crwtom 0 #51 January 11, 2007 QuoteThis time instead of his usual grinning arragance he had all the expression and passion of a twelve year old reading a book report in class. looked like a whipped puppy. That actually made it a watchable speech for me - the smirk at the end of each sentence, no matter if it he talks about war escalation or mass murder, has been so unbearable I could never watch a speech of his for more than a few seconds. (... may be they just put some botox in his cheeks for this speech) Some people said he looked scared - which I think is a good sign. This could mean that some minimal sense of reality has settled in in the white house. All the cockyness and "confidence" you saw before was obviously the product from a complete detachment from the gravity and reality of the situtation. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usedtajump 1 #52 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDon't just stand there, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS TK This is the answer... but they seem too lazy to decide on any policy. That's because the Congress has no authority in determining US policy. Write your Congressman 'till you have carpal tunnel, they do not have authority to determine when/how/why troops are deployed. Of course, Congress could cut off funding. But I can guarantee that as a soldier now, and as soon as I was out of the Army, I would ensure that people were constantly reminded and never forget those who turned their backs on the troops while deployed in a combat zone. It amounts to cowardice in the wosrt possible way. If Congress had another constitutionally-provided device for providing the check and balance, you might be right. But it doesn’t. It has only the power of the purse. The real cowardice is Bush sending more troops in harm’s way, not to salvage the mission, because it’s un-salvageable, but to try to salvage his own ass by maintaining the awful status quo so it can be dumped into the lap of the NEXT President, thereby sparing Bush – in his own mind – of the label as the president who “lost Iraq”. So he effectively sets Congress up to do the only concrete thing they can do (aside from impeaching him), which is to control funding, knowing fully well that there will be a cadre’ of people who will reflexively accuse not him, but Congress of “turning their backs” on the troops. I don’t buy it, and I regret that there are those who do. It is the current President of the United States who’s being the coward, not the Congress. If the above bullshit we consider "democracy" here in the US is any indication of the kind of "democracy" that he's trying to instill elsewhere, is there any doubt why they're resisting in such a bloodthirsty manner?The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #53 January 11, 2007 >If the above bullshit we consider "democracy" here in the US >is any indication of the kind of "democracy" that he's trying to instill >elsewhere, is there any doubt why they're resisting in such a >bloodthirsty manner? A recent political commentator noted that Bush seems to be disregarding the will of the people of the US to force Iraq to adopt a form of government that . . . listens to the will of the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #54 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuote Of course, Congress could cut off funding. But I can guarantee that as a soldier now, and as soon as I was out of the Army, I would ensure that people were constantly reminded and never forget those who turned their backs on the troops while deployed in a combat zone. It amounts to cowardice in the wosrt possible way. If the result of cutting off funding is bringing the troops home (which is, I expect, the desired result), would you still see it as "turning their backs" on the troops? Yes. People are not grasping that our mission there is to secure Iraq. People are also not grasping that not supporting the mission is merely conditional support of the troops. By cutting off the tools that we need to do it, no matter how it's sugar-coated, you're saying, "Your mission was to secure Iraq, and while it's not secure, you're job is done and we're glad you're home." Not letting us do our job will wreak havoc on the morale of the troops. It will breed the concept of defeat and that is not something we need to rest on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #55 January 11, 2007 SO vbascially we need to lose about 50.000 plus of our young people to do what Max??? Unless we are willing to kill every last Iraqui... and then every last muslim.. this is not a war that will result in anything more than it is now..They need to do this themselves.. and if we dont like the outcome then we can just blow them all to hell all over again...... SO I guess we just need to keep throwing away the young people we cherish for what??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #56 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course, Congress could cut off funding. But I can guarantee that as a soldier now, and as soon as I was out of the Army, I would ensure that people were constantly reminded and never forget those who turned their backs on the troops while deployed in a combat zone. It amounts to cowardice in the wosrt possible way. If the result of cutting off funding is bringing the troops home (which is, I expect, the desired result), would you still see it as "turning their backs" on the troops? Yes. People are not grasping that our mission there is to secure Iraq. People are also not grasping that not supporting the mission is merely conditional support of the troops. By cutting off the tools that we need to do it, no matter how it's sugar-coated, you're saying, "Your mission was to secure Iraq, and while it's not secure, you're job is done and we're glad you're home." Not letting us do our job will wreak havoc on the morale of the troops. It will breed the concept of defeat and that is not something we need to rest on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. And if the troops are told the mission as first set out is no longer attainable and a new mission involving the scale back of troops and eventual withdrawl is now what we're doing, do you see that as "turning their backs" on the troops. I think bringing our guys home from Iraq (not Afghanistan, where I think they should all be now) is the peak of not turning our backs on them. IMO, continuing to lead them down a fruitless path of snipers, IEDs, and insurgents is the ultimate disservice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #57 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think he has no credibility left. glad to see you've finally taken a position on the guy, your continuous agonizing over it had us a bit worried I find more and more people agreeing with me as time passes. I expect you'll come around soon. I expect you're wrong on that last point.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #58 January 11, 2007 QuotePeople are not grasping that our mission there is to secure Iraq Yeah? How's that coming?----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #59 January 11, 2007 QuoteThey need to do this themselves.. This is one thing I think people are basically in agreement on. Interesting thing to consider: if we send more troops, we are moving even further away from Iraq becomming able to do this for themselves and closer to a complete failure there. More troops now will delay the end result that will end up being magnified unless we decide to stay even longer than currently anticipated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #60 January 11, 2007 QuoteI expect you're wrong on that last point. There are a whole lot of Right Wing dead enders out there.. I predict they will form insurgent movements..aka militias... IF George does not do it himself by deliberately allowing an attack on American soil....and then declaring Martial Law.I believe his paranoia is fully capable of that.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #61 January 11, 2007 QuoteSO vbascially we need to lose about 50.000 plus of our young people to do what Max??? Unless we are willing to kill every last Iraqui... and then every last muslim.. this is not a war that will result in anything more than it is now..They need to do this themselves.. and if we dont like the outcome then we can just blow them all to hell all over again...... SO I guess we just need to keep throwing away the young people we cherish for what??? Wow, you gleaned that from what I wrote? Where did I say that?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #62 January 11, 2007 Perhaps.. Like Vietnam and Korea.. we will have enough sence to negotiate and get the hell out.. apparently 3000+ is not enough yet. They would not let us win OUR war either. And they did not let my Fathers generation wih his... he was there in Chosin.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #63 January 11, 2007 QuoteI find more and more people agreeing with me as time passes. I expect you'll come around soon. however, I don't believe you have any idea about my opinions on GWB. I mainly post my opinions on the lack of class in the discussions about the guy, not the guy himself. I've had very few specific items in his terms that I'd agree with - I'd agree with a few of his stated goals, but those he's failed on in the most part - I don't find him fiscally conservative at all - just as well have had a democrat again in that aspect. Is vetoing a spending bill THAT hard? My biggest regret in the last two elections was that the dems couldn't put up anybody decent for me to vote for. at least with term limits, if the dems keep throwing up losers, we can still avoid GWB I hope the last election is a wake up call for both parties, but it's very unlikely. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #64 January 11, 2007 QuotePerhaps.. Like Vietnam and Korea.. we will have enough sence to negotiate and get the hell out.. apparently 3000+ is not enough yet. "It’s silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." -Ronald Reagan----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usedtajump 1 #65 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course, Congress could cut off funding. But I can guarantee that as a soldier now, and as soon as I was out of the Army, I would ensure that people were constantly reminded and never forget those who turned their backs on the troops while deployed in a combat zone. It amounts to cowardice in the wosrt possible way. If the result of cutting off funding is bringing the troops home (which is, I expect, the desired result), would you still see it as "turning their backs" on the troops? Yes. People are not grasping that our mission there is to secure Iraq. People are also not grasping that not supporting the mission is merely conditional support of the troops. By cutting off the tools that we need to do it, no matter how it's sugar-coated, you're saying, "Your mission was to secure Iraq, and while it's not secure, you're job is done and we're glad you're home." Not letting us do our job will wreak havoc on the morale of the troops. It will breed the concept of defeat and that is not something we need to rest on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. WTF is the mission??? This statement from the Excite news story about Saddam's "fall" from power kind of says it all for me. "First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #66 January 11, 2007 >People are also not grasping that not supporting the mission is > merely conditional support of the troops. By cutting off the tools that > we need to do it, no matter how it's sugar-coated, you're > saying, "Your mission was to secure Iraq, and while it's not secure, > you're job is done and we're glad you're home." More like "you did your jobs well, but you were working to a plan that was impossible from the beginning." There is absolutely no shame in doing a good job but not accomplishing someone else's objective. Much of our nuclear weaponry is in nuclear submarines right now. Their crews train intensely so that, if needed, they can rapidly launch ballistic missiles in defense of the US. I very much hope they NEVER accomplish what they have trained to do - and I suspect you feel the same. >Not letting us do our job will wreak havoc on the morale of the > troops. Who's "not letting them do their jobs?" As I see it they ARE doing their jobs. An oncologist is doing his job even if his patient dies. Indeed, some speciality oncologists see _most_ of their patients die. Doesn't mean they're not doing their jobs. Not winning every battle is something every adult has to deal with. >It will breed the concept of defeat and that is not something we >need to rest on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. A soldier who cannot handle losing a battle needs a different job! Losing battles is part of war, even on the winning side. Keep in mind that if we withdraw from Iraq, we may have to lose that one battle (pacification) but have still won the war. Mission accomplished, remember? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #67 January 11, 2007 Quote I've got a financial plan and a lottery ticket and I'M going to win! How about another Tetley's? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #68 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuote I've got a financial plan and a lottery ticket and I'M going to win! How about another Tetley's? You bastard!!!! Now I feel a terrible thirst! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #69 January 11, 2007 I lived in Britain for 2 years. Blackadder was a fantastic show! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #70 January 11, 2007 QuoteWrong speech. Correct speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html I skipped it last night, and couldn't take more than 5 minutes of that. Who the fuck was he talking to, apparently someone off to my right? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 January 11, 2007 Quote Who the fuck was he talking to, apparently someone off to my right? Far off to the right.. only the far right thinks this is a good idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #72 January 11, 2007 QuoteAnd if the troops are told the mission as first set out is no longer attainable and a new mission involving the scale back of troops and eventual withdrawl is now what we're doing, do you see that as "turning their backs" on the troops. I think bringing our guys home from Iraq (not Afghanistan, where I think they should all be now) is the peak of not turning our backs on them. IMO, continuing to lead them down a fruitless path of snipers, IEDs, and insurgents is the ultimate disservice. That's a valid perspective, but I disagree. It is extremely difficult and time consuming to clear these strongholds. Ramadi is a prime example. It's four times the size of Fallujah. Roads barely rate the size of alley-ways in the US in most areas. Houses follow no common architecture. Front yards obscured by walls, gated entrances, ad infinitum. During my time there, and subsequently the rest of my unit's time there, it took a year for the Iraqi Army units to effectively maintain their positions independently...and that was in one district of the city.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #73 January 11, 2007 I'm not really following your argument here as to why we should stay.... Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #74 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDon't just stand there, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS TK This is the answer... but they seem too lazy to decide on any policy. That's because the Congress has no authority in determining US policy. Write your Congressman 'till you have carpal tunnel, they do not have authority to determine when/how/why troops are deployed. Could they not pass legislation that says something along the lines of "No more than 5000 American troops can be sent into combat on foreign territory with a formal declaration of war approved by Congress"? Or couldn't they simply repeal the "authorization to use force" or whatever it was called...the non-declaration of war thing that let GWB send in our troops in the first place? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #75 January 11, 2007 Quote Could they not pass legislation that says something along the lines of "No more than 5000 American troops can be sent into combat on foreign territory with a formal declaration of war approved by Congress"? Or couldn't they simply repeal the "authorization to use force" or whatever it was called...the non-declaration of war thing that let GWB send in our troops in the first place? For Congress to do that, they might end up re-writing the Constitution. That's my understanding. So, it's probably not going to happen.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites