View Full Version : Iraq Pullout Could Begin July 1 Under Democratic Plan
Iraq Pullout Could Begin July 1 Under Democratic Plan (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0307/Iraq_Pullout_Could_Begin_July_1_Under_Democratic_P lan.html)
The House Democratic plan for the Iraq funding bill could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters this morning.
Even under the least affressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders this morning, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.
When the pullout begins depends on the progress that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki makes in meeting political and military benchmarks. President Bush would have to certify by July 1 that the Maliki government is "making progress" toward meeting those goals, or a U.S. withdrawal would start immediately and be finished in six months.
If Bush says there is some progress in reaching the benchmarks, than the Maliki government would have until Oct. 1 to formally enshrine them into law. If they aren't, pullout begins, and again, it's a six-month timetable to complete withdrawal.
If the Maliki government meets both those deadlines, and Bush certifies that, then withdrawal begins on March 1, 2008, with almost all U.S. units out of Iraq by that September.
So the range for U.S. withdrawal under the Democratic plan is as early as July 1, 2007, with departure no later than Sept. 2008.
--------------------------------------------------
The 110th Congress has been busy. Very busy.
And the other interesting part of the Blog article.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed to oppose the Democratic plan and said President Bush would comment on it later Thursday - and is expected to issue a veto threat, reports The Crypt's Patrick O'Connor.
Republicans on the Hill and in the White House argue that the restrictions and benchmarks placed in the war funding bill would restrict the ability of U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq to conduct the war.
"I will not vote for the supplemental," Boehner said. "Choking off resources for our troops is tantamount to handing the enemy a victory."
By drawing a line in the sand, Republicans are engaging in a high-stakes showdown with the majority party over the requirements placed on the U.S. military and the Iraqi government to receive money allocated for the war.
Republicans are gambling that Democratic leaders will not have the votes necessary to move the war-funding bill within their own caucus and will be forced to reach out to Republican leaders on a compromise package.
So far, Pelosi has not made any moves to reach out to the GOP, despite numerous pledges to work with the minority party when she took over the speaker's chair.
Asked if Republicans can bring down the wartime spending bill on the floor, Boehner said simply, "We can."
Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), ranking member on the Defense subcommittee for Appropriations, said he had strong reservations about the Democratic plan, although he declined to say specifically how he would vote on the legislation.
"I'm opposing anything thing that tries to manage the battlefield from the floor of Congress," Young said.
Parkbandit
03-08-2007, 02:17 PM
Very busy trying to pass legislation that has no prayer of passing.
Today.. I accomplished more than the Democratic leadership in Congress by sitting at a red light and passing gas.
Today.. I accomplished more than the Democratic leadership in Congress by sitting at a red light and passing gas.
Did you map your carbon footprint for said methane emission and will you substitute some of your emission offsets for it?
Very busy trying to pass legislation that has no prayer of passing.
Today.. I accomplished more than the Democratic leadership in Congress by sitting at a red light and passing gas.
Actually thats called talking out your ass which I agree you do much more of than all of Congress. ZING!
You must’ve meant the do-nothing 109th. The 110th has done more in the past 3 months than the 109th’s full term. Of course, thats not that hard to accomplish considering their horrible record.
I expect this to pass. Its tacked onto the request for war funding. Congress is doing what they were elected to do: end the Iraq war.
Sean of the Thread
03-08-2007, 03:34 PM
Congress is doing what they were elected to do: end the Iraq war.
You keep getting confused about that. Wake up comrade.
Artha
03-08-2007, 05:08 PM
Congress is doing what they were elected to do: end the Iraq war.
What the. I thought they were elected to end corruption? It's a little early for the revisionism.
What the. I thought they were elected to end corruption? It's a little early for the revisionism.
The democratic party were voted into Congress on the tide of dissent over the handling of the Iraq war amongst other things so I would hardly call it revisionism.
Artha
03-08-2007, 05:31 PM
Due to the scandals getting lots of play right before the elections, I'd have to disagree. Mark Foley et al were getting way more airtime than the war, and there was a lot more talk of ending corruption than pulling out.
Due to the scandals getting lots of play right before the elections, I'd have to disagree. Mark Foley et al were getting way more airtime than the war, and there was a lot more talk of ending corruption than pulling out.
Scandals helped, of course, but there was also a strong anti-Iraq war campaign. Anyway, thats besides the point.
Sean of the Thread
03-08-2007, 05:39 PM
Lol
Parkbandit
03-08-2007, 06:51 PM
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
Yup.. you sure do.
Artha, to clarify... the Dems got in for many reasons but if we were to wrap it up into one big ball, its the one the Reps dropped on everything from the war to domestic policy to national security and so on and so on.
I watched quite a few campaigns across the states and there was a lot of anti-Iraq war campaigning being done by the candidates. Most major reports on the election results say it was driven by anti-Iraq war sentiment. Not all sources and not soley just because of the war.
I see this congress doing what a congress should do. Its doing the things it said it would do. The people elected the representatives so that the representatives would do what they said they would do.
Sorry to be short or dismissive earlier. I was at work and typed a response too quick.
Yup.. you sure do.
Yep. Because everyone is a mix of both. Aren’t you tired of it?
Sean of the Thread
03-08-2007, 07:02 PM
Artha, to clarify... the Dems got in for many reasons but if we were to wrap it up into one big ball, its the one the Reps dropped on everything from the war to domestic policy to national security and so on and so on.
You act like it was a landslide Dem win....... however you summed it up perfectly with "to clarify... the Dems got in for many reasons". You're not quite as stupid as many of us think.
P.s. I didn't see many dems with "END THE WAR" on their campaign banner around here.
You act like it was a landslide Dem win....... however you summed it up perfectly with "to clarify... the Dems got in for many reasons". You're not quite as stupid as many of us think.
P.s. I didn't see many dems with "END THE WAR" on their campaign banner around here.
No one expected them to take the majority in both the House and Senate. But they did. Overwhelmingly so in the House. And you have to include the governorships and state legislatures that also went overwhelmingly Dem.
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 07:15 PM
I'd be upset if my last name was "Boehner" as well (or at least until I kicked my porno career into full gear.)
I think what Boehner, dofl, fails to recognize, or recognizes way too well... Is that legislation will endorse the same revenue (and what I am 99% convinced will be more funds) into Iraq regardless of our troop surface area, in order to secure our own during downscaling.
I have at least that much faith in humanity, anyway... And a bit less faith on there not being tremendous and retardedly unprecedented embezzlement issues when this hypothetical troop withdrawal occurs on paperwork alone.
I'd be upset if my last name was "Boehner" as well (or at least until I kicked my porno career into full gear.)
I think what Boehner, dofl, fails to recognize, or recognizes way too well... Is that legislation will endorse the same revenue (and what I am 99% convinced will be more funds) into Iraq regardless of our troop surface area, in order to secure our own during downscaling.
I have at least that much faith in humanity, anyway... And a bit less faith on there not being tremendous and retardedly unprecedented embezzlement issues when this hypothetical troop withdrawal occurs on paperwork alone.
Not to mention that there is EXTRA money added for troop supplies, vet care and rotation extensions. On top of that Murtha has added a “contractor” guard that makes the Pentagon disclose who they award contracts to and for how much. On top of on top of all that, ending presence in Iraq will let us concentrate on the real fight in Afghanistan.
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 07:25 PM
Not to mention that there is EXTRA money added for troop supplies, vet care and rotation extensions. On top of that Murtha has added a “contractor” guard that makes the Pentagon disclose who they award contracts to and for how much. On top of on top of all that, ending presence in Iraq will let us concentrate on the real fight in Afghanistan.
Shrug off the GOP finger-pointing when the tax hike ensues :shrug:
Shrug off the GOP finger-pointing when the tax hike ensues :shrug:
I’m not that rich. ;)
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 07:35 PM
I’m not that rich. ;)
Ehm. It'll definitely find holes in your pockets, percentage-wise then :-\
When Republicans talk about tax cuts they are pimping for the corporations. Thats what pandering really means.
Parkbandit
03-08-2007, 08:52 PM
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
And I really hate the whole conservative vs. liberal thing on both sides.
Yea.
Yea.
For once we agree. Mark this day down on your calendar.
Sean of the Thread
03-08-2007, 08:57 PM
At least you give us something to laugh at. The world needs a little laughter.
Hey quick! Look! Backlash is being a hypocrit again!!!
Oh wait, thats not really news...
/yawn
This thread gets 1 star.
At least you give us something to laugh at. The world needs a little laughter.
Laughing is always a good thing. Can’t argue with that.
Laughing is always a good thing. Can’t argue with that.
Especially at you.
Hey quick! Look! Backlash is being a hypocrit again!!!
Oh wait, thats not really news...
/yawn
This thread gets 1 star.
Because of me? C'mon. The topic should get at least 3 stars out of 5.
You have a natural -3 AvD to anything political and -1 to anything social posted here.
Sean of the Thread
03-08-2007, 09:05 PM
+3 if it involves 13 year old boys.
TheEschaton
03-08-2007, 09:06 PM
I'm surprised it got to 1 star then.
-TheE-
You have a natural -3 AvD to anything political and -1 to anything social posted here.
Kill the messenger. Anyway this topic is not about me so wtf?
Quit Iraq. The sooner the better. Concentrate on home security, diplomacy and Afghanistan.
I'm surprised it got to 1 star then.
-TheE-
Any discussion about supporting the troops, even as misguided as this one is, has a +7. But you have to add the Pelosi factor of -2.
+3 if it involves 13 year old boys.
Sorry, get your boys elsewhere.
Goretawn
03-09-2007, 11:45 AM
Quit Iraq. The sooner the better. Concentrate on home security, diplomacy and Afghanistan.
GREAT IDEA. This way we can start all over in 5 years with a full assault. Then we can watch innocent civilians die (Not like now, I am talking about a religious clensing) on the Communist News Network until Congress admits "Oops, our bad. Probably should not have pulled out too soon". Well thought out. Let's start all over again in 5 years. We can initiate the draft and you can all come and sit in my foxhole. You bring the ultra chlorinated water, I'll grabe a case of MREs. It will be a blast!!!!!
At this point quitting Iraq would be an ever bigger mistake than the way the war has been handled from the onset. More reality and less attempts to tug at the heart strings of the doves of American society. We need to finish the job, but I don't know if the current administration is up for the task. So far, not so good.
At this point quitting Iraq would be an ever bigger mistake than the way the war has been handled from the onset. More reality and less attempts to tug at the heart strings of the doves of American society. We need to finish the job, but I don't know if the current administration is up for the task. So far, not so good.
What makes you think leaving would be a bigger mistake than going in the first place?
You talk about reality and pulling dove heart strings... a majority of Americans disapprove of the Iraq war. I haven’t seen a poll but I’m pretty confident that the majority approves of Afghanistan, at least no one I know of is saying pull out.
What job are we trying to finish? Saddam has been toppled, tried and hanged, the Iraqis voted in a democracy, confirmation that there are no WMDs that would pose an immediate danger to the U.S... what more do you want?
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 12:52 PM
So because people disapprove of the war it means we just abandon it without finishing? Finished in the sense that they're not STABLE on their OWN yet. I think our guys have been there too long at this point too, but we can't leave Iraq until we're sure it won't implode as soon as we leave it.
Didn't you just say not too long ago that Iraq is not fine? Why are you so anxious to leave?
Daniel
03-09-2007, 02:15 PM
GREAT IDEA. This way we can start all over in 5 years with a full assault. Then we can watch innocent civilians die (Not like now, I am talking about a religious clensing) on the Communist News Network until Congress admits "Oops, our bad. Probably should not have pulled out too soon". Well thought out. Let's start all over again in 5 years. We can initiate the draft and you can all come and sit in my foxhole. You bring the ultra chlorinated water, I'll grabe a case of MREs. It will be a blast!!!!!
I call the beef stew.
Daniel
03-09-2007, 02:16 PM
What makes you think leaving would be a bigger mistake than going in the first place?
You talk about reality and pulling dove heart strings... a majority of Americans disapprove of the Iraq war. I haven’t seen a poll but I’m pretty confident that the majority approves of Afghanistan, at least no one I know of is saying pull out.
What job are we trying to finish? Saddam has been toppled, tried and hanged, the Iraqis voted in a democracy, confirmation that there are no WMDs that would pose an immediate danger to the U.S... what more do you want?
Stability in a country we destabalized?
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 02:21 PM
What makes you think leaving would be a bigger mistake than going in the first place?
You talk about reality and pulling dove heart strings... a majority of Americans disapprove of the Iraq war. I haven’t seen a poll but I’m pretty confident that the majority approves of Afghanistan, at least no one I know of is saying pull out.
What job are we trying to finish? Saddam has been toppled, tried and hanged, the Iraqis voted in a democracy, confirmation that there are no WMDs that would pose an immediate danger to the U.S... what more do you want?
Wait wait. Let me quote you.
Actually, thats not my title. Its the title from the YouTube page. And I agree with you, that title does misrepresent what she actually said verbatim.
I just find it ludicrous to suggest that Iraq is stable except for a bomb a day, and that just a bomb a day discourages people. There are many bombs and or attacks a day that kill or maim people, more than when the war started, and thats whats discouraging everyone. There should be 0 bombs a day.
But let's pull out now! Fuck em, right?!
So because people disapprove of the war it means we just abandon it without finishing? Finished in the sense that they're not STABLE on their OWN yet. I think our guys have been there too long at this point too, but we can't leave Iraq until we're sure it won't implode as soon as we leave it.
Didn't you just say not too long ago that Iraq is not fine? Why are you so anxious to leave?
The statement about majority opinion was meant as a counter to Dev’s claim that leaving would pacify the doves of this country. I was pointing out that while Iraq is unpopular no one says leave Afghanistan so you can’t really claim that people who are against Iraq are all pacifists.
As far as public opinion and wars... would you go to war if popular opinion wasn’t behind you? If you argue that we should not leave just because popular opinion is against the war you could also argue that we should not go to war just because popular opinion is for it. The administration goes to great lengths to sway public opinion so obviously its important to someone.
What happens in Iraq is up to Iraq. I say let them be independent and lets go get that m'er f'er Osama.
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 02:27 PM
Okay it's already happened. Let it go. Help find a resolution for the problem we have NOW. The shoulda/coulda/woulda's aren't helping anyone. And it's heartless to say well we fucked up your country, sorry, you're on your own. Nice. Some liberal YOU are.
Okay it's already happened. Let it go. Help find a resolution for the problem we have NOW. The shoulda/coulda/woulda's aren't helping anyone. And it's heartless to say well we fucked up your country, sorry, you're on your own. Nice. Some liberal YOU are.
Our presence there could be the only thing that fuels the fighting. If thats the case then leaving is for everyone’s benefit.
Meanwhile Osama is STILL out there. If that does not embolden would be terrorist masterminds I don’t know what else would.
Daniel
03-09-2007, 02:34 PM
Our presence there could be the only thing that fuels the fighting. If thats the case then leaving is for everyone’s benefit.
.
Except it's not...
Except it's not...
Oh. Damn. I better think of a new argument.
What job are we trying to finish? As has been stated time and again, establishing stability in the region for starters.
It's easy to compare the downfalls in Iraq to the downfalls in Vietnam. Then in the same light there are those who want to leave Iraq in the same state we left Vietnan knowing damn well that history would more than likely repeat itself. Abandoning ship would do little to solve the problems currently plaguaging the country and more to create so many others if the state in which we leave Iraq is handled with as little foresight as how we entered.
What job are we trying to finish? As has been stated time and again, establishing stability in the region for starters.
It's easy to compare the downfalls in Iraq to the downfalls in Vietnam. Then in the same light there are those who want to leave Iraq in the same state we left Vietnan knowing damn well that history would more than likely repeat itself. Abandoning ship would do little to solve the problems currently plaguaging the country and more to create so many others if the state in which we leave Iraq is handled with as little foresight as how we entered.
We will never ever ever be certain to find every last suicide bomber that hates America. We can’t even get Bin Ladin. What will go a lot further towards stability is saying we came, we saw, we kicked ass, thank us later, now we have to finish up Afghanistan.
Daniel
03-09-2007, 03:14 PM
Except..people will be upset if we leave. Therefore, that's dumb.
Except..people will be upset if we leave. Therefore, that's dumb.
Jeebus I’m not getting any work done today.
I’ve read polls saying that the majority of Iraqi people don’t want us there. The Iraqi government has, in the past, expressed the same thing. I mean, hey, theres a novel idea, lets as the Iraqis what THEY want.
Daniel
03-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Not wanting us there and recognizing the neccessity are different things entirely.
Kranar
03-09-2007, 03:18 PM
I think there's a certain level of arrogance in assuming that American military power will bring about peace and stability in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, hands down the U.S. army is the greatest fighting machine the world has ever known... the problem is that Iraq is not in need of a fighting machine.
You have an administration that sees this problem as a good guy vs. bad guy thing and that's the approach he and his administration are taking in fighting this battle. I mean fine... if you hate Democrats and think they're weak and you're for all that the Republican party stands for yaddy yadda... so be it, but you have to admit that President Bush and his administration are not the right or competent people who will be able to resolve this problem and as such, by continuing to have the American army in Iraq, soldiers will continue to die as a result of incompetence.
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 03:18 PM
The majority of the PC people wish Backlash would stop posting political threads. But does HE listen to the majority? Hell no. So much for majority rules! :D
Daniel
03-09-2007, 03:22 PM
I think there's a certain level of arrogance in assuming that American military power will bring about peace and stability in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, hands down the U.S. army is the greatest fighting machine the world has ever known... the problem is that Iraq is not in need of a fighting machine.
You have an administration that sees this problem as a good guy vs. bad guy thing and that's the approach he and his administration are taking in fighting this battle. I mean fine... if you hate Democrats and think they're weak and you're for all that the Republican party stands for yaddy yadda... so be it, but you have to admit that President Bush and his administration are not the right or competent people who will be able to resolve this problem and as such, by continuing to have the American army in Iraq, soldiers will continue to die as a result of incompetence.
I think the military is the last organization we should ask to bring peace and stability.
However, that does not change our responsibility to bring peace and stability nor the neccessity to do so.
The majority of the PC people wish Backlash would stop posting political threads. But does HE listen to the majority? Hell no. So much for majority rules! :D
Heh. Its actually only a very obnoxiously vocal minority. I’m sticking to my convictions.
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 04:03 PM
You wanna bet? I have my own source of polling. :tongue:
Stanley Burrell
03-09-2007, 04:09 PM
I think there's a certain level of arrogance in assuming that American military power will bring about peace and stability in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, hands down the U.S. army is the greatest fighting machine the world has ever known... the problem is that Iraq is not in need of a fighting machine.
You have an administration that sees this problem as a good guy vs. bad guy thing and that's the approach he and his administration are taking in fighting this battle. I mean fine... if you hate Democrats and think they're weak and you're for all that the Republican party stands for yaddy yadda... so be it, but you have to admit that President Bush and his administration are not the right or competent people who will be able to resolve this problem and as such, by continuing to have the American army in Iraq, soldiers will continue to die as a result of incompetence.
I feel as right as rain in saying that the absolutely least weak thing our administration can do currently is be affected at the executive level by the majority in the gubernate.
StrayRogue
03-09-2007, 04:11 PM
The "war" will never be won, in my opinion, in Iraq. You're going to have people saying we left the country and the entire world in a whole heap of shit when we pull out. You're also going to have people saying we should get out and let the Iraqi's sort themselves out, should we stay.
It's a no win situation. A situation we should never have gotten into in the first place.
Parkbandit
03-09-2007, 04:17 PM
Heh. Its actually only a very obnoxiously vocal minority. I’m sticking to my convictions.
Bullshit.
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 04:19 PM
Heh. Its actually only a very obnoxiously vocal minority. I’m sticking to my convictions.
That's how I feel about most polls. They are taken by the ones willing to say anything in the first place. But you seem to pick and choose when they are valid or not. I call bullshit on this too.
Parkbandit
03-09-2007, 04:24 PM
What job are we trying to finish? As has been stated time and again, establishing stability in the region for starters.
It's easy to compare the downfalls in Iraq to the downfalls in Vietnam. Then in the same light there are those who want to leave Iraq in the same state we left Vietnan knowing damn well that history would more than likely repeat itself. Abandoning ship would do little to solve the problems currently plaguaging the country and more to create so many others if the state in which we leave Iraq is handled with as little foresight as how we entered.
Oh stop with your whole "We should learn from History" crap. History never repeats itself like that.
How many people died once we listened to the hippies and pulled out of Vietnam again?
No way it could happen again.
Personally.. I think we should pull out tomorrow. Every last troop... pull them out of Iraq. Stop all aid and just bring them home.
Then next year, when George Clooney is in front of Congress, asking us to intervene in Iraq due to the Human Rights violations and the massive killings going on.. then we can go back in there and kick some ass the right way.
That's how I feel about most polls. They are taken by the ones willing to say anything in the first place. But you seem to pick and choose when they are valid or not. I call bullshit on this too.
Probably because every thread I post in the same old people come around and turn it into a thread about me and not the topic at hand. I’m sick of it myself.
PS. If you want to make a poll, go right ahead.
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 04:33 PM
ANY polls, not just here. You're going on about a poll from the Iraqis saying that they don't want us there and you're taking it at face value. Then when someone else puts up a poll you say that it's not valid enough. So yeah, again, you pick and choose which polls satisfy your needs and dismiss the rest.
ANY polls, not just here. You're going on about a poll from the Iraqis saying that they don't want us there and you're taking it at face value. Then when someone else puts up a poll you say that it's not valid enough. So yeah, again, you pick and choose which polls satisfy your needs and dismiss the rest.
Going to PM to hopefully resurrect the real topic.
CrystalTears
03-09-2007, 04:45 PM
WTF are you talking about? If you're saying that you believe and take at face value ALL polls regardless of who is taking them, then mea culpa. The only thing that needs resurrection is your grasp on reality.
Some Rogue
03-09-2007, 04:53 PM
Yeah, some people who think your politics are retarded keep their opinions to themself.
Shit. I've outed myself.
Parkbandit
03-09-2007, 05:17 PM
ANY polls, not just here. You're going on about a poll from the Iraqis saying that they don't want us there and you're taking it at face value. Then when someone else puts up a poll you say that it's not valid enough. So yeah, again, you pick and choose which polls satisfy your needs and dismiss the rest.
In Backlash's defense, that IS what a hypocrite is supposed to do.
get off his back.
Going to PM to hopefully resurrect the real topic.
The real topic is that people call you on your bullshit statements in threads that have legit topics. Then you whine because they are being off-topic? :lol: If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Yeah, some people who think your politics are retarded keep their opinions to themself. Shit. I've outed myself.
:rofl:
Alfster
03-09-2007, 05:45 PM
Heh. Its actually only a very obnoxiously vocal minority. I’m sticking to my convictions.
the rest just ignore your views and laugh at you
Goretawn
03-09-2007, 06:34 PM
I call the beef stew.
You can have the beef Chew, that stuff gives me the squirts.
As for everything else, let's see... we went into Somalia to stabalize but pulled out because of popular demand and what happened? Hmm, OK, maybe that is a unique circumstance. Let's see, Viet Nam? Oh yeah, not a good ending their either. Wait, you know, I can't think of a time when we pulled out too early and it went well. Funny how that is.
Now, I am sick and tired of the "We shouldn't have gone in in the first place." Right, OK, it is good to let mass murder happen. Cheming your own people. Attempting genocide. Great idea, we should have stayed out. Oh, I know, well those aren't the reasons we went in in the first place. Yeah, tired of those arguements too. We are there, the job is not finished. If we pull out any time soon, then we are just going to go right back in a few years anyway.
That's how I feel about most polls. They are taken by the ones willing to say anything in the first place. But you seem to pick and choose when they are valid or not. I call bullshit on this too.
Its pretty common to use polls as a support for your argument. As with any poll, you need to decide for yourself if you think they did it in a accurate manner. I’ve been using public opinion polls as support for my argument that we should wrap it up in Iraq and focus our attention on getting Bin Ladin.
If you don’t believe those polls for whatever reason, thats great and your prerogative. I’ve never said my polls are always accurate and your polls are not.
Parkbandit
03-09-2007, 07:03 PM
Now, I am sick and tired of the "We shouldn't have gone in in the first place." Right, OK, it is good to let mass murder happen. Cheming your own people. Attempting genocide. Great idea, we should have stayed out. Oh, I know, well those aren't the reasons we went in in the first place. Yeah, tired of those arguements too. We are there, the job is not finished. If we pull out any time soon, then we are just going to go right back in a few years anyway.
No.. the best ones are those that claim Bush made this entire thing up... those are the well informed people I laugh at.
Oh stop with your whole "We should learn from History" crap. History never repeats itself like that.
Your post should come with an old person disclaimer attached. You lost me at Oh stop.
Now, I am sick and tired of the "We shouldn't have gone in in the first place." Right, OK, it is good to let mass murder happen. Cheming your own people. Attempting genocide. Great idea, we should have stayed out. Oh, I know, well those aren't the reasons we went in in the first place. Yeah, tired of those arguements too. We are there, the job is not finished. If we pull out any time soon, then we are just going to go right back in a few years anyway.
Maybe we should not have given him those weapons when he was fighting our dire enemy the Iranians.
Not sure where you heard he was attempting genocide. At least not on a Holocaust scale. Technically, killing innocent women and children is genocide. At least according to that old tired Geneva accord.
I agree that we are there now and it is pointless to argue about going there in the first place. We need an exit strategy. This proposal is the best I’ve seen in almost 4 years now.
Sean of the Thread
03-09-2007, 08:37 PM
I agree with PB. I just cannot understand how so many of you are clueless when it comes to this topic.
You love your way of life right?
Sean of the Thread
03-09-2007, 08:40 PM
Maybe we should not have given him those weapons when he was fighting our dire enemy the Iranians.
Not sure where you heard he was attempting genocide. At least not on a Holocaust scale. Technically, killing innocent women and children is genocide. At least according to that old tired Geneva accord.
rofl @ "given him those weapons".. when you're president and leader of the free world then you can decide the policy that has kept the U.S OF A SAFE for our entire lifetimes.. until then just stay high on Friday night comrade.
The genocidal attacks on his own people are well documented.. if you're "not sure" where someone heard them then you better do some research before participating in a grown up thread on the matter.
rofl @ "given him those weapons".. when you're president and leader of the free world then you can decide the policy that has kept the U.S OF A SAFE for our entire lifetimes.. until then just stay high on Friday night comrade.
The genocidal attacks on his own people are well documented.. if you're "not sure" where someone heard them then you better do some research before participating in a grown up thread on the matter.
:rofl:
You expect grown-up behaviour on the PC? And people say I have a difficult grasp on reality...
Iraq was never high on the humanitarian list according to enemies of the republic. We’ve sunk a few notches on that list BTW.
Friday night is alright, man. I’m not in Iraq and neither are you.
Alfster
03-09-2007, 08:54 PM
until then just stay high on Friday night comrade.
Nothing wrong with pot
Sean of the Thread
03-09-2007, 09:05 PM
Friday night is alright, man. I’m not in Iraq and neither are you.
But many of my friends are. Get a grip man the world does not revolve around your twisted mind. You really could be spending your time volunteering or mentoring instead of being a bitterly ignorant political fuck that has no clue.
What a waste. (of something?)
Sean of the Thread
03-09-2007, 09:06 PM
Nothing wrong with pot
Let me clarify.. he's high on penis.
I've always said we should pullout and get Iraq on the stomach.
This new plan from the Democrats brings a whole new definition to the phrase Coitus Interruptus.
ElanthianSiren
03-10-2007, 05:45 PM
And yet Kissinger's direct involvment in Iraq brings a whole recycled meaning to the phrase, "Same shit, different asshole." :shrug: ZING, I guess?
Thus far, I believe Kranar had the best post. I also believe Bush took a positive step forward for Iraq with his works plan, in line with what Daniel noted, which I believe is also true. I'd still like to see this Administration define winning. Exactly what extent of peace are we seeking for Iraq, a country bordered by other nations known for producing and exporting extremists? There are so many factors to be considered in such a question that it honestly doesn't surprise me that they don't have an answer.
Parkbandit
03-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Wow.. I didn't know there was an award for best post... I would have posted some liberal bullshit and maybe won it had I known.
ElanthianSiren
03-10-2007, 06:10 PM
You could post some logical conservative points, however, and I might consider them too. From you, all I saw was flaming of backlash and polls. If you want an award, work for it. Alternately, if people supporting the opinions of others bothers you so much, you could go hang out in a cave somewhere.
Sean of the Thread
03-10-2007, 08:16 PM
You're the only person in the past 12 months to support a blacklash opinion. That might make you a nominee for the dumbass award. :P
Parkbandit
03-10-2007, 09:18 PM
You could post some logical conservative points, however, and I might consider them too. From you, all I saw was flaming of backlash and polls. If you want an award, work for it. Alternately, if people supporting the opinions of others bothers you so much, you could go hang out in a cave somewhere.
Yea.. because you've been so open in the past to anything non-liberal.
HAHA.
Really, I was laughing there.
ElanthianSiren
03-10-2007, 09:51 PM
Yea.. because you've been so open in the past to anything non-liberal.
HAHA.
Really, I was laughing there.
Well, that's certainly going to accomplish quite a bit. It's nice to see you being so resourceful.
I highly doubt that, Sean, but I'm not going to bother researching it. Further, it's pretty clear in this context that I was referring to Kranar, the poster I referenced in the initial response. Keep up!
Not to mention that there is EXTRA money added for troop supplies, vet care and rotation extensions. On top of that Murtha has added a “contractor” guard that makes the Pentagon disclose who they award contracts to and for how much. On top of on top of all that, ending presence in Iraq will let us concentrate on the real fight in Afghanistan.
Are you trying to tell me there is not a real fight against terrorism in iraq right now?!
Are you trying to tell me there is not a real fight against terrorism in iraq right now?!
Osama is not in Iraq. Thought that was common knowledge.
The statement about majority opinion was meant as a counter to Dev’s claim that leaving would pacify the doves of this country. I was pointing out that while Iraq is unpopular no one says leave Afghanistan so you can’t really claim that people who are against Iraq are all pacifists.
As far as public opinion and wars... would you go to war if popular opinion wasn’t behind you? If you argue that we should not leave just because popular opinion is against the war you could also argue that we should not go to war just because popular opinion is for it. The administration goes to great lengths to sway public opinion so obviously its important to someone.
What happens in Iraq is up to Iraq. I say let them be independent and lets go get that m'er f'er Osama.\
I didnt know we voted for our presidents to do whatever the popular opinion poles told him to do.
Go after Osama, okay so you want to invade what country next? Pakastan?
Our presence there could be the only thing that fuels the fighting. If thats the case then leaving is for everyone’s benefit.
Meanwhile Osama is STILL out there. If that does not embolden would be terrorist masterminds I don’t know what else would.
Your "could be" is incorrect. The current largest problem is not due to the presence of the US in the area. Quick history lesson for you: Shi'a = Iran/backed by Iran, Iran = Persians, Sunni (AQIZ, TWJ, AAS, etc.) have a long standing hate for persians. It is a endless sprial of an eye for an eye. The only thing that keeps it tame IMO is our presence.
You have an administration that sees this problem as a good guy vs. bad guy thing and that's the approach he and his administration are taking in fighting this battle.
Thats where i think you're wrong. If we looked at it as a good guy vs bad guy thing we would have gone after Sadr right off the bat, instead we bowed down to political presure and allowed his militia to attack our troops without holding the leadership responsable. What is causing the biggest problem in iraq and our inablility to win is our politics, the politics of the region (the my tribe before yours mentality of the arab community as a whole) and the bullshit the world media reports on a day to day basis.
Osama is not in Iraq. Thought that was common knowledge.
So Osama is the sole cause of terrorism? If we beat a figurehead then its all going to be over and terrorism wont be a problem anymore. Okay, then by your accounts all of the former Ba'athists shoudl have put down their weapons and stopped fighting when Saddam was hung. Sadly things in real life do not happen that way.
\
I didnt know we voted for our presidents to do whatever the popular opinion poles told him to do.
Go after Osama, okay so you want to invade what country next? Pakastan?
Uh, democracy. Granted, Bush was been elected.
Osama supposedly made 9/11 happen, which is what this is all about.
When we have a democracy let me know. Until then I will stick with my prior knowledge of our political system being a Republic.
No, it is a, and i will quote EVERYONE on this, "War On Terrorism."
Make sure you call the pentagon and let them know where Osama is so we can invade that country. How many months has it been since we heard from him last? Maybe he is having touble getting Coms
When we have a democracy let me know. Until then I will stick with my prior knowledge of our political system being a Republic.
No, it is a, and i will quote EVERYONE on this, "War On Terrorism."
Make sure you call the pentagon and let them know where Osama is so we can invade that country. How many months has it been since we heard from him last? Maybe he is having touble getting Coms
Astute observation.
Why are we trying to sell that crazy democracy thing?
I”m not so sure its the minds of the Pentagon that are misled, its the CIC.
Parkbandit
03-11-2007, 09:51 AM
Well, that's certainly going to accomplish quite a bit. It's nice to see you being so resourceful.
LOL.. and you pointing this out is equally as resourceful. Almost as resourceful as you giving Kranar a "Best post in a thread" award.
Osama is not in Iraq. Thought that was common knowledge.
First off.. Osama /= War on terrorism. He is but one part of it. Besides.. I bet he's dead anyway. We haven't heard anything from him in 2 1/2 years.. and this is a guy that loved give us videos of how great he is and how evil we are. I hope he's not dead.. I personally hope he's still alive in a cave somewhere, in extreme pain from wounds and internal issues... clinging to life.
Astute observation.
Why are we trying to sell that crazy democracy thing?
I”m not so sure its the minds of the Pentagon that are misled, its the CIC.
its a better catch phrase than spreading republic across the world. DUH!
its a better catch phrase than spreading republic across the world. DUH!
:rofl:
QOTW
:rofl:
QOTW
Okay for the internet speak "ignint" what does QTF and QOTW mean?
Latrinsorm
03-11-2007, 01:34 PM
The only thing that keeps it tame IMO is our presence.Historically, the only thing that ever brought lasting peace to the region was Islam. What I mean is, if you know anybody who could pull off a convincing Muhammad impersonation, now would be a good time.
QFT is quoted for truth (here, anyway). QOTW is quote of the week.
Historically, the only thing that ever brought lasting peace to the region was Islam. What I mean is, if you know anybody who could pull off a convincing Muhammad impersonation, now would be a good time.
QFT is quoted for truth (here, anyway). QOTW is quote of the week.
We already killed the 12th imam down in Zarqa after his followers shot down a Apache so that one wont happen anytime soon. I bet he was upset that his sword didnt work in smiting the US. (read up on the 12 imam if you dont understand the post please im to lazy to write it all out)
Latrinsorm
03-11-2007, 07:00 PM
I'm pretty sure the 12th imam has been occulted for centuries. Apparently he (allegedly) made an encore?
Well his sword didnt work in smithing his enemies, it obviously was not a mithril sword or imflass or anything with any kind of good breakage, it was probably copper or something. I mean what was he thinking fighting level 100 soldiers with a copper sword?! how is that going to work? the least he could have done was got it enchanted to like 8X or something?! I mean come on.
ElanthianSiren
03-12-2007, 09:16 AM
LOL.. and you pointing this out is equally as resourceful. Almost as resourceful as you giving Kranar a "Best post in a thread" award.
First off.. Osama /= War on terrorism. He is but one part of it. Besides.. I bet he's dead anyway. We haven't heard anything from him in 2 1/2 years.. and this is a guy that loved give us videos of how great he is and how evil we are. I hope he's not dead.. I personally hope he's still alive in a cave somewhere, in extreme pain from wounds and internal issues... clinging to life.
I still haven't seen any illuminating points of view from you on this topic. What are your realistic solutions to the current quagmire sans your attempts at inflamatory talking points? What constitutes the job being done? When do you believe the Iraqi government will be ready to handle its own affairs and how do you suggest that they prove that? If you were in Congress when would you support bringing people home?
I stand by my original opinion: Kranar gave a nice sum up of the difficult situation that people generally are willing to acknowledge (policy blunders heightened average expectations of war difficulties in Iraq). How about you enlighten us with some solutions; alternately, you may continue to sit there crying and lashing out like a child with sand down his shorts if you prefer.
Latrinsorm
03-12-2007, 12:42 PM
Shorts to go along with his knee-high black socks and sandals, no doubt.
Parkbandit
03-12-2007, 06:07 PM
I still haven't seen any illuminating points of view from you on this topic. What are your realistic solutions to the current quagmire sans your attempts at inflamatory talking points? What constitutes the job being done? When do you believe the Iraqi government will be ready to handle its own affairs and how do you suggest that they prove that? If you were in Congress when would you support bringing people home?
I stand by my original opinion: Kranar gave a nice sum up of the difficult situation that people generally are willing to acknowledge (policy blunders heightened average expectations of war difficulties in Iraq). How about you enlighten us with some solutions; alternately, you may continue to sit there crying and lashing out like a child with sand down his shorts if you prefer.
I think Kranar said it best.
There, now I've given the same enlightening information you have.
WOW, I fucking feel alot better about myself now.
Whew.
ElanthianSiren
03-12-2007, 06:10 PM
I think Kranar said it best.
There, now I've given the same enlightening information you have.
WOW, I fucking feel alot better about myself now.
Whew.
Actually, no. If you read the post, I went on to say that I supported Bush's works initiative and thought it was a step in the right direction, albeit late.
ElanthianSiren
03-12-2007, 06:12 PM
I'm still waiting for your answers by the way. How's that sand feel?
Parkbandit
03-12-2007, 06:45 PM
I'm still waiting for your answers by the way. How's that sand feel?
My apologies.
I think Kranar had the post of the year, and I support Bush's works initiative and think it is a step in the right direction.
Wow. Sometimes I wonder where I get all these ground breaking deep thoughts. It's like stuff I haven't heard 100 times on these boards.. like I'm saying it for the very first time.
I amaze me.
Alcoholic
03-12-2007, 07:22 PM
I want to preface my drunken opinion by stating that it's simply my opinion. It's not better than yours. Maybe it's worse. The thread inspired me to respond. I've had a lot of spare time lately.
In post #76, the question was posed about 'quality of life'.
Since 9/11, we've already sacrificed a great deal of our quality of life in the U.S.A. The freedoms we used to take for granted, enjoy, as American citizens, has been changed, for the worse. Travel by far is the leading indicator of that. Not only is it ridiculous - as noted elsewhere by someone more clever than I, it seems akin to travelling in central Europe during/after WWII. ("Have your papers?")
It's cake and you can have it and eat it, too. We had no choice but to respond to the attack on the country. Period. Opinion polls, were ALL FOR IT, as most of you likely recall. It wasn't that long ago. Whether or not there could have been, would have been, or should have been other attacks on the country since 2001, it hasn't changed that terrorism, on that day, won.
Admittedly, the war COULD have ended at that, and that's likely what people are thinking about, anymore. Run Osama down, snag Saddam while we're at it, and call it a day.
I don't really care what they say the war is about these days. We don't owe Iraq a fucking thing. They've never done anything for us.
I've always seen the issue for what it is. It's a war over oil control. It is, now at least.
On occasion, I stumble over statistics regarding fuel consumption. The one that jocked me the worst was this particular bit. Airlines report a significant increase in their fuel costs - not because the cost of fuel has risen - but because the weight of the passengers has increased over the years. I don't mean bigger seats, folks: I mean fatter asses in the seats.
A recent report suggested that SUV's and new car manufacturing were NOT hitting their fuel efficiency goals as set forth (couple years ago, whatever).
And my favorite statistic. 60% of the country is overweight.
A country full of overweight people has a lot of implications, where fuel is concerned. Not only casual travel, as the airlines note. Not even the daily transportation - look at all the trucks and SUV's and NON fuel efficient cars out on the road. Seriously. Step up from the computer and look out the window and count the percentage.
A country full of overweight people consumes more product, generally speaking. Transportation of goods from manufacturers, farms and the like take on an increased responsibility, and this converts to more fuel consumption.
I forward the notion that it's a war on oil, because the country requires it. Even someone who appears to be as stupid as Dubya appears, must recognize that, when faced with the overwhelming statistic.
I tend to vote Republican, sorry. I'm sorry because it's been awhile since I've been able to concede anything than "the lesser of two evils".
I'm sorry, I don't want any more public programs. We're not supposed to be a socialist country. Why do I have to bust my ass to work hard and pay for a shelter for that homeless guy up the street? Give me the economic resources, as a capitalist, to put that fucker to work, instead of taking my money and throwing it into more bureaucracy.
Popular opinion is bullshit. People don't know what's best for themselves - people are sheep. This country, this age, this modern phenomena, they want satisfaction. It's like goldfish who are fed too much. We'll feed ourselves with sloth and laziness, with foods grown by chemicals that create acid rain because a snazzy commercial said it's cool. We'll complain about how much money we make; then complain about how expensive things are; then complain about the trade deficit (even though imported items are cheaper);then complain about our jobs being lost to cheaper labor.
People want a country where everything is cheap and easy, where we're paid doubly much to do halfly so, and where we don't rely upon other countries to get what we need, though we'll gladly sell them our expensively made, overpriced products.
We don't want to take care of our own families anymore, we want the country to do that for us. We don't want to take care of our communities anymore, there's a sales tax that covers that.
Yea. We do have oil reserves that will last us a good long while. But, if you consider the rate at which our expectations exceed our consumption and our demands, and the rate at which all of those increases, including a population boom which is ready to retire in a few years and is only going to live longer (via prescription drugs) and be lazier (via modern technology), you better damn well think about where we're going to get oil from in fifty years... when you retire.
You want to end the war? Use less fuel. Invest in the capitalist economy and take more responsibility for your own well being, your future, and the future of your family.
Otherwise, like me, you'll be happy when lives are no longer being wasted for future sheep pastures.
War's not the answer? It's not. But, telling our citizens that they're going to have to buck up because they've turned into a lot of stupid fat fucks isn't going to poll well. Heh.
Latrinsorm
03-12-2007, 08:20 PM
it seems akin to travelling in central Europe during/after WWII.I wish Anne Frank was around to kick you in the teeth.
I forward the notion that it's a war on oil, because the country requires it.I forward the notion that you don't have any concept of the relative size of this country's oil imports.
BUT IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION, LOL.
Stanley Burrell
03-12-2007, 08:45 PM
I don't really care what they say the war is about these days. We don't owe Iraq a fucking thing. They've never done anything for us.
I've always seen the issue for what it is. It's a war over oil control. It is, now at least.
I am going to piece together way too many analogies and articulation to describe how I feel about this sentiment and refrain from repeating myself in layman's terms because of redundancy and a droning wall of text, so I apologize in advance:
The trickle down effects have been so incredibly soundless in their finite capitalist intentions, beginning with the Iraq pedestal you mentioned, and ending with Halliburton, that I see NO correlation to our mercantilism throughout any of the three imperialist stages of history.
We have the IMF, the WTO and every possible way to oppress and continue the backwards stasis of just about any third world country and a surplus to play greed roulette. We can even hide behind the cloak and daggers of electing democrats and/or liberals into foreign affair offices to make the world go from a 99% hatred of America to a steady 97% when imploring said organizations.
I personally believe, with all my heart, soul and being, that VP Cheney's being one of the most staunch Republicans in the main executive spotlight for a bit now, paired with his (and others') intentions of gathering claustrophobically immediate funds -- And when passed through the beaureucratic filter of every single 2000-presidential-elections-to-present mainstream thinktank's crackpipe, whereas the puppeteering potential of said conservative thinktanks, now in office, fed upon our C.E.O. for the extortion of his (Dubya's) own unbelievably-easy-to-sway prerogative towards the Middle East. And that it is this, paired with the never-before-seen paper thin economic ideologies of a handful of capitalist superfluke White Officials of the 2000-to-current-day Iraq war that has had implications so absolutely profound, that we can never stretch our minds to interpret what our imperial intentions have been within the last seven years unless nomenclature regarding a much more modern stage of said Imperialism is physically changed itself in textbooks and social studies classes.
No matter how anti-bleeding heart, conservative, economical, capitalist, Republican, Democrat, whatever you are, I will stand on my head and do back handsprings before resigning my belief that there is an 110% uniqueness in current day Iraq wholly different than any capitalistic study of the past would attempt to draw parallels towards. No popular definition of this is or this isn't blood-for-money can truly have any clear bearing on what our current events scenario is.
I feel there has been an economic paradigm shift that is more than what meets the eye and certainly more than meets the mind. I also feel that political opportunists have been doing a remarkable job at capitalizing on confusion by the masses, which has led to a sort of global quasi-Vietnam (and predated unpopular war) sentimentality of resentment, without almost any human beings on the planet having any way to explore the true meaning regarding the uniqueness of our 21st century scenario due to the age old remedies of media and unfortunate firsthand experience doing any and all of the education.
Man. I really, really, really, really, really want to throw in the organic produce promotion and regulation of the supersized (non-capitalistically) mentality curveball, followed up with the nutritional education to youth sinker/floater, to respond to a lot of what you had mentioned regarding obesity and reasons you felt it occurred in this country, several that I concur with wholeheartedly. That's something else, tho.
Alcoholic
03-12-2007, 09:04 PM
I wish Anne Frank was around to kick you in the teeth.I forward the notion that you don't have any concept of the relative size of this country's oil imports.
BUT IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION, LOL.
Coming from a family that was, as most other Americans one way or the other, originally immigrant. Specific to my lineage was escaping from Central Europe during WW II, during a time when the US was not permitting. I meant no disrespect to Jews or Anne Frank. Frankly, travelling in the U.S. today reminds me of an episode of "Hogan's Heroes". I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I find it offensive that I can't travel freely in my own country; that despite all of our technology, our current pro-more-gov't stance suggests that we don't have the means to keep our citizens safe unless every single one of those citizens is subject to a full body cavity search before getting on a plane. Freedom, my left nut.
You are correct. I have absolutely no concept of our oil imports. I am positive, however, in my belief.. that American society has grown fat and lazy, figuratively or literally, as you will, and that our needs are set to exceed our means. Maybe not soon, but ultimately. Regardless of the statistics you could possibly show me, I would still hold that belief.
Because it's an opinion. Ha ha ha? I don't see the humor, but maybe I'm the only one being honest about it being just a thought. You're not going to offend me by disagreeing with me, though the Anne Frank comment was .. borderline. :-)
>No matter how anti-bleeding heart, conservative, economical, capitalist, Republican, Democrat, whatever you are, I will stand on my head and do back handsprings before resigning my belief that there is an 110% uniqueness in current day Iraq wholly different than any capitalistic study of the past would attempt to draw parallels towards. No popular definition of this is or this isn't blood-for-money can truly have any clear bearing on what our current events scenario is. - Stanley Burrell
Fair enough. That's entirely reasonable, and perhaps I've simply fought with too many Southern Democrats locally.. they have filled my head with "it's a war for oil!" like that's a bad thing, and I end up ranting about why .. maybe it's not a bad thing, but a necessary evil.
I'd rather fight against that which makes it seem even necessary (assuming it is).
I'd rather people boycott SUV's than drive them to Washington DC to do a march. I'd rather people fight through action, through a grass root campaign, then otherwise. It's easy to say there's injustice. It's more compelling to see a cure, and work towards that.
I don't weight my opinions because this is not what I do for a living. I'm not a political scientist, I'm not a economics theorist, etc. I don't read all of the CNN wires. I'm a business owner in the hospitality business. I see what I see, I know what effects the mood of the people that come into my establishment, I listen to what gets people talking. It's certainly an imperfect opinion, but since the thread was so interesting, I was compelled to respond.
Either way. I'm off to watch Rome now.
Latrinsorm
03-12-2007, 09:06 PM
I'll translate for Stan:
"President Bush is great, everything he does is great, and man, wouldn't it be great if we could elect him for a third term?"
Yes, Stan, Yes it would. :yes:
Latrinsorm
03-12-2007, 09:09 PM
Specific to my lineage was escaping from Central Europe during WW II, during a time when the US was not permitting.It's all the more baffling that you think travel in the U.S. today is anywhere close to the same thing, then.
Ha ha ha? I don't see the humorReference to a few folks here. It's not funny in the slightest, more depressing than anything else.
ElanthianSiren
03-12-2007, 09:26 PM
My apologies.
I think Kranar had the post of the year, and I support Bush's works initiative and think it is a step in the right direction.
Wow. Sometimes I wonder where I get all these ground breaking deep thoughts. It's like stuff I haven't heard 100 times on these boards.. like I'm saying it for the very first time.
I amaze me.
As oposed to the consta backlash bashing and yowling about how we should bomb everyone, which isn't very feasible, I have to admit, that's an improvement for you.
And my favorite statistic. 60% of the country is overweight.
A country full of overweight people has a lot of implications, where fuel is concerned. Not only casual travel, as the airlines note. Not even the daily transportation - look at all the trucks and SUV's and NON fuel efficient cars out on the road. Seriously. Step up from the computer and look out the window and count the percentage.
People want a country where everything is cheap and easy, where we're paid doubly much to do halfly so, and where we don't rely upon other countries to get what we need, though we'll gladly sell them our expensively made, overpriced products.
We don't want to take care of our own families anymore, we want the country to do that for us. We don't want to take care of our communities anymore, there's a sales tax that covers that.
You want to end the war? Use less fuel. Invest in the capitalist economy and take more responsibility for your own well being, your future, and the future of your family.
War's not the answer? It's not. But, telling our citizens that they're going to have to buck up because they've turned into a lot of stupid fat fucks isn't going to poll well. Heh.
First, the 60% statistic is interesting, in that being overweight is often judged by the BMI, which was established, I believe, from cadavers. We've had some wonderful BMI discussions here on why the BMI isn't really a good way to measure fitness. I agree that obeisity is a problem and definitely the lack of physical activity is also a problem. However, as we age societally, the frame of people also grows with life expectancy and proper nutrition. You also can't discount that muscle weighs 3x as much as fat, so you are including very muscular, productive people in your generalization about "fat fucks".
Otherwise, I agree with some of what you're saying. For the record, I'm not considered overweight presently, but I prefer Amtrak and walking to air travel and driving. I feel that it would be prudent to improve public transportation to make it attractive to the average american. This isn't a critique on you, more the method which drove your conclusion.
I don't propose also that we owe Iraq anything for the war. I propose that through the experiment of Japan and Germany the most feasible plan toward quelling its insurgency is works; what's frustrating is it's taken so long for our administration to learn this. You can look at it through various sociological theories: broken window etc. What I don't believe is that the infighting will ever completely cease in the area.
As for what the war is about, you're going to find many factors, and that's what I'd tell your southern friends. Even guys who served in combat coming back here have said "of course it's about oil! So what?" Whether a person supports the root of the war or not, the country is still at war. What I want to see are some ideas on what conditions would mean the end of war. What do we want at this point?
Alcoholic
03-12-2007, 10:34 PM
It's all the more baffling that you think travel in the U.S. today is anywhere close to the same thing, then.Reference to a few folks here. It's not funny in the slightest, more depressing than anything else.
There's a whole subclass of rules, regulations, conspiracies and scandals involving modern travel. I don't follow the latest, to be honest. I just know that travelling now is quite ridiculous.
I take it that you don't agree. Perhaps I'm overdramatizing the point? 2 hour lines at the local airport to have myself and my carry on baggage checked (for 6oz portions of shampoo or a gameboy transmitter) is not the same as travelling in war torn central europe during the 1940's? Technically, I suppose you're right. My opinion regarding the parallel, and the usage of the word "freedom", however, is that they are close enough to be comparable, in that sense.
While technically not the same, is the parallel not reasonable? I read it in an editorial a few months ago. It caught my attention, because it made sense. I find myself agreeing that they are identical in function, if not in actual physical fact.
>You also can't discount that muscle weighs 3x as much as fat, so you are including very muscular, productive people in your generalization about "fat fucks". ElanthianSiren
It WAS a generalization, and the 60% figure means nothing in and of itself. The measuring standard, however flawed, conveys something else. It shows the trend increase of "overweight" population over the past decades. If you pick another measurement, your statistics will still show an increase, I'd wager. Unsupported theory, mind you.
I followed the phrase "fat fucks" with a "Heh" to indicate that was somewhat tongue in cheek.
To be honest, it's heartbreaking to me, on many levels. I'm not the epitome of health... I drink, I smoke, I stay up late, I sleep with strange women. But, even the healthiest of Americans have an increasing amount of body fat percentages over the years. I don't need a study to see this. I merely need to stand in a public area and look around.
Generally speaking, I find that my views aren't shared by most. The one friend I have, locally, that agrees with me politically fits my profile. I'm a middle class skinny fuck. I work hard, I play hard, and it'd be nice to go out to a club and not see every single women carrying an extra 20 pounds in her gut, and complaining about Dubya while she drives home drunk with a fat guy in a cowbat hat in an SUV. (That's also tongue in cheek, just in case).
What do I want? I want people to stop dying for stupid reasons. How? Buy everyone a lite beer, give them a joint, and tell them to go home and sleep on it for a few days. I don't know. Sorry.
*
I'm not emo, I'm not crying in my coffee because someone said I should be kicked in my teeth. I got enough problems, IRL, I don't need a BBS to remind me of the flaws I have that I haven't already considered.
I feel powerless. Not because I don't vote, because I do. But, I'm not an activist, and frankly, as an observer of people, I don't think there's enough people who see the trends and care to do anything about them.
It's wayyyy easy to wax prophetic, to curse the human virus. But, damn the man (or woman) who seeks the cure AND gains the popularity of the voting mass, the influential media, the pop culture influences that make America so unique and so fucking wrong, at the same time.
It's tragic enough to be Shakespearean. In my opinion. Your mileage may vary. And it's good if it does. If you're thinking, you're outclassing two of your 5 neighbors. And that's a start.
Time for a beer.
Stanley Burrell
03-12-2007, 11:18 PM
I'll translate for Stan:
"President Bush is great, everything he does is great, and man, wouldn't it be great if we could elect him for a third term?"
Yes, Stan, Yes it would. :yes:
What's sad is that I would revel in spite moreso than now :-\
ElanthianSiren
03-12-2007, 11:30 PM
It WAS a generalization, and the 60% figure means nothing in and of itself. The measuring standard, however flawed, conveys something else. It shows the trend increase of "overweight" population over the past decades. If you pick another measurement, your statistics will still show an increase, I'd wager. Unsupported theory, mind you.
What do I want? I want people to stop dying for stupid reasons. How? Buy everyone a lite beer, give them a joint, and tell them to go home and sleep on it for a few days. I don't know. Sorry.
*
I feel powerless. Not because I don't vote, because I do. But, I'm not an activist, and frankly, as an observer of people, I don't think there's enough people who see the trends and care to do anything about them.
I followed the phrase "fat fucks" with a "Heh" to indicate that was somewhat tongue in cheek.
Yes, but my point to you was that the measuring standard can be changed over time and likely has been. It's arbitrary. What's truly depressing to me, in the health arena, is how many people engage in behaviors that make them ideal candidates for cancer, II diabetes, and heart disease. Then, money gets funnelled from working on things like viruses, immune disorders etc to accomidate. -So we're agreeing essentially, and we're arguing standard. I happen to be studying biotechnology, so I found your take interesting. Perhaps I should have used a PM.
Alcohol is one of the leading causes of vehicular death and violence, at least in our society. I'm a little confused which society you're referring to (in the US or in Iraq or in the world). I don't believe in a dry society, but Muslims might be a lil appauled if you walked in with your light beer. The questions that I asked, I asked because I was curious about honest non-inflamatory answers, especially from conservatives. I believe I might have already exposed how I'd deal with the situation in Iraq, which may be completely wrong. I hope we get to see. Any way you slice it, however, the military is necessary at this point IMO.
Sometimes it's better to be an observer than a commenter. Which trends specifically are you referring to and on what scale (local, state, nation, global etc)?
I knew you were being tongue in cheek, but when quoting you, I had to use quotes.
Latrinsorm
03-13-2007, 12:14 AM
2 hour lines at the local airport to have myself and my carry on baggage checked (for 6oz portions of shampoo or a gameboy transmitter) is not the same as travelling in war torn central europe during the 1940's?People got killed for travelling in Central Europe during the 1940s, ok? Just stop. Comparing a minor inconvenience to Nazis shooting kids in the head for being Jewish is unbelievably tasteless.
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 12:29 AM
So many idiots.. sickening.
I don't propose also that we owe Iraq anything for the war. I propose that through the experiment of Japan and Germany the most feasible plan toward quelling its insurgency is works; what's frustrating is it's taken so long for our administration to learn this. You can look at it through various sociological theories: broken window etc. What I don't believe is that the infighting will ever completely cease in the area.
Do you really think that this has not been attempted during the past 4-5 years? It works great until the 2nd time all the people waiting to go in get shot up or somebody drives a SVBIED into the administrative building (Ninewa buisness center as an example). Just because it was mentioned by somebody on the news now does not mean its something new. The media just decided to report it since it benifited them at the time.
As for what the war is about, you're going to find many factors, and that's what I'd tell your southern friends. Even guys who served in combat coming back here have said "of course it's about oil! So what?" Whether a person supports the root of the war or not, the country is still at war. What I want to see are some ideas on what conditions would mean the end of war. What do we want at this point?
So when are we going to see this benifit of our war for Oil? heck we even pay the iraqi's for the gas of, by your account ours (since we went there to get oil.), we use even though its all our equipment they use to make it for themselves.
Yes, but my point to you was that the measuring standard can be changed over time and likely has been. It's arbitrary. What's truly depressing to me, in the health arena, is how many people engage in behaviors that make them ideal candidates for cancer, II diabetes, and heart disease. Then, money gets funnelled from working on things like viruses, immune disorders etc to accomidate. -So we're agreeing essentially, and we're arguing standard. I happen to be studying biotechnology, so I found your take interesting. Perhaps I should have used a PM.
Or anorexia and bulimia for that matter eh?
I don't believe in a dry society, but Muslims might be a lil appauled if you walked in with your light beer.
A quarter the shit bags worlds we fuck up are drunk or high on opium when we kick in their doors. Contrary to what you hear in the media they dont really care, unless of course it gives them something to complain about, then they will bitch and moan as they pull out the flask, that their father the sheik gave to them and wet their tounges.
ElanthianSiren
03-13-2007, 02:45 AM
Do you really think that this has not been attempted during the past 4-5 years? It works great until the 2nd time all the people waiting to go in get shot up or somebody drives a SVBIED into the administrative building (Ninewa buisness center as an example). Just because it was mentioned by somebody on the news now does not mean its something new. The media just decided to report it since it benifited them at the time.
So when are we going to see this benifit of our war for Oil? heck we even pay the iraqi's for the gas of, by your account ours (since we went there to get oil.), we use even though its all our equipment they use to make it for themselves.
Do you really think it's been attempted on the scale necessary to rebuild a nation with the factors presently at work in Iraq? I suppose Bush thinks not, but perhaps we're both wrong. I have no idea when you'll see a benefit, but I think you should look back to where I said, "that's what I'd tell your friends." I noted there were many factors in the war in Iraq. Daniel has noted numerous times the desire for basing rights in the middle east being another factor. :shrug: What's your point? Are you arguing that Oil had nothing at all to do with it?
Or anorexia and bulimia for that matter eh?
A quarter the shit bags worlds we fuck up are drunk or high on opium when we kick in their doors. Contrary to what you hear in the media they dont really care, unless of course it gives them something to complain about, then they will bitch and moan as they pull out the flask, that their father the sheik gave to them and wet their tounges.
What's your point in paragraph one? Bulemia and Annorexia are both mental diseases with physical manifestations. Are you arguing that everyone that is obese or overweight fits a DSM profile for mental illness or that none of them do?
Well, if we believe what we've been told, the quarter you're arresting aren't model Muslims, are they? Perhaps I should have clarified better to you what I meant.
Daniel
03-13-2007, 04:10 AM
Dave,
I suggest you read the current literature being put out by the Military itself which says that a drastic increase in development is essential to providing any long term stability to the region.
This is in marked contrast to earlier estimates that put military resources as been the sole factor in success.
In fact, the ideal relative roles of the two have been switched, from 20\80 to 80\20.
How the US is going to get the man power to create a 80\20 mix of development to military is beyond me.
Parkbandit
03-13-2007, 09:24 AM
So many idiots.. sickening.
Yea.. I was chalking it up to him/her being drunk.. but then the idiot parade followed.
Dave,
I suggest you read the current literature being put out by the Military itself which says that a drastic increase in development is essential to providing any long term stability to the region.
This is in marked contrast to earlier estimates that put military resources as been the sole factor in success.
In fact, the ideal relative roles of the two have been switched, from 20\80 to 80\20.
How the US is going to get the man power to create a 80\20 mix of development to military is beyond me.
Daniel, I'm no saying that I don’t agree with the necessity of development for the country to survive and better itself (and for us to get the fuck out) I however am more of a cynic in my assumptions of its effectiveness to solve the problem. The situation there has changed quite a bit since you were there. The Sunni, shi'a rivalry is a beast I don’t feel tossing money at will make any difference at all. People have to show up to receive social services, they need to go to the "business center" to look for a job, or get money to start their business, etc. That’s when people start to die. Those places become targets, because of the effective divide between sunni and shi'a each location will receive one of the two pretty much exclusively. And unless the role for the military is for us to cordon off the places 24 hours a day, putting ourselves at great risk though repetition... Then again if they keep up with the new COB, and PB system they are implementing in the areas we are clearing for the new units coming it may turn out to be a bit more effective. However, I’ve had to see and deal with the results of two bases that have been overrun in the last few months due to trusting Iraqi's and complacency. Not matter how alert we want our soldiers to be those that don’t deal with shit every day start to feel safe and start not to scan as often, and let their guards down. I wish things were as simple as the government thinks it is. I wish those in charge did more than fly in a helicopter from base to base and listen to COL’s who care for their careers more than telling that they are not able to accomplish the tasks given effectively or sugar coat the truth. I don’t know what it will take to win this in the end, I do know we have to find out or never leave, nothing could be more disastrous for the well being of the Mideast, America, or the rest of the world for that matter than our withdrawal.
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 10:14 AM
L2PARAGRAPHPLEASE
Alfster
03-13-2007, 10:21 AM
MY EYES ARE BLEEDING
ElanthianSiren
03-13-2007, 12:07 PM
The Sunni, shi'a rivalry is a beast I don’t feel tossing money at will make any difference at all. People have to show up to receive social services, they need to go to the "business center" to look for a job, or get money to start their business, etc. That’s when people start to die. Those places become targets, because of the effective divide between sunni and shi'a each location will receive one of the two pretty much exclusively. And unless the role for the military is for us to cordon off the places 24 hours a day, putting ourselves at great risk though repetition... Then again if they keep up with the new COB, and PB system they are implementing in the areas we are clearing for the new units coming it may turn out to be a bit more effective.
I don’t know what it will take to win this in the end, I do know we have to find out or never leave, nothing could be more disastrous for the well being of the Mideast, America, or the rest of the world for that matter than our withdrawal.
Generally, however, wouldn't you agree that areas where people congregate have become targets? Think markets and pilgrimage places; would you have everyone hide in their homes? I'm not saying your concerns are unfounded because I feel concerns about nation building are inherent when people start talking about diverting finite resources. Are you pleased or displeased with the troop increase that's coming (ie skill level of those coming in, think it's numerically enough)? It's interesting how close in proximity its announcement was to announcement of the larger scale works program, which leads me to wonder if they're trying to address the concern you listed about exposure.
Nice sum up in your last paragraph. At this point, I agree with you, which is why I feel exploring each serious option is necessary before withdrawl. As has been alluded to several times and acknowledged by you, these programs can't work without a military presence to keep order, which is unfortunate but realistic. From what you're saying, the Iraqi military isn't ready to oversee yet. Do you then feel that the US is trying to move too fast (ie the foundation isn't there), works programs are just pointless in general, or they will never be ready for those measures without constant US help when the US should be taking a more supporting role?
Finally, you tell Daniel it's changed since he was there. How can you proclaim cynicism for one realistic option (large scale) when what we've been doing has resulted in escalation? I'm not trying to piss you off with all the questions, just curious about the other view; you happen to make a good source here as you're both a conservative poster and active duty.
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 12:55 PM
.
I'm not emo, I'm not crying in my coffee because someone said I should be kicked in my teeth. I got enough problems, IRL, I don't need a BBS to remind me of the flaws I have that I haven't already considered.
Since you're obviously a dumb fuck.. here is a reminder that you in fact both an EMO twat and a hypocrite. Get off the stupid train on the next stop if at all possible and from the lack of noticeable intelligence in your posts stay off the aforementioned beer and weed.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=371425&postcount=1
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=343018&postcount=1
Have a nice day :dance:
Alcoholic
03-13-2007, 01:21 PM
Since you're obviously a dumb fuck.. here is a reminder that you in fact both an EMO twat and a hypocrite. Get off the stupid train on the next stop if at all possible and from the lack of noticeable intelligence in your posts stay off the aforementioned beer and weed.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=371425&postcount=1
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=343018&postcount=1
Have a nice day :dance:
Nice. That was 2 years ago. As far as this goes, I shared my thoughts, and stopped posting on the topic.
You can be honest and sensitive without being Emo... unless you define Emo as being honest and sensitive.
I'll bow out. Graciously, or with you "big mean tough guys hiding behind the mask of the internet" throwing intellectual and BBS rocks at me. It doesn't fucking matter, I promise you.
It's like this is the boulder. I can boulder duel. I don't. If you wonder why more people don't take your forums more seriously, or more actively, glance in the mirror for your answer.
Truly. Are you running for President or something? Who gives a fat flying frog's fuck if someone has a strange opinion, or one that you don't agree with? What's it going to affect? Not a fucking thing, except for your inferiority complexes.
I had a reply for the Nazi thing earlier, decided to pass on that - and this I'd be happy to pass up as well.
In the big scheme of things... who the fuck ARE you? You can be lord, king and owner of this particular corner of the universe, and it won't change a damn thing... you'll still be a mote of dust in the end, with no recordable achievements for your epitaph.
Thanks for the blast from the past. I wrote a lot of stuff back then. Sweet of you to remember, though I suspect you did a 'search' looking for dirt.
I've changed a tiny bit in two years, and things in my life have affected that. If you want to disqualify my political opinion based upon that - have at.
It doesn't matter. You crossed this line in the sand, for no reason. I didn't call you out, call you names, etc. All I did was share an opinion and try to enjoy a thought provoking thread on the internet.
Incidentally, I don't smoke weed, and I don't post drunk. It's just an internet identity. It's nothing to me. NOTHING. Like you.
I'll have a great day. You?
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 01:24 PM
My day just got better thanks for asking.
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 01:37 PM
I've changed a tiny bit in two years, and things in my life have affected that. If you want to disqualify my political opinion based upon that - have at.
I hope the tiny bit changed is that you're paying your bills and realize that your success in elanthia has nothing to do with your RL. That almost obtained the dumbass quote of all time on the Player's Corner but Backlash barely squeaked by on the final stretch.
Latrinsorm
03-13-2007, 02:35 PM
Who gives a fat flying frog's fuck if someone has a strange opinion, or one that you don't agree with?Everybody affects everybody else. The problem isn't that your opinion is unusual (it's actually much akin to the old Bush is Hitler bullshit), the problem is that it's factually incorrect.
NOTHING. Like you.It interests me that you skipped over the "don't you have anything better to do" defense straight to the "you're meaningless" tactic.
Alcoholic
03-13-2007, 03:03 PM
I hope the tiny bit changed is that you're paying your bills and realize that your success in elanthia has nothing to do with your RL. That almost obtained the dumbass quote of all time on the Player's Corner but Backlash barely squeaked by on the final stretch.
Heh heh. I was a little fucked in the head back then. Hindsight being 20/20, etc. I could still be fucked in the head now, for all I know, but my bills are getting paid, and I agree with you that Elanthian success =! Success of any measurable quantity.
Latrinsorm - Let me just say this about that. I wasn't going for the Bush=Hitler spiel. I was going for travel=Hogan's Heroes check points. Sorry you took it the way you did. It would be relatively inappropriate for me to be tasteless where European Jews are concerned, all things considered. I'll leave it at that.
As far as the other...
I realize, without prompt, that I may not be the wittiest and most educated of dust motes on the earth. Like most, I have my good days where, at least IRL, I do rather well with things, and am well received/appreciated. As noted in previous cross linked posts, I've had days where I felt a little lost. I don't come from a particularly warm or loving background, so I generally vent into writing to balance out the emotional conflicts. Once written, it is purged. Like an Etch a Sketch, well shaken.
I generally don't post on political views, because I hold a bit of a sociopathic view towards the system in general. I don't covet it, I lost respect for it around the time our president got CNN coverage for a blowjob from a slut, and as Conservative as I may be, I don't really hold onto all the things that conservatives classically hold dear. I know what I like, and I accept that it's not easily categorized or labeled.
The reason I do post, or did, in this case, is because I have not yet closed my eyes and ears to the world. I realize that there's always a chance to learn something - even if that something is that I'm not alone in my viewpoints. In this case, there was some mild agreement, there was one case of clear misinterpretation (a lesson that I should watch my words more carefully), and two cases of outright dismissal, one of which a direct flame.
That's not bad, really, for a relative stranger to an established medium.
I wasn't trying to be macho in saying that it's "nothing". It isn't. And the arguement of "Don't you have anything better to do" hardly applies, when I'm doing the same damn thing.
I'm not a Zen or Tao philosopher, but I recognize the opportunity to grow from conflict, from disagreement, even from someone who could care less about the dust mote that I am.
Regardless of any amount of thrashing, I'll walk away from this with something, and I'll be the better for it. And I won't give up my integrity in doing so. I can live with it, and I won't lose sleep over it.
Thanks for the reality check, all the same.
Have a nice day.
Since you're obviously a dumb fuck.. here is a reminder that you in fact both an EMO twat and a hypocrite. Get off the stupid train on the next stop if at all possible and from the lack of noticeable intelligence in your posts stay off the aforementioned beer and weed.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=371425&postcount=1
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=343018&postcount=1
Have a nice day :dance:
You seriously need to STFU.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=2785&highlight=alcohol
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=13686&highlight=alcohol
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 07:53 PM
You seriously need to STFU.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=2785&highlight=alcohol
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=13686&highlight=alcohol
No sir. I wasn't being the hypocrite and saying FUCK GOV'T ASSISTANCE etc when he was begging for it before. That needed pointing out. If you step into the political ring (of threads or otherwise) expect shit to float.
Nice I've lost some weight. From 242 I'm down to 230 with my sobriety since that post. I no longer have an ex wife. I have a successful business. I make more playing poker and betting NCAA than my business. Taxes are caught up. Life is good. My kids are super! I realized the problem and tackled it. I followed through and enjoyed a few months with nothing but a sleeping bag and a fishing pole. Conquered all and now I'm STILL more of a man than you'll be any time soon. (you're pathetic fyi)
IF you're gonna be an emo pussy and hypocrite be prepared to get called out. (I.E. poster named Alcoholic)
I'm not talking about you blacklash of course because you sir are a lost cause at this point until you man up as I did an tackle it by the nutz. Go out.. start dating.. get a real job because you honestly suck at what you do.. anyone h ere that say different is lying to you. Start your life man.. you're wasting time.
Generally, however, wouldn't you agree that areas where people congregate have become targets? Think markets and pilgrimage places; would you have everyone hide in their homes? I'm not saying your concerns are unfounded because I feel concerns about nation building are inherent when people start talking about diverting finite resources. I don’t have to guard them when they go to the markets, and our money and economic interests are not used there, where as something with an American face on it becomes a much larger target.
Are you pleased or displeased with the troop increase that's coming (ie skill level of those coming in, think it's numerically enough)? The people coming in are as trained as I was when I arrived in country. Going to NTC did not prepare me for anything that i ended up going though once i got in country. As always a unit takes its most causalities in the beginning of its deployments. Training only does so much, once you get there and you start the work you learn more in 1 day than you did the 1.5 years between deployments. In retrospect, I knew what my job was, but didn’t know how to do it until I did it.
Nice sum up in your last paragraph. At this point, I agree with you, which is why I feel exploring each serious option is necessary before withdrawal. As has been alluded to several times and acknowledged by you, these programs can't work without a military presence to keep order, which is unfortunate but realistic. There has to be a security presence, and with the troop increase it may be more possible than things are now. I work in a different area of Iraq right now on a day to day basis because people ask for more soldiers to do things that they don’t have the manpower to do. We may risk giving to many tasks to the people on the ground, if that happens there will be compromises made that will hurt efforts in the long run.
Do you then feel that the US is trying to move too fast (ie the foundation isn't there), works programs are just pointless in general, or they will never be ready for those measures without constant US help when the US should be taking a more supporting role?
I think there are cultural problems that give the people excuses not to do anything to better their situation. I wish everyone was like *MOST* Americans, where you give them a little shove and a little help and they go on running trying to better their position in life. I don’t really know what the US needs to do to better things, every sliver of Iraq is totally different, and with the intervention of outside forces (I.E. Iran and the other countries helping other factions) the task becomes monumentally harder.
Finally, you tell Daniel it's changed since he was there. How can you proclaim cynicism for one realistic option (large scale) when what we've been doing has resulted in escalation? I'm not trying to piss you off with all the questions, just curious about the other view; you happen to make a good source here as you're both a conservative poster and active duty.
I'm not sure what your addressing here can you be a bit more specific and ill try to answer
Sean of the Thread
03-13-2007, 08:03 PM
Dave I know you're not the brightest but try not to argue war topics with liberal idiots. You'll have more spare time for things like serving your country and the world in a most honorable way. (as you are now)
Stanley Burrell
03-13-2007, 08:13 PM
Or anorexia and bulimia for that matter eh?
A quarter the shit bags worlds we fuck up are drunk or high on opium when we kick in their doors. Contrary to what you hear in the media they dont really care, unless of course it gives them something to complain about, then they will bitch and moan as they pull out the flask, that their father the sheik gave to them and wet their tounges.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referencing eating disorders to, but if it has anything to do with what Alcoholic posted, then I would pretty much agree that the trendsetting of instant gratification in our corporate culture and big business has reached an all-time high and low, respectively. Supersized perks and alllll the politics involving them surrounding agencies like the FDA and its market cornering that ES mentioned definitely can and does contribute to many-a DSMIV statistic of a pathological behavior, unfortunately. Here on the homefront.
I actually read an article (information hot off the Freedom of Information Act presses) that according to official reports, supposedly a bit over a third of documented military crimes by us have been perpetrated on some kind of Iraqi brew called Hadjii (sp?) moonshine.
I can definitely put into perspective the inclinations of Iraqi civilians becoming addicts moreso than our soldiers. I don't know where the margin who meets drug and alcohol "needed" criteria since there's been some deeply traumatizing and all around fucked up shit witnessed by both parties.
ElanthianSiren
03-13-2007, 09:52 PM
I'm not sure what your addressing here can you be a bit more specific and ill try to answer
I was asking why you feel that the time for a works program in Iraq isn't now, based on what you see on the ground. The paragraph you're referring to was just a summation while noting at the same time that what we have tried doesn't seem to have worked based on what you said to Daniel about the situation changing (seemingly for the worse, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't reading into your post). I was curious too what you feel has changed between your tour and Daniels'. Thanks for not dismissing my questions.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats aggressively challenged President Bush's Iraq policy at both ends of the Capitol on Thursday, gaining House committee approval for a troop withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, but suffering defeat in the Senate on a less sweeping plan to end U.S. participation in the war.
Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.
"I want this war to end. I don't want to go to any more funerals," said New York Rep. Rep. Jose Serrano, one of several liberal Democrats who have pledged their support for the legislation despite preferring a faster end to the war.
"Nobody wants our troops out of Iraq more than I do, countered Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, who sought unsuccessfully to scuttle the timeline for a troop withdrawal. "But we can't afford to turn over Iraq to al-Qaida."
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070315/D8NSQMUO3.html
Parkbandit
03-15-2007, 06:05 PM
Two years ago, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "I don't think we should be setting a deadline ... that just gives a green light to the insurgents and the terrorists, that if they just wait us out they can basically have the country." Just two months ago, she reaffirmed her position: "I'm not going to support a specific deadline." Last week, Democrat Senator Evan Bayh said "I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, 'No matter what, we're out on that date.'" Democrat Senator Jim Webb agrees: "Anyone who tells you we can set a timetable for withdrawal doesn't understand war."
Warriorbird
03-15-2007, 07:52 PM
Eh. The Iraq War is a gigantic illustration of the sunk cost fallacy. Runaway liberalism to fuel corporate profit on the back end. Ah, nationalism.
In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days.
Its interesting AP said easily turned back when it was just 3 votes. I think one of those no votes was a Democrat who wants to stop funding altogether (which I disagree with).
BTW this legislation was not tacked onto the budget.
I don’t see this timetable thing as a message to our enemies. Its a message to the Iraqis. Stand up for yourselves. That along with diplomacy in the region is what the Baker-Hamilton recommendation was all about (which I agreed with).
You dont know Iraqi's then Backlash.
You dont know Iraqi's then Backlash.
Which Iraqi’s are we talking about?
The Sunni who are more likely to blow themselves up for a cause, most likely to be Al Quada, who receive support from Saudi Arabia?
Or the Shia? Persians who will play the heroic underdogs but don’t believe in suicide?
Or the Kurds who, like the Turks, while holding some religious values are hip to the global thing and can take care of themselves?
Or the Baathists? The most secular of them all?
I don’t know any Iraqi’s personally, true. I am not on the ground there either.
Which Iraqi’s are we talking about?
The Sunni who are more likely to blow themselves up for a cause, most likely to be Al Quada, who receive support from Saudi Arabia?
Or the Shia? Persians who will play the heroic underdogs but don’t believe in suicide?
Or the Kurds who, like the Turks, while holding some religious values are hip to the global thing and can take care of themselves?
Or the Baathists? The most secular of them all?
I don’t know any Iraqi’s personally, true. I am not on the ground there either.
AQIZ is not the largest sunni group operating in iraq, suicide bombers tend to be drugged out addicts.
Shi'a are not underdogs, since they are the majority in iraq.
Kurds rock
Baathists side with the sunni zelots
TheEschaton
03-16-2007, 11:41 AM
Cause you can really get to know Iraqis with a gun in your hands, Dave. ;)
-TheE-
Parkbandit
03-16-2007, 12:46 PM
Cause you can really get to know Iraqis with a gun in your hands, Dave. ;)
-TheE-
He's over there.
You are not.
TheEschaton
03-16-2007, 12:59 PM
I couldn't even say I "know" Namibians after two years there, and it was my goal to.
I doubt he could know Iraqis when his goal is primarily a security one.
-TheE-
Nieninque
03-16-2007, 01:10 PM
Over there he may be, but he is still stupid.
Stanley Burrell
03-16-2007, 02:09 PM
Wow.
I think it's pretty interesting how the label of radicalism has been applied to Sunnis and that Shi'ahs are supposedly the adoptive ragtag bunch.
Lemme just say that the big ass chunk of Sunni majorities in this country are about the most liberal, Americanized and up-to-date human beings of usually Iranian or Bangladeshi-to-Iran/Bangladeshi-to-U.S. descent (see: Sha'ah/Independence from India.)
If we're busy labeling entire sects of individuals and clinging tightly to "I am at this point on the planetary axis and you are not, therefore I R NO BETTER" then let me reiterate on what I feel is the importance of my first-hand experience with any and all Sunni Muslims I have met here in the States (without having to wield weapons to their faces) as being a much more contemporarily adaptive people than this rift that's constantly being dished out as a blanket statement by more than just this BBS usually mentions. Way too much and dangerously, imho.
In war zones of asshattery, fucktardedness and death, what good is overt possession of a weapon and a sectarian reigious bias going to have? Isn't this the same reason we "liberated" the Iraqi people in the first place?
I mean, c'mon everybody, it ain't even a melatonin thang! <––Pedantic
In war zones of asshattery, fucktardedness and death, what good is brandishing a weapon and a sectarian reLigious bias going to have? Isn't this the same reason we "liberated" the Iraqi people in the first place?
I mean, c'mon people, it ain't even a melatonin thang. <––Pedantic
bran·dish http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (javascript:play('B0454500')) (brhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es 1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flourish).
n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.
Somehow I dont think the US armed forces are the ones brandishing the weaponry.
Stanley Burrell
03-16-2007, 02:19 PM
bran·dish http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (javascript:play('B0454500')) (brhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es 1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flourish).
n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.
Somehow I dont think the US armed forces are the ones brandishing the weaponry.
Please, please, please tell me you're kidding.
I can understand interpretations of a word as being subjective, but...
Please, please, please tell me you're kidding.
I can understand interpretations of a word as being subjective, but...
My friend, we're touching on one of the most prevalent reasons for debate as to what's really happening over there. That being interpretation. I interpret it one way, you another, the media another, our politicians numerous others, and finally the soldiers and people of Iraq another way.
Interpretation, or if you want to split hairs... perception.
Stanley Burrell
03-16-2007, 04:59 PM
Gan, unless my perception of the word "brandish" is existential bordering on nihilistic, I'm not really sure how you can say that any group of individuals bearing open, visible arms could somehow not actually be brandishing them.
The Iraqi military brandishes weapons for all to see.
The United States Army brandishes weapons for all to see.
The car bombing terrorists hide weapons for none to see.
Uniformed police officers brandish their weapons.
Saddam had no WMDs to brandish.
:thinking:
Just for you, as a more-than-myself respected member of our MMORPG-based online forum internet community, I shall painstakingly set the flux capacitor back four posts and change "brandish" into "overt possession of." (A close second to "dirty liberal hipster drug-induced propaganda" :tongue: )
Stanley Burrell
03-16-2007, 05:05 PM
In a microscopic font that hates my editing feature, apparently.
Cause you can really get to know Iraqis with a gun in your hands, Dave. ;)
-TheE-
because its not like they dont have bigger guns than I do.
The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.
California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.
They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.
"This is the process: people who feel strongly about this issue hold out as long as they can," said Waters. "A lot of pressure comes to bear and they can't hold up under the pressure."
The $124 billion emergency spending bill, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), includes not only more funds this year for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also new military readiness standards, benchmarks for the Iraqi government and an Aug. 31, 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A floor vote is planned for Thursday.
Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.
That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. His spokeswoman, Danielle Langone, cited $400 million for a one-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
"That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill," Langone said.
Waters said that she and other opponents of the spending measure had entered the weekend with 20 to 25 members on their side but that they had suffered "a lot of damage" as Democratic leaders aggressively urged members to support the bill.
....more
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3223.html
_______________________________________________
Nothing like trying to BUY your support for the bill... :clap:
I wonder if a list of all the pork (riders) of the bill can be seen...
:thinking:
Nothing like trying to BUY your support for the bill... :clap:
I wonder if a list of all the pork (riders) of the bill can be seen...
:thinking:
Aren’t all bills public record? Yes other money has been tacked on, but I wouldn’t call drought relief or hurricane rebuilding “pork” projects.
Anyway, a lot can happen in a day.
House Democrats see Iraq withdrawal bill win (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2037063920070321?feedType=RSS)
Update!
House Passes Spending Bill, Iraq Withdrawal Date (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3267.html)
The House barely passed a $124 billion spending bill Friday to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, establish benchmarks for political progress by the Iraqi government and set a deadline next summer for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------
If the president vetos this, he is vetoing money to fund the war, equipment for soldiers on the ground, veterans benefits and a whole bunch of other aid to Americans who need it.
Bush already said its getting a big fat veto. So who cares, it didnt have a chance of making it though in the first place, Ill betcha they come up with another without the benchmarks!
Update!
House Passes Spending Bill, Iraq Withdrawal Date (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3267.html)
-----------------------------------------------------
If the president vetos this, he is vetoing money to fund the war, equipment for soldiers on the ground, veterans benefits and a whole bunch of other aid to Americans who need it.
Way to keep a check on the spending...
Daniel
03-23-2007, 05:56 PM
Update!
House Passes Spending Bill, Iraq Withdrawal Date (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3267.html)
-----------------------------------------------------
If the president vetos this, he is vetoing money to fund the war, equipment for soldiers on the ground, veterans benefits and a whole bunch of other aid to Americans who need it.
And hopefully the Democrats won't be so politically spiteful to deny them that funding.
And hopefully the Democrats won't be so politically spiteful to deny them that funding.
Thats an interesting way to frame the notion that they are doing/trying to do what the people elected them to do.
No, they didnt have the support until they put pork on that forced people to vote in favor of it.
Latrinsorm
03-23-2007, 06:53 PM
Thats an interesting way to frame the notion that they are doing/trying to do what the people elected them to do.Supposing for the moment that "the people" elected the "Democrats" to end the war:
Bush already said he was going to veto this. By putting the withdrawal part on this bill, the "Democrats" could reasonably expect that it would not be enacted. Therefore, any delay in the "money to fund the war, equipment for soldiers on the ground, veterans benefits and a whole bunch of other aid to Americans who need it" is entirely on the "Democrats".
In short, mixing posturing and politics does not bode well for the common man.
Daniel
03-23-2007, 06:59 PM
Thats an interesting way to frame the notion that they are doing/trying to do what the people elected them to do.
Leave soldiers with their balls hanging in the air was what they were elected to do?
Thats an interesting way to frame the notion that they are doing/trying to do what the people elected them to do.
To wit.
Anti-war protesters in their 11th day of a round-the-clock vigil in front of Rep. Nancy Pelosi's Pacific Heights home were ordered by San Francisco police Thursday night to remove protest signs, banners and canopies that adorned what they called Camp Pelosi.
But protesters vowed to stay put until today's House vote on funding the war in Iraq.
"We'll still sit here overnight and tomorrow until the vote,'' said Cynthia Papermaster, a member of Code Pink: Women for Peace, which organized the sit-in.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/23/BAGFAOQHJ71.DTL
Warriorbird
03-23-2007, 07:43 PM
"Leave soldiers with their balls hanging in the air was what they were elected to do?"
How else do they try to do what they said they would...force an end to it? For myself, I'd have just worked towards a seperate vote...but then again, I'm pretty damn far from a Congressman.
Leave soldiers with their balls hanging in the air was what they were elected to do?
Now I know you are fucking with me because I’m pretty sure that you know that is not the case.
In fact, its exactly opposite.
no, it is the case Backlash. Pass a funding bill without all the extra bullshit. Then pass your own measures to get troops out of iraq, seperate from the funding bill. I dont like politics being made with the money i need to eat, keep my equipment up, and to get the ammo i need.
Daniel
03-23-2007, 10:03 PM
And hopefully the Democrats won't be so politically spiteful to deny them that funding.
As I said.
no, it is the case Backlash. Pass a funding bill without all the extra bullshit. Then pass your own measures to get troops out of iraq, seperate from the funding bill. I dont like politics being made with the money i need to eat, keep my equipment up, and to get the ammo i need.
Did you know they added more money for troops than was requested?
yes I also know they added a ton of pork to get votes and stipulations that they were told before they even started with the bill would get it a veto.
yes I also know they added a ton of pork to get votes and stipulations that they were told before they even started with the bill would get it a veto.
Then you also know that the “pork” you are referring to is money to help the American constituents with disaster relief, school funding and better veteran care. You also probably know that the people they had to get on board were people who thought the resolution to bring the troops home was not enough soon enough.
Warriorbird
03-23-2007, 10:37 PM
Also helping farmers. Horrible!
why cant they pass the shit on their own merits? why cant every bit of funding be voted on seperatly? Then we might not have so much wasteful spending. BTW i heard on the news one of the "prok" items was a 50million dollar bridge to an island with about 15 homes in alaska or something like that (im drunk so i dont remember to well)
What a great use of tax payer dollars.
Warriorbird
03-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Most any bill, Democratic or Republican, gets through that way. I'm not the biggest fan of Congress. That's how they get things done.
Most any bill, Democratic or Republican, gets through that way. I'm not the biggest fan of Congress. That's how they get things done.
Its called the one step forward, two steps back plan.
why cant they pass the shit on their own merits? why cant every bit of funding be voted on seperatly? Then we might not have so much wasteful spending. BTW i heard on the news one of the "prok" items was a 50million dollar bridge to an island with about 15 homes in alaska or something like that (im drunk so i dont remember to well)
What a great use of tax payer dollars.
You’re talking about the bridge to nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge) sponsored by Ted Stevens - R AK.
The project has been met with fierce opposition[2] and has been labeled the "Bridge to Nowhere." It has been cited by Senator John McCain of Arizona as an example of pork-barrel spending in the 2005 Transportation Equity Act. This $223 million federal contribution to the bridge would cost approximately $15,849 per person in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (pop. 14,070) if the costs were split amongst them. Opponents have noted that the federal contribution represents $4.5 million for each of Gravina Island's 50 residents.
Not that that will stop you finding something else to bitch out.
yeah yeah thats it, Guess it wasent part of the bill, but its dumb shit like that that pisses me off
Parkbandit
03-27-2007, 01:23 PM
The Senate will also pass this bill.. so before Backlash proclaims 'victory'... know that the Republicans will pass it so that Bush can use his veto power to put an end to one of the worst piles of steaming shit to ever come out of Congress in the toilet where it belongs. Then poor, poor Nancy will have to trim the pork (aka vote bribes) out and take out the final date of US surrender in Iraq.
If they debate it in the Senate and try to fix this shitpile, it would take far longer than just sending it back to the HoR so they can fix their own mistakes.
Warriorbird
03-27-2007, 08:38 PM
Considering some of the bloated monstrosities of the Republican Congress...pot meet kettle, hey.
Its already a victory for the people, not the party. If the president refuses the people, so be it.
Daniel
03-27-2007, 08:51 PM
If by "Victory of the people" you man getting the easy wrong over the hard right, then yea. "We won".
However, I'm pretty saddened that you obviously don't give a flying fuck about the well being of the people of Iraq, which to me, makes your appeals to the "people" pretty shallow and hypocritical.
I used to think that you were an okay guy outside of the politics.
Parkbandit
03-27-2007, 09:59 PM
Its already a victory for the people, not the party. If the president refuses the people, so be it.
Victory for what people? Increased taxes, money for spinich farmers, House Tours, an Iraq surrender date?
The people this is a victory for are the handful of congress that got big fat bribes for giving their vote.
You both force me to say thats how democracy in America works.
If you don’t like it, seek visas.
Parkbandit
03-27-2007, 11:37 PM
I bet you lose when you debate yourself too, eh Backlash?
I bet you lose when you debate yourself too, eh Backlash?
I’m good, but not that good. Thanks for the compliment.
Daniel
03-28-2007, 12:20 AM
You both force me to say thats how democracy in America works.
If you don’t like it, seek visas.
Lol. that's all you have to say to me Backlash?
That's why the President has the Veto, but I doubt you'll chalk it up to the game when he uses it.
Warriorbird
03-28-2007, 01:07 AM
"If by "Victory of the people" you man getting the easy wrong over the hard right, then yea. "We won".
However, I'm pretty saddened that you obviously don't give a flying fuck about the well being of the people of Iraq, which to me, makes your appeals to the "people" pretty shallow and hypocritical.
I used to think that you were an okay guy outside of the politics."
So...how do you then deal with the expression of the sunk cost fallacy? Would you ever leave? Do you prioritize the people of Iraq over the people of some other struggling country, of Iran?, of our own?
Daniel
03-28-2007, 04:17 AM
So...how do you then deal with the expression of the sunk cost fallacy? Would you ever leave?
Yes, but I doubt next March is gonna be enough time to take care of our obligations.
Do you prioritize the people of Iraq over the people of some other struggling country, of Iran?, of our own?
Do you? The fact is, the average American hasn't been effected one bit by the war in Iraq and yet we have the obligation to see things through.
That doesn't even take into account the fact that an imploded Iraq not only represents a material threat to the region, but ultimately to the United States. If it is allowed to generate to a state of chaos, than at best it will become the biggest and largest recruiting base for anti American forces and at worse our biggest threat.
Leaving Iraq at this point is not within the best interests of American OR Iraqi citizens. So how are you prioritizing things?
Lol. that's all you have to say to me Backlash?
That's why the President has the Veto, but I doubt you'll chalk it up to the game when he uses it.
touche!
:lol:
(of course Backlash wont attribute the Veto to the game of Democracy) see below for instance. (Hypocrisy alert!)
Thats an interesting way to frame the notion that they are doing/trying to do what the people elected them to do.
Warriorbird
03-28-2007, 08:43 AM
Other than...
"Do you? The fact is, the average American hasn't been effected one bit by the war in Iraq and yet we have the obligation to see things through."
which I steadfastly disagree with, I can see where you're coming from, Daniel. I could also see the violence continuing indefinitely. I don't think we've properly considered the religious and cultural aspects of the struggle. I also think that our continued presence in Iraq can embolden our other enemies from a pure "number of troops focused in one place" problem.
CrystalTears
03-28-2007, 08:53 AM
How have you personally been affected by the war, and I don't mean emotionally or psychologically? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious.. how has it affected you?
Parkbandit
03-28-2007, 09:10 AM
"If by "Victory of the people" you man getting the easy wrong over the hard right, then yea. "We won".
However, I'm pretty saddened that you obviously don't give a flying fuck about the well being of the people of Iraq, which to me, makes your appeals to the "people" pretty shallow and hypocritical.
I used to think that you were an okay guy outside of the politics."
So...how do you then deal with the expression of the sunk cost fallacy? Would you ever leave? Do you prioritize the people of Iraq over the people of some other struggling country, of Iran?, of our own?
Holy shit.. WB is beginning to see the light.
Welcome home man.
PS - You may have been the last person to realize what a hypocrite Backlash is... but hey, better late than never.
Parkbandit
03-28-2007, 09:15 AM
Now, Bush needs to do what he said and VETO this abortion of a bill.. then maybe the great new Congressional leadership can do what they said they would do... stop funding the war. You want the war to end.. do what you were elected to do. Grow a spine and stand up for your beliefs. Stop funding the war. Period. You do not have the power to end the war... that isn't a power granted to Congress. You have the ability to declare war and fund a war. No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can set a date for surrender.
Lol. that's all you have to say to me Backlash?
That's why the President has the Veto, but I doubt you'll chalk it up to the game when he uses it.
We disagree, Dan. Thats all there is to it.
We disagree, Dan. Thats all there is to it.
Translation: I know I'm being hypocritical, so what!!!
Warriorbird
03-28-2007, 11:03 AM
"How have you personally been affected by the war, and I don't mean emotionally or psychologically? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious.. how has it affected you?"
Monetarily...like the rest of the country... and practically, in having to deal with my cousins' kids upon occassion. I don't think you can ignore emotional and psychological effects completely though.
CrystalTears
03-28-2007, 11:19 AM
Monetarily? How's that? You're making less because of the war? Can't find a job?
Tsa`ah
03-28-2007, 11:35 AM
I very much disagree with this war. I don't believe we invaded for the right reasons and I don't think it was worth the lives lost.
That being said ... We're there and it's a mess. Pulling out within a year is going to be a disaster on so many fronts.
Iraq can't stand on it's own two feet right now let alone defend it's borders within a year. They're on the verge of a civil war, if they're not already in one, and Iran is knocking at their door.
Pull the contracts and let the Army Core of Engineers handle the rebuilding (even if it means that the ACoE handles the contracts). Until there is something to rebuild that won't be blown up a day later, fund the troops and send the manpower needed. Stop the Iraqi sanctioned death squads and attempt diplomatic relations with Iran. This will take more than a year.
Either that ... or pull out now and shore up our own defenses because if we pull out in a year ... well, Iraq falls apart and gets divied up between warlords, extremist, terrorists, and every bordering nation. Those that aren't killing each other will be working together and 9/11 won't just be a bad memory ... it'll be a revisited memory.
Parkbandit
03-28-2007, 11:45 AM
Translation: I know I'm being hypocritical, so what!!!
To which his comeback will be "I'm rubber and you are glue... it bounces off me and STICKS TO YOU!"
I've had better debates with my 5 year old nephew on the merits of the Blue Power Ranger vs the Green Power Ranger.
Parkbandit
03-28-2007, 11:47 AM
I very much disagree with this war. I don't believe we invaded for the right reasons and I don't think it was worth the lives lost.
That being said ... We're there and it's a mess. Pulling out within a year is going to be a disaster on so many fronts.
Iraq can't stand on it's own two feet right now let alone defend it's borders within a year. They're on the verge of a civil war, if they're not already in one, and Iran is knocking at their door.
Pull the contracts and let the Army Core of Engineers handle the rebuilding (even if it means that the ACoE handles the contracts). Until there is something to rebuild that won't be blown up a day later, fund the troops and send the manpower needed. Stop the Iraqi sanctioned death squads and attempt diplomatic relations with Iran. This will take more than a year.
Either that ... or pull out now and shore up our own defenses because if we pull out in a year ... well, Iraq falls apart and gets divied up between warlords, extremist, terrorists, and every bordering nation. Those that aren't killing each other will be working together and 9/11 won't just be a bad memory ... it'll be a revisited memory.
I believe we invaded for the right reasons as we knew them at the time... and as such was worth the loss of life. Other than that though.. I agree with it all.
>>Entire post<<
Finally, a voice of reason.
Stanley Burrell
03-28-2007, 12:28 PM
I believe we invaded for the right reasons as we knew them at the time... and as such was worth the loss of life. Other than that though.. I agree with it all.
NO other presidential nominee concocted in the cockles of Lucifer's political thinktank would have initiated this action.
Warriorbird
03-28-2007, 03:58 PM
"Monetarily? How's that? You're making less because of the war? Can't find a job?"
Not sarcastic? Right. Willfull obtuseness doesn't thrill me. Taxes, gas, deficit (further selling America to foreigners), the list goes on...
CrystalTears
03-28-2007, 04:10 PM
No I wasn't being sarcastic. I don't know how it's affected you. Don't read into it so much, considering I never insulted you.
Perhaps because I've had a good year, let alone the past four, I don't notice a difference that would warrant me to curse anyone for this war. I wanted to know how the war was affecting the average American, since you disagreed with Daniel.
Parkbandit
03-28-2007, 04:45 PM
"Monetarily? How's that? You're making less because of the war? Can't find a job?"
Not sarcastic? Right. Willfull obtuseness doesn't thrill me. Taxes, gas, deficit (further selling America to foreigners), the list goes on...
Taxes went down.
Gas would have been just as high
Deficit doesn't affect your money
Nice tries though.
Warriorbird
03-28-2007, 11:37 PM
Taxes went down. (for some folks)
Gas would have been just as high (No.)
Deficit doesn't affect your money (Yes...it actually does.)
:shrugs: You can continue to ignore the unconservative conservatives all you want. I'd appreciate some real ones. My own principles and my family's well being also matter to me. I feel there are other causes the tremendous amount of money spent on the war could have been used on as well.
Parkbandit
03-29-2007, 12:14 AM
Taxes went down. (for some folks)
Gas would have been just as high (No.)
Deficit doesn't affect your money (Yes...it actually does.)
:shrugs: You can continue to ignore the unconservative conservatives all you want. I'd appreciate some real ones. My own principles and my family's well being also matter to me. I feel there are other causes the tremendous amount of money spent on the war could have been used on as well.
I'm going to have to call bullshit.. complete and utter bullshit.. on your premise that this war has somehow hurt you financially.
Please show me how your taxes went up from 2002 to 2007.
Please show me how you believe that the war in Iraq is solely responsible for increased gas prices.
Please enlighten the entire world on how the deficit has made you have less money.
It's all sweet and fuzzy to say that the war has financially hurt you.. but lets look at the facts. GDP up. Taxes down. Interest rates down.
If you aren't more successful today than you were in 2002, you are fucking something up bigtime and need to blame yourself instead of the war in Iraq.
Maybe, just maybe Global Warming is to blame.. as that has about as much to do with your personal financial situation as the War in Iraq currently does.
Warriorbird
03-29-2007, 01:05 AM
I'm glad things are better for you. I'm glad the tremendous expenditure on the war has benefited you. I'm glad you can benefit off of Global Warming financially. I have myself. Your experiences don't represent the entire population, however. I'm not putting more up here for you to nitpick. CrystalTears says she wants to know why I feel differently. I explained. Imagine how much better you could be doing if the war expenditures had been directed into other areas.
Artha
03-29-2007, 10:22 AM
Speaking of higher taxes...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/tax_and_spend.html
Parkbandit
03-29-2007, 11:18 AM
I'm glad things are better for you. I'm glad the tremendous expenditure on the war has benefited you. I'm glad you can benefit off of Global Warming financially. I have myself. Your experiences don't represent the entire population, however. I'm not putting more up here for you to nitpick. CrystalTears says she wants to know why I feel differently. I explained. Imagine how much better you could be doing if the war expenditures had been directed into other areas.
You posted bullshit.
You were called out for it.
I posted facts.
You cried and took your toys home with you.
I think we got the full story here. Nice having you back.
If you want to explain how this war has hurt you financially by using some facts instead of posting about your feelings.. let's have it. Every indicator out there says otherwise.. but who knows.
Unless you work for an import/export company that deals with Iraq... I really doubt you are as bad off as you claim to be "DUE TO THE WAR".
I believe the initial question was how has the war affected him personally, which is actually extremely broad in its own right, and somewhat ineffective at making any point for or against anything in relation to the war.
The fact of the matter is the war should affect every American citizen in some way, shape, or form personally or otherwise. Be it for the better or worse financially(Haliburton, ftw), emotionally(loved ones overseas), or in whatever way(something as simple as sticking a sticker on the back of ones car in a show of support) it affects us from the most subtle of standpints and other times so profound so as to be life changing.
The question begs to be narrowed down to a degree.
CrystalTears
03-29-2007, 12:26 PM
Okay, I wanted to know why he, or anyone else for that matter, disagreed with Daniel that the average American hasn't been affected by the war.
And I stated not emotionally or psychologically because I don't believe it was meant in the sense towards having loved ones serving because that seemed a bit obvious.
If no one you knew of was part of it, has the war affected any of us in a monitary or physical way?
Latrinsorm
03-29-2007, 12:38 PM
Speaking of higher taxes...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/tax_and_spend.html5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls.
Politicians are real d-bags, huh Backlash?
5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls.
Politicians are real d-bags, huh Backlash?
Welcome to the irrational cheap shot club, Latrin.
Parkbandit
03-29-2007, 01:11 PM
The question begs to be narrowed down to a degree.
Narrowed down to what? How has the war affected you in a negative financial way seems pretty cut and dry. It should keep the emotional part of war out of it and strictly talk about how you are financially worse off because of this war.
It's yet to be answered by those who claim it has affected them.
Latrinsorm
03-29-2007, 01:46 PM
Welcome to the irrational cheap shot club, Latrin.No man, I just meant like... the Democrats are supposed to be helping out the little guy, and now they're grabbing taxes from 5 million more poor people. You know me, man, all :heart:.
No man, I just meant like... the Democrats are supposed to be helping out the little guy, and now they're grabbing taxes from 5 million more poor people. You know me, man, all :heart:.
Novak exaggerates like you are now. Here are a couple of other sources of information on what Novak is writing about.
Decision on tax cuts key to House budget plans (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/congress.budget.ap/)
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)
Narrowed down to what? How has the war affected you in a negative financial way seems pretty cut and dry. It should keep the emotional part of war out of it and strictly talk about how you are financially worse off because of this war.
It's yet to be answered by those who claim it has affected them.Except that wasn't stated initially, but has since been cleared up a couple posts back when CT reiterated that she meant financially and to a lesser degree physically. I certainly didn't gather that from the question right away and I still considered it to be pretty broad.
Maybe it's just me, but there are many other ways that the average American could be affected by the war and I'm not just speaking on negative terms here. Eliminating the psychological/emotional aspects, which was the basis of my reply we are left with a sampling of other issues (social, political, economic, and with regard to our national security).
And just in case you missed it... "
How have you personally been affected by the war, and I don't mean emotionally or psychologically? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious.. how has it affected you?" does not automatically equate to "How has the war affected you in a negative financial way", hence my response post.
Basically, we've all been affected. There was no real point to the question until it was made clear that she wanted to know how it affected his finances negatively and to a lesser degree physically. Narrorwed down to that.
Jesuit
03-29-2007, 02:50 PM
Novak exaggerates like you are now. Here are a couple of other sources of information on what Novak is writing about.
Decision on tax cuts key to House budget plans (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/congress.budget.ap/)
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm)
Backlash did you find those links on moveon.org or the pakistani times?
Here's some info about ctj.org in case anyone is interested.
The nonprofit group Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) recently blasted U.S. corporations for increasing their “tax avoidance” behavior during the presidency of George W. Bush. The CTJ report “Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years”[1] examines the annual financial reports of a group of large U.S. corporations and purports to show how little these companies paid in taxes from 2001 to 2003. But the report fails to disclose that corporations’ tax return data are not publicly available, a fact that makes CTJ’s analysis imprecise at best. Because of this shortcoming and other errors, CTJ’s conclusion that “loophole seeking-corporations” aren’t paying their fair share of taxes falls flat.
Corporations’ annual reports can only be used to derive crude estimates of corporate taxable income and taxes paid. The CTJ paper appears to have accounted for some differences between financial reporting rules and tax filing rules, but the paper’s discussion of methodology does not provide an adequate explanation of these adjustments. Regardless, it is impossible to account for all of these differences without access to private information.
CTJ also omits other vital details that seriously weaken its conclusions. For example, the paper fails to name any recent tax legislation despite its accusation that Congress and the administration are tweaking tax policy for corporate gain. The following list summarizes the report’s major omissions and errors.
Companies use financial accounting rules to derive the figures in their annual reports. But tax law and financial accounting rules differ significantly, creating legitimate differences between values reported on financial statements and those reported on tax returns. These discrepancies, known as “book-tax differences,” cannot be accurately reconciled using only information that is publicly available. The CTJ study ignores this shortcoming in its analysis and, even worse, mischaracterizes book-tax differences as tax avoidance schemes.
CTJ estimates corporations’ average tax rates using figures that almost certainly differ from their true values because tax return data are not publicly disclosed. The CTJ paper does not mention this serious, even crippling, limitation of its analysis. Worse, CTJ misrepresents its estimates of corporations’ tax payments as actual tax payments, though these estimates may be grossly inaccurate.
Certain tax laws reduce a corporation’s tax payments in a given year at the expense of limiting future deductions. CTJ ignores this difference between the timing and magnitude of tax benefits. Consequently, CTJ misrepresents the use of accelerated depreciation and net operating losses (NOLs), both of which can reduce a corporation’s tax burden in a given year, as illegitimate tax subsidies. But the lower payments that CTJ condemns are only half the story: a corporation that uses accelerated depreciation or NOLs this year trades away the use of these deductions in future years.
When discussing corporate tax rates, CTJ uses the wrong measure. The CTJ study estimates the average effective tax rates for its sample of companies, but it does not discuss the companies’ marginal tax rates. While average tax rates are calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income, marginal tax rates apply to additional increments of income—the next dollar earned. Except by fluke or error, no individual makes decisions based on average tax rates; rather it is marginal rates that govern whether to work another hour or produce one more widget. CTJ’s own estimates suggest that companies’ marginal tax rates are twice as high as their average rates. By this more appropriate measure, corporations’ tax rates are much higher than CTJ implies in its analysis.
In characterizing the corporate tax benefit from granting stock options to employees as a “tax loophole,” CTJ misrepresents the deductibility of salaries and wages as a tax avoidance scheme. But corporations don’t pay taxes on wages and stock options because their employees, the recipients of these benefits, pay taxes on them at the individual level. And while there has been controversy over stock option “expensing,” it concerns the accounting treatment of these options, which has almost nothing to do with how the options are taxed.
CTJ bemoans the decline in the relative share of “corporate” taxes collected by the U.S. Treasury without looking at changes in the economy that may account for it. An increasing number of individuals are running their own businesses as non-corporate entities, such as S-corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs). These individuals do pay taxes on their business income but not through the corporate tax system. This trend away from the traditional C-corporation has surely contributed to the decline in the relative share of corporate tax revenues, but CTJ simply ignores it.
CTJ also overlooks the use of reasonable tax planning strategies that may reduce tax revenues. Unlike most countries, the United States taxes corporate income wherever it is earned, placing U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage abroad. It is understandable that corporate boards use all legal methods to minimize this disadvantage, including reincorporating in a foreign nation. Indeed, failing to use all legal methods of tax planning would make corporate managers derelict in their responsibility to shareholders. But to CTJ, even playing by the rules is still unjust tax avoidance.
The CTJ paper does not provide the proper statistical context for its estimates of average tax rates. While the study reports that corporations in its sample paid an average tax rate, over three-years, of 18.4 percent, it neglects to point out that average tax rates ranged from 6.7 percent to 30.14 percent for these companies. This much variation in CTJ’s average tax rates, combined with CTJ’s imprecise methodology for computing the tax rates, renders any use of the 18.4 percent average rather limited.
Most disturbingly of all, CTJ professes in its report to show the “actual” tax payments of 275 large U.S. corporations, but it never admits that this information is not publicly disclosed and that the report’s “actual” payments are merely estimates, and shaky ones at that. Indeed, several companies have publicly taken issue with CTJ’s estimates and methodology, and at least one earlier CTJ estimate has been proven grossly inaccurate:
According to SBC spokeswoman Anne Vincent, “It’s just not true that we [SBC] got a half-billion dollar check back from the federal government.”[2]
Pepsi’s Kelly McAndrew said, “It is impossible for us to determine how they calculated the tax rate, which is also incorrect.”[3]
In an earlier report, CTJ claimed that Enron received a net refund of $278 million on its federal income taxes in 2000[4]. But Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation reported in 2003 that Enron paid $63.2 million in federal income taxes in 2000, consisting of $21.3 million under the federal income tax and $41.9 million under the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT).[5]
Finally, CTJ charges that Congress and the Bush administration changed the tax laws to benefit “loophole seeking-corporations.” But because the CTJ paper does not list any recent legislation and contains only one page on methodology, which is described with few details, it is difficult to evaluate this specific claim.
The errors and omissions in the Citizens for Tax Justice’s study of corporate taxation are myriad. CTJ misrepresents its own error-prone estimates of corporate tax payments as corporations’ “actual” payments. It mistakes the differences between tax accounting rules and financial accounting rules as evidence of tax avoidance. It ignores the very significant difference between tax strategies that affect the timing of tax benefits and those that affect how much tax is paid. It trades on the recent “stock option expensing” controversy as justification for branding single-taxation (as opposed to double-taxation) of employee compensation as a “tax loophole.” CTJ ignores economic trends that would explain some of the drop in the relative share of corporate tax collections. It implies that playing by the rules in tax planning is somehow unjust. And finally, CTJ uses the wrong measure, the average tax rate, to assess corporations’ tax rates even though the marginal tax rate, which is usually much higher, is the more appropriate measure. For these reasons and more (watch for a forthcoming Center for Data Analysis Report from the Heritage Foundation), CTJ’s “Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years” presents an exceedingly misleading picture of corporate taxation in America.
Norbert Michel, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm586.cfm
CrystalTears
03-29-2007, 03:00 PM
It was initially stated that the war hasn't really affected the average American very much. Warriorbird disagreed. I basically asked why. The first part was vague, his reply was vague, so naturally mine ended up sounding vague.
I really didn't care if it was positive or negative. When you "strongly disagree" to something regarding the war, especially from someone against the war, I'm betting there's a pretty good chance that it wasn't a positive response.
So for me, saying "omg the war sucks and is useless" is just an opinion and doesn't prove anything. It doesn't "affect" someone at all with their life unless they let their feelings control their life. If you want to say that the war has made your life a living hell, well damnit I want to know why. It's obvious that anyone you know serving is going to be difficult to deal with. Putting that aside, what has the war "done" to you?
I'm sorry that I suck at explaining myself sometimes.
Stanley Burrell
03-29-2007, 04:34 PM
^
:yawn:
Anyway, to defend/instigate whoever (regarding the above), lemme break it down in an analogy, from the perspective of the majority, by saying that I wouldn't mention the names of those whom I was close to, killed in Fallujah, even if the Players' Corner Forum singlehandedly impeached the president in three minutes from now. I would, however, discuss a 16% NIH insurance tax because of Dubya's drunken sailor spending, as it would be less personal.
More importantly, presuming an individual has to be a quadrapalegic war veteran, has suffered the loss of famly or friends in direct correlation to our invasion, or can't call their own set of morals into question is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is absolutely the most important to ignore. Everyone.
You don't become a human being with a viable response to this circular argument only after you endure hardship X, Y and Z. With all due respect, motherfuck that staunch basuda.
This man, King George II, GWB, Bush Jr., the devil, the savior, the idiot, the genius, the tyrant, the pacifist, the republican, the democrat in sheep's clothes, the politician, the investor, the spender, the taxman, the tax reformist, the crusader, the compassionate Christian conservative...
And the president of The United States of America,
...Will undoubtedly go down in the annuls of history as having the most disastrous political campaign that the executive branch has had to offer, and the world has unfortunately ever known. Carter's reverse lack of action ain't got a dingbleberry of shit on this.
My growing food for thought will absolutely be the intriguing rationale of expanding rhetoric (as I responded to above) recycled by what will continue to be a dwindling minority of only the most alleged and self-assertively supportive Patriots.
Jesuit
03-29-2007, 05:47 PM
Stanley can I give you some friendly advice? If you're going to continue to try and act like an intellectual please learn to spell dingleberry correctly. Thank you.
This sort of relates to the topic at hand.
Bush war on terror draws fire as misguided venture (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2920646520070329?feedType=RSS)
Five-and-a-half years after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush's war on terrorism has emerged as a wasteful, misguided exercise that poses its own threat to U.S. national security, experts say.
A growing number of analysts and former U.S. officials say the global war on terrorism has undermined U.S. influence abroad, forced onerous costs in American lives and money in Iraq, and unleashed a huge government spending spree that has often funded projects unrelated to national security.
It has also produced a climate of fear in the United States that helped justify the war in Iraq and the curtailment of civil liberties at home, they said.
"The atmosphere of anxiety and uncertainty, and the vagueness of the definition of the enemy, makes the country more fearful and more susceptible to being steered in irrational directions," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.
----------------------------------------------------
We certainly are living in some fearful and irrational times.
Latrinsorm
03-29-2007, 06:06 PM
The world's a shitty place sometimes. Would you rather have the government that does something about it or the government that closes in on itself and does nothing?
Parkbandit
03-29-2007, 09:21 PM
We certainly are living in some fearful and irrational times.
Couldn't agree more... when Congress believe they have the Constitution power to force a surrender and/or responsibility of leading the war.
Scary times indeed.
Parkbandit
03-29-2007, 09:21 PM
The world's a shitty place sometimes. Would you rather have the government that does something about it or the government that closes in on itself and does nothing?
Um.. this is Backlash you know... big fan of Chavez. Redistribution of all wealth. Communist.
The world's a shitty place sometimes. Would you rather have the government that does something about it or the government that closes in on itself and does nothing?
Only two options in this whole world? The planet Earth, we all live on, right?
You do not present all the options. And you know it.
I’d rather leadership that did not exacerbate our problems.
Couldn't agree more... when Congress believe they have the Constitution power to force a surrender and/or responsibility of leading the war.
Scary times indeed.
If we lose, its not people who were against it in the first place, its the people who lead it.
Um.. this is Backlash you know... big fan of Chavez. Redistribution of all wealth. Communist.
You can’t quote this, so you resort to making up shit.
I admit, you are quite good at talking shit.
Except the Communist thing granted. I help my family.
Stanley Burrell
03-29-2007, 10:32 PM
Stanley can I give you some friendly advice? If you're going to continue to try and act like an intellectual please learn to spell dingleberry correctly. Thank you.
Yeah, I was reading the word dirigible when I wrote that.
Not simultaneously (which'd be pretty badass) but close enough within a given timeframe that the two sort of melted together in what appears to have given rise to a tainted butthair Led Zeppelin album cover hybrid.
If mispelling "dingleberry" is the saddest part of my intellective intellectualism, then I need to reconsider my intellectual standards intellectually.
Thanks for the heads up.
Stanley Burrell
03-29-2007, 10:34 PM
The world's a shitty place sometimes. Would you rather have the government that does something about it or the government that closes in on itself and does nothing?
Assuming that part of the world is governed by said government, then I don't really see why it would be as big of a problem as overstepping bounds have been. Er?
Latrinsorm
03-29-2007, 11:31 PM
Only two options in this whole world?Yes. Not nothing = something.
Warriorbird
03-30-2007, 12:00 AM
"If you want to explain how this war has hurt you financially by using some facts instead of posting about your feelings.. let's have it. Every indicator out there says otherwise.. but who knows."
-Parkbandit
You wonder why I get bored? There's your entire politics posting career in one clip. Asking other people to do things. I could state my personal tax totals and income and those of the family business ...I could cite the amount of cash that we've spent on the war...which presumably effects where my personal taxes have gone...I could ponder what the total would have done if put towards assisting our economy...but it wouldn't matter. You'd still have your convictions and you'd still be asking people for things.
Just for you though, Parkbandit...let's reverse it. How has the war helped America? Cite sources now!
I feel like I answered what CT wanted. I'm willing to do that as it is a step towards civil discourse...despite me feeling there's a lot of sarcasm in those two posts of hers.
I think it's far more interesting that she feels like principles and feelings and emotion shouldn't count. It's an interesting moral statement. She's working as a Republican but she's espousing the ultimate in moral relativism. That's what conservatives love to paint liberals with.
It's okay if we fuck up Iraq. It's okay if our country spends billions of our tax dollars on a war over there and not on us. It's okay if we never get Bin Laden. It's okay if a bunch of soldiers get wiped out by improvised explosive devices. The injured are okay. The dead are okay...especially their dead because they're not our dead. It's okay if we manage to trigger more terror...it's okay if we miss helping out in other places that need us...
...as long as it doesn't effect our bottom line. Not in my backyard...and it's just fine.
Parkbandit
03-30-2007, 07:38 AM
God.. you've lost what little brain you had at one time.
Who the fuck said that this war has helped them? You can't just reverse the question and hope it still logically works.
Like I stated.. you are full of shit. You got caught without a real factual answer and cried. You were better off running home with your toys, because your post is retarded.
Warriorbird
03-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Rinse and repeat. Same post over again...forever.
"Who said that this war has helped them? You can't just reverse the question and hope it still logically works."
It's a simple reversal. Maybe you just can't answer it.
Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) conceded on Sunday during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Democratic leaders included the funds for additional, non-emergency projects in the bill because they did not have enough votes to move the package on its own.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0407/House_Republicans_Have_Votes_To_Sustain_Bush_Veto. html
“We are greatly concerned about the extraneous and excessive non-security related funds contained within the Global War on Terror supplemental spending bill currently under consideration in the Congress,” the brief letter states. “If you choose to veto this measure over this spending, we will vote to sustain your veto.”
:clap:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and Congress are wrestling for the upper hand in the Iraq war debate, with neither side willing to back down and a top Democrat saying for the first time he wants to yank money for combat. Bush was expected to speak Tuesday to reporters at the White House on Iraq war funding.
The president's remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who previously has stopped short of saying he would support measures to cut off funds, announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat.
...
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the bill to cut off funds for the war would likely be introduced as standalone legislation and would not be tied to the supplemental spending bill.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070403/D8O91I8O0.html
__________________________________________________ __
So basically, since he cant buy the 2/3 majority needed to overcome the President's Veto (which is aimed at all the PORK in the current bill), he'll seek to introduce a bill to cut funding off alltogether. I wonder how much PORK he'll stuff into this one in order to get it to pass?
Whats the old saying? If you cant beat em, buy em!?!
Parkbandit
04-03-2007, 10:18 AM
I love the new Congress and how they have been able to really clean up the Culture of Corruption. I see a huge difference. Really.
Stanley Burrell
04-03-2007, 11:35 AM
Heading out so in a nutshell:
New bill is going to propose more motherfucking funds for troops with a withdrawal proposal.
Hillary Clinton flipflopped on this. Fuck her politics.
Cheney and Bush threatening to veto it, which will occur, as will its overriding and more exposed politics, speaks to their (Cheney and Bush's) essentials of holding their pride over the lives of our soldiers.
Fuck them, especially Cheney. I hope his next stroke is more central-body-oriented.
Bye.
Parkbandit
04-03-2007, 12:05 PM
Go steal your Daddy's credit card again... overdose on more illegal drugs again.. and I hope the reaction is more fatal... in a central-body-oriented way.
Latrinsorm
04-03-2007, 02:20 PM
Cheney and Bush threatening to veto it, which will occur, as will its overriding and more exposed politics, speaks to their (Cheney and Bush's) essentials of holding their pride over the lives of our soldiers.
Fuck them, especially Cheney. I hope his next stroke is more central-body-oriented.I really don't get this. The Dems knew Bush was going to veto it. Why don't they get any of the blame for dicking around with money for troops?
Besides which, we all know that leaving Iraq prematurely will make things worse for everyone. I guess Nancy Pelosi hates brown people, right?
I really don't get this. The Dems knew Bush was going to veto it. Why don't they get any of the blame for dicking around with money for troops?
Besides which, we all know that leaving Iraq prematurely will make things worse for everyone. I guess Nancy Pelosi hates brown people, right?
The new Congress is giving the money (more than asked for) for the troops (plus plenty of contractors) and has included plan to leave Iraq all in a timely fashion by the will of the people. If the President vetos, and the republicans support it, who is dicking around with money for the troops? Who is going against the will of the people? Who is playing politics? Who is concerned for our troops?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.