Will we ever need Troops in other ereas of the world? You make it seem like you would give Iraq a blank check and as many body bags as necessary.

[kapkomet]

Is there any point where we have spent enough money, had enough soldiers killed? Will we ever need Troops in other ereas of the world? You make it seem like you would give Iraq a blank check and as many body bags as necessary.

Because clearly, I'm a war-f***ing machine, baby.

 

The difference between myself and a lot of other people is that while I may disagree with the way things were handled in Iraq, I see the importance of UNITING behind it, not spewing a bunch of RHETORIC to make it sound like we should "pull out of there" like the Democrats do.

 

I've said this over and over again, no one wants to take this part because the rest of what I say is more "controversial" in that I say we need to stay the course.

 

NSS, my comments centered around the San Fransissysco Chronicle article, and not the Biden amendment. I think on merit, some of the ideas expressed are pretty decent, minus the arbitrary "we're going to leave if XXX doesn't happen" blather inferred around the basis of the amendment (not actually included, but the cameras shine, and we get that s*** all over the place).

 

Biden's plan is one of the better ones I have seen; I wish our damn executive branch would get their head out of their asses to make some inroads toward this, because it's one of the few things that might work. I DO not believe that we should be there for infinity, but I do think that we have to be very, very patient, because our enemies will be.

[Texsox]

So blank check and as many body bags as it takes?

 

I remember how communists were going to be marching in Mayberry if we let Vietnam fall.

 

Sorry Kap, there needs to be a limit. Look at the scorched earth we'd be leaving behind, I believe that will be enough of a deterrent. When they get *their* s*** together, and can guarantee some safety, we'll be back to rebuild. We got rid of the evil dictator and wmd. Until then, keep killing each other. You wimpy conservatives think that our government has to solve everyone's problems. What the hell happened to personal responsibility.

[Jack Parkman]

Defitinton- newly elected politician-a person who replaces someone who f***ed up s*** who then f***s up s*** worse than the person before them, thus making everything even worse then it was in the past. Over the past 10 years things just keep getting worse. just my $0.02 on politics.

[kapkomet]

What happened to the Democratic party, you know, the one that always says there's a place for everyone, until you disagree with them?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Uh huh... and it is all starting to come back around full circle: the Democrats know, if we leave, that THEY have blood on their hands. That's why the meaningless amendments and empty threats. It's all about showing the kook fringes that they are "serious" with this, and they are not.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...H.DTL&tsp=1

 

My DemocratIC (feel better, Chet), you've been duped.

 

Instead of playing this political power game, if everyone would decide to get on board, the troops would be home TWICE as fast because the dirtbag inusrgents over there would have nothing left to fight for if they know our resolve is not shaken. But apparently, that's too much to ask.

 

The bottom line is, we're there, even if it is for the "wrong" reasons. So why do we have to play this political pandering bulls***? Let's come together, get something done, and get our people back home where they belong. I know part of it is the Democrats know they have to be "anti-war" to have a prayer at the White House, but I think you would find that if they were just straight with the American people and got something done over there, they would have just as good a chance... BUT WAIT, then Bush and the Republicans would get credit, and we CAN'T have THAT!

 

What a f***ed up situation.

 

One more thought: how much do you all want to bet that the "bring the troops home" s*** TOTALLY stops if a Democrat (Mrs. Bill Clinton) gets elected? Think about it.

 

She is already backing down...

 

[Texsox]

What happened to the Republican party, you know, the one that always says there's a place for everyone, until you disagree with them?

 

I think you posted in the wrong thread. Isn't this about Ron Paul?

[kapkomet]

I think you posted in the wrong thread. Isn't this about Ron Paul?

I don't think many of us disagree with Ron Paul on his fiscal stances - I think he's batty on the whole 9/11 tinfoil s***, but whatever. You just like to see yourself type, anyway.

Edited September 27, 2007 by kapkomet

[Texsox]

I don't think many of us disagree with Ron Paul. But you just like to see yourself type, anyway.

 

Then I have no idea who you are talking about? I thought it was the rino

[NorthSideSox72]

Things just keep getting better and better for Blackwater. Now a Congressional committee finds that they delayed and even impeded investigations into the 2004 Fallujah deaths of 4 of its contractors.

 

[Texsox]

I'm not certain if this comment is pro or con towards Blackwater and the like, but why is anybody running a private business in a war zone? I can't imagine the logistics, even with all the official and no doubt unofficial help they get from our government.

[kapkomet]

I'm not certain if this comment is pro or con towards Blackwater and the like, but why is anybody running a private business in a war zone? I can't imagine the logistics, even with all the official and no doubt unofficial help they get from our government.

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

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

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

 

That hat fitting a little tight nowadays?

 

[Texsox]

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

 

Kapperbole!

[kapkomet]

That hat fitting a little tight nowadays?

 

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