FREE TAPATALK APP

real american · 28th November 2007, 07:16 PM

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice.

I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could

http://hallindsey.org/index.php?opti...=218&Itemid=28

Upchurch · 28th November 2007, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by real american

I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could

Well, that's your first mistake. Hal Lindsey is a nut job.

Originally Posted by real american

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote.

Yeah, Ed forbid congress do their job and keep the president's previously free reign in check.

quixotecoyote · 28th November 2007, 09:04 PM

Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!!

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th November 2007, 09:26 PM

And Now for Something Completely Different^WP....

Ex-Top Commander Endorses Pullout Bill

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Nov. 21) - Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year....

...The Pentagon on Tuesday said that as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress approves a war spending bill that President Bush will sign.

Iraq Study Group urges troop withdrawal

Quote:

George Bush today came under increased pressure to change course on Iraq as a bipartisan committee urged the White House to "chart a new way forward".

In presenting the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) much-awaited report, one of its joint-chairmen Lee Hamilton, said the "ship of state has hit rough waters and must chart a new way forward".

The panel's key recommendations call for a new diplomatic initiative in Iraq and the region, coupled with a change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq from combat to training.

As expected, the report set no timetable for withdrawal but it urged the Bush administration to start the process sooner rather than later by withdrawing all combat troops by early 2008.

So contrary to your OP, not everyone agrees with your O'Reillyesque conclusion.

Maybe you should consider the possibility the NeoCon-artists have you fooled.

Oliver · 28th November 2007, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!!

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.

That's actually true - they may be homeless, without psychological
care or even ANY opportunity at home ...

gtc · 28th November 2007, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

That's actually true - they may be homeless, without psychological
care or even ANY opportunity at home ...

Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people?

Puppycow · 28th November 2007, 09:54 PM

Which troops do you support, Real American? The ones who want to stay there or the ones who want to come home? If some troops want to come home, but you want them to stay there against their wills, is that really "support"?

Puppycow · 28th November 2007, 09:58 PM

Here's my proposal: Simple 1-question poll for the troops:

Question: Would you rather be home with your family right now?
If more troops answer yes than no, then "supporting" the troops means bringing them home. If more answer no than yes, then "supporting" them means keeping them there.

Deal?

Oliver · 28th November 2007, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people?

He would since he actually cares about the troops instead
sending them into bull-wars. BTW: How many years did your
favored candidate serve?

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Which troops do you support, Real American? The ones who want to stay there or the ones who want to come home? If some troops want to come home, but you want them to stay there against their wills, is that really "support"?

What is this Troops-Crap about anyway? It's almost 2008 years
after the fictitious birth of someone praying peace.

KoihimeNakamura · 28th November 2007, 11:56 PM

But Ron Paul can't, as .. you know what? Your posts are too easy at times.

Oliver · 29th November 2007, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

But Ron Paul can't, as .. you know what? Your posts are too easy at times.

Ron Paul can't "what"?

KoihimeNakamura · 29th November 2007, 12:22 AM

To do that would require money. From somewhere.

Oliver · 29th November 2007, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

To do that would require money. From somewhere.

And? ... Paul's solution is to end the war -aka- "safe the troops and money".
If you prefer to go out and fight some stupid wars based on your tax-money...

Fine.

What about saving the money for domestic issues - the care for veterans
included?

KoihimeNakamura · 29th November 2007, 12:43 AM

Non sequitor and it fails to understand what would happen if we had no war. (Here's a hint, we'd be able to maintain spending levels only for a little while.)

Oliver · 29th November 2007, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Non sequitor and it fails to understand what would happen if we had no war. (Here's a hint, we'd be able to maintain spending levels only for a little while.)

What do you mean by temporarily? For what purposes would
you spend this money? :

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Co...-of-War-3.html

Chaos · 29th November 2007, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

He would since he actually cares about the troops instead
sending them into bull-wars. BTW: How many years did your
favored candidate serve?

Except that he would NOT, since he is a Libertarian, and Libertarians expect the free market to take care of such things.

And with what money would he do it, anyway, considering how radically he suggests to shrink the federal budget?

KoihimeNakamura · 29th November 2007, 09:00 AM

Where do you expect it to come from Oliver?

Darth Rotor · 29th November 2007, 09:13 AM

real american

Learn a new sound byte.

The vagueness of "Support the Troops" is a short hand for people hiding behind the symbol of a soldier in uniform. ETA: when I got back a bit over three years ago, I was filled with somewhat mixed emotions. One was an intense pride and admiration for the folks still over there, polishing the policy turd one day at a time, in a hard, hot, hostile environment. The other was considerable bitterness at how that faithful service was being abused by some remarkably bad policy decisions in the Executive Branch, and at an Information Campaign that was pathetic in its structure and execution. I am still amazed at how many of the folks over there grit their teeth and soldier on, doing their damnedest to make the policy turd shine.

Your complaint ignores a simple fact.

The Congress has the very real problem of dealing with revenue flow versus expenses. That is in the Constitution. They are the money people.

The war is, and continues to be, bloody expensive.

So, they are challenging the open ended expense account that the Pres demands.

Congress are doing their job in terms of forcing this issue.

How that influences success or failure of the actions on the ground in Iraq are open questions, questions that somewhat weightier than dollars and cents. War is a child of politics, and this war is no different. The political decisions will influence the war. That has been true since day one. Given the significance of errors in the executive branch, back when they had an open mandate, it is not surprising that Congress no longer trusts the executive branch to get it right, even if there has been a short term success, of a sort, from this surge. Presuming that this short term positive trend somehow translates into a political win, on the ground, in Iraq is, shall we say, optimistic in the extreme.

Too many players in the sandbox.

You want to keep paying the bill, kid? You will, whenever you get a job.

DR

sinclairmcevoy · 29th November 2007, 10:14 AM

If not for the oil, the troops would not be there IMO. I once saw an American citizen interviewed during the Gulf War. He said it all. " Ah think we should just nuke the whole damn country and go in an take their oil. I do not think the troops should be there. I wouldn't want to be. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Thunder · 29th November 2007, 10:19 AM

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. Keeping them in the middle of a civil war is not showing support.

Darth Rotor · 29th November 2007, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by sinclairmcevoy

If not for the oil, the troops would not be there IMO. I once saw an American citizen interviewed during the Gulf War. He said it all. " Ah think we should just nuke the whole damn country and go in an take their oil. I do not think the troops should be there. I wouldn't want to be. In for a penny, in for a pound.

If not for oil, American political interest, and policy, in much of the Mid East would be profoundly different, and quite possibly indifferent.

DR

Dr Adequate · 29th November 2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by real american

The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice.

According to Stars and Stripes, in February 2006, 72% of troops in Iraq wanted withdrawal within the year.

And I supported the troops. Did you?

In December 2006, a poll conducted by the Military Times reported that 65% of troops (in Iraq, at home, and elsewhere) disapproved of the way Bush had handled the war. 59% thought that the invasion should never have happened in the first place.

It seems I'm with the troops on this one. And yourself?

The Military Times poll is an annual event, by the way, with the results published in December. It will be interesting to see what the results are this year, and which one of us will be in closer agreement with the troops.

Ohmer · 29th November 2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Learn a new sound byte.

Support our troops. Elect better leaders. They deserve it.

Does that qualify as a sound byte?

How about:

I support the troops, not Bush.

I stole that one from a bumper sticker.

Darth Rotor · 29th November 2007, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ohmer

Support our troops. Elect better leaders. They deserve it.

Does that qualify as a sound byte?

A good one at that.

DR

real american · 30th November 2007, 04:47 AM

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

Cleon · 30th November 2007, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by real american

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

You're intentionally dodging the point with nothing more than pure bluster.

JoeEllison · 30th November 2007, 05:09 AM

The "war" has been an utter failure from the start. There was no plan for after the invasion, and every step the Bush administration took led to a worsening of the situation. The failure of the surge, combined with the dynamics of the civil war, demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops. By all respectable accounts, our presence there is actually helping to drive the violence.

Ladewig · 30th November 2007, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by real american

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

Is it really necessary to refer to the Democrats as "dims"?

Upchurch · 30th November 2007, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by real american

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes.

Who doesn't wish the war was over? For that matter, why would someone not wish the war was over?

Originally Posted by real american

The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

Actually, the whole reason for the military is to protect and defend the US. The war in Iraq does neither. It is the responsibility of the civilian government to utilize the military effectively and wisely. We do a disservice to them to do otherwise.

The military deserves better than this baloney.

Cuddles · 30th November 2007, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.

We call it "Politics".

Darth Rotor · 30th November 2007, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

The "war" has been an utter failure from the start. There was no plan for after the invasion, and every step the Bush administration took led to a worsening of the situation. The failure of the surge, combined with the dynamics of the civil war, demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops. By all respectable accounts, our presence there is actually helping to drive the violence.

That is false, Joe. There was indeed a plan for Phases II, III and IV. I got to read it in 2004. (Not a quick read. Sort of like reading a phone book. )

Not saying the plan that eventually was approved and executed was airtight -- obviously not, given the outcome and the under resourcing for post conflict ops -- nor that some of the assumptions weren't a bit absurd, which has also been well shown, not to mention the original plan had a withdrawal timetable that seemed to many overly ambitious and optimistic.

If you have not read Rick's book "Fiasco" I'd recommend it, in terms of how he covers some of that detail. See also Cobra II, another sober assessment of what the delta was between conception and execution.

To state there was no plan is blatantly false. To assess the plan as approved as lacking would be true.

Speaking of Op Plans and phases, I think that the current state of the Op Plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom, or rather, the Op Order, is in "Phase Fourever."

DR

Oliver · 30th November 2007, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Chaos

Except that he would NOT, since he is a Libertarian *snip*

Off-topic and not true. Ask in the Ron Paul thread.

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Where do you expect it to come from Oliver?

From money wasted in stupid wars.

443,784,000,000 (Official Cost (By now - and ONLY Iraq!) without hidden costs) : 300,000,000 (Americans) =

$1480

How would you spend your $1480?
How could a veteran spend it?

Dr Adequate · 30th November 2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by real american

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does.

They're still entitled to their opinion, which I support.

When they say that the war was a mistake and that they should be brought home, do you support the troops? Or do you support the Republicans and the body-bag industry?

Quote:

No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

And to think there was a time when you guys promised to bring it to a conclusion.

fuelair · 30th November 2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by real american

Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.

Actually the reason for the military, properly used, is to make sure no one is stupid enough to fight America.

KoihimeNakamura · 30th November 2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Off-topic and not true. Ask in the Ron Paul thread.

From money wasted in stupid wars.

443,784,000,000 (Official Cost (By now - and ONLY Iraq!) without hidden costs) : 300,000,000 (Americans) =

$1480

How would you spend your $1480?
How could a veteran spend it?

You are being disingeious. Where do you think Bush is getting the money, that Paul will still have?

Oliver · 30th November 2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

You are being disingeious. Where do you think Bush is getting the money, that Paul will still have?

Bush gets his money from Congress ... Ya know: The Democrat
Congress that was supposed to do the opposite. Yeah, I know:

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS are two different things ....

... Hell yeah ... I see ...

What would you do using the 1500 Bucks? That's not rhetorical,
that number is a factual one.

quixotecoyote · 30th November 2007, 12:26 PM

And Congress has a magic money tree in the capital building? Think!

Normal Dude · 30th November 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by real american

Then why did you join the army?

Well, personally, I joined the Army to protect my country, not go on pointless Middle East adventures. And most of my mates agree. Stop dodging and answer the questions posed in this thread.

Oliver · 30th November 2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

And Congress has a magic money tree in the capital building? Think!

It seems like the tax-money grows out of congresses ass. What other
explanation do you have for the willingness to waste tax-dollars?

Anyway: Sending Troops into Danger Zones is in no way a support
to anyone.

JoeEllison · 30th November 2007, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

To state there was no plan is blatantly false. To assess the plan as approved as lacking would be true.

Pardon me... they "planned" to enjoy accolades and parades, and then reap all of the oil profits.

The plan they had, as I understand it, was so laughably bad that it really does qualify as "no plan"... it is only a few steps away from the Bill and Ted rock band plan:

Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
Bill, Ted: EXCELLENT!

28th November 2007, 07:16 PM	#1
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	We Support the Troops? The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice. I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could http://hallindsey.org/index.php?opti...=218&Itemid=28
	__________________ "It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand Last edited by real american; 28th November 2007 at 07:18 PM.

28th November 2007, 09:04 PM	#3
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!! eta: We really need a kids section on this forum.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. Last edited by quixotecoyote; 28th November 2007 at 09:04 PM.

28th November 2007, 09:26 PM	#4
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	And Now for Something Completely Different^WP.... Ex-Top Commander Endorses Pullout Bill Quote: WASHINGTON (Nov. 21) - Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.... ...The Pentagon on Tuesday said that as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress approves a war spending bill that President Bush will sign. Iraq Study Group urges troop withdrawal Quote: George Bush today came under increased pressure to change course on Iraq as a bipartisan committee urged the White House to "chart a new way forward". In presenting the Iraq Study Group's (ISG) much-awaited report, one of its joint-chairmen Lee Hamilton, said the "ship of state has hit rough waters and must chart a new way forward". The panel's key recommendations call for a new diplomatic initiative in Iraq and the region, coupled with a change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq from combat to training. As expected, the report set no timetable for withdrawal but it urged the Bush administration to start the process sooner rather than later by withdrawing all combat troops by early 2008. So contrary to your OP, not everyone agrees with your O'Reillyesque conclusion. Maybe you should consider the possibility the NeoCon-artists have you fooled.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th November 2007 at 09:27 PM.*

28th November 2007, 09:33 PM	#5
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Oh noes! Our troops is in trouble if da Dims make dem come home!!!!111!! eta: We really need a kids section on this forum. That's actually true - they may be homeless, without psychological care or even ANY opportunity at home ...
	__________________ Last edited by Oliver; 28th November 2007 at 09:33 PM.

28th November 2007, 09:54 PM	#7
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,031	Which troops do you support, Real American? The ones who want to stay there or the ones who want to come home? If some troops want to come home, but you want them to stay there against their wills, is that really "support"?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th November 2007, 09:02 PM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Originally Posted by real american I found this Article written by Hal Lindsey and he says it way better than I ever could Well, that's your first mistake. Hal Lindsey is a nut job. Originally Posted by real american The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. Yeah, Ed forbid congress do their job and keep the president's previously free reign in check.

28th November 2007, 09:44 PM	#6
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by Oliver That's actually true - they may be homeless, without psychological care or even ANY opportunity at home ... Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people?

28th November 2007, 09:58 PM	#8
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,031	Here's my proposal: Simple 1-question poll for the troops: Question: Would you rather be home with your family right now? If more troops answer yes than no, then "supporting" the troops means bringing them home. If more answer no than yes, then "supporting" them means keeping them there. Deal?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th November 2007, 10:08 PM	#9
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by gtc Would Ron Paul pay for the psychological care and homeless shelters needed by these people? He would since he actually cares about the troops instead sending them into bull-wars. BTW: How many years did your favored candidate serve? Originally Posted by Puppycow Which troops do you support, Real American? The ones who want to stay there or the ones who want to come home? If some troops want to come home, but you want them to stay there against their wills, is that really "support"? What is this Troops-Crap about anyway? It's almost 2008 years after the fictitious birth of someone praying peace.
	__________________ Last edited by Oliver; 28th November 2007 at 10:10 PM.

28th November 2007, 11:56 PM	#10
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,927	But Ron Paul can't, as .. you know what? Your posts are too easy at times.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

29th November 2007, 12:10 AM	#11
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by Tokorona But Ron Paul can't, as .. you know what? Your posts are too easy at times. Ron Paul can't "what"?
	__________________

29th November 2007, 12:22 AM	#12
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,927	To do that would require money. From somewhere.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

29th November 2007, 12:27 AM	#13
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by Tokorona To do that would require money. From somewhere. And? ... Paul's solution is to end the war -aka- "safe the troops and money". If you prefer to go out and fight some stupid wars based on your tax-money... Fine. What about saving the money for domestic issues - the care for veterans included?
	__________________ Last edited by Oliver; 29th November 2007 at 12:31 AM.

29th November 2007, 12:43 AM	#14
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,927	Non sequitor and it fails to understand what would happen if we had no war. (Here's a hint, we'd be able to maintain spending levels only for a little while.)
	__________________ Don't mind me.

29th November 2007, 12:51 AM	#15
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by Tokorona Non sequitor and it fails to understand what would happen if we had no war. (Here's a hint, we'd be able to maintain spending levels only for a little while.) What do you mean by temporarily? For what purposes would you spend this money? : http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Co...-of-War-3.html
	__________________

29th November 2007, 06:25 AM	#16
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,810	Originally Posted by Oliver He would since he actually cares about the troops instead sending them into bull-wars. BTW: How many years did your favored candidate serve? Except that he would NOT, since he is a Libertarian, and Libertarians expect the free market to take care of such things. And with what money would he do it, anyway, considering how radically he suggests to shrink the federal budget?
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

29th November 2007, 09:00 AM	#17
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,927	Where do you expect it to come from Oliver?
	__________________ Don't mind me.

29th November 2007, 09:13 AM	#18
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	real american Learn a new sound byte. The vagueness of "Support the Troops" is a short hand for people hiding behind the symbol of a soldier in uniform. ETA: when I got back a bit over three years ago, I was filled with somewhat mixed emotions. One was an intense pride and admiration for the folks still over there, polishing the policy turd one day at a time, in a hard, hot, hostile environment. The other was considerable bitterness at how that faithful service was being abused by some remarkably bad policy decisions in the Executive Branch, and at an Information Campaign that was pathetic in its structure and execution. I am still amazed at how many of the folks over there grit their teeth and soldier on, doing their damnedest to make the policy turd shine. Your complaint ignores a simple fact. The Congress has the very real problem of dealing with revenue flow versus expenses. That is in the Constitution. They are the money people. The war is, and continues to be, bloody expensive. So, they are challenging the open ended expense account that the Pres demands. Congress are doing their job in terms of forcing this issue. How that influences success or failure of the actions on the ground in Iraq are open questions, questions that somewhat weightier than dollars and cents. War is a child of politics, and this war is no different. The political decisions will influence the war. That has been true since day one. Given the significance of errors in the executive branch, back when they had an open mandate, it is not surprising that Congress no longer trusts the executive branch to get it right, even if there has been a short term success, of a sort, from this surge. Presuming that this short term positive trend somehow translates into a political win, on the ground, in Iraq is, shall we say, optimistic in the extreme. Too many players in the sandbox. You want to keep paying the bill, kid? You will, whenever you get a job. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 29th November 2007 at 09:21 AM.

29th November 2007, 10:14 AM	#19
sinclairmcevoy Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,027	If not for the oil, the troops would not be there IMO. I once saw an American citizen interviewed during the Gulf War. He said it all. " Ah think we should just nuke the whole damn country and go in an take their oil. I do not think the troops should be there. I wouldn't want to be. In for a penny, in for a pound.
	__________________ Don't argue with me. Don't you know who I think I am?

29th November 2007, 10:19 AM	#20
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	The best way to support the troops is to bring them home. Keeping them in the middle of a civil war is not showing support.

29th November 2007, 10:32 AM	#21
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by sinclairmcevoy If not for the oil, the troops would not be there IMO. I once saw an American citizen interviewed during the Gulf War. He said it all. " Ah think we should just nuke the whole damn country and go in an take their oil. I do not think the troops should be there. I wouldn't want to be. In for a penny, in for a pound. If not for oil, American political interest, and policy, in much of the Mid East would be profoundly different, and quite possibly indifferent. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

29th November 2007, 10:37 AM	#22
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by real american The Dims are at it again, they give President Bush an Ultamatium to begin Troop pullout or they will not allow another Troop Support Bill on the Floor for a vote. This is outragous , especially when it seems that the Surge is working and we are gaining ground over the insurgents there. Maybe that why they want spending cut-off. Lord knows their political dreams of having absolute power on Capital hill might be in jeopordy should things go good for us in Iraq when they have been telling everybody we are loosing. This is Stupidity and Foolishness and our fighting forces are paying the price and the American People had better take notice. According to Stars and Stripes, in February 2006, 72% of troops in Iraq wanted withdrawal within the year. And I supported the troops. Did you? In December 2006, a poll conducted by the Military Times reported that 65% of troops (in Iraq, at home, and elsewhere) disapproved of the way Bush had handled the war. 59% thought that the invasion should never have happened in the first place. It seems I'm with the troops on this one. And yourself? The Military Times poll is an annual event, by the way, with the results published in December. It will be interesting to see what the results are this year, and which one of us will be in closer agreement with the troops.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 29th November 2007 at 10:39 AM.

29th November 2007, 11:07 AM	#23
Ohmer Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 678	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Learn a new sound byte. Support our troops. Elect better leaders. They deserve it. Does that qualify as a sound byte? How about: I support the troops, not Bush. I stole that one from a bumper sticker.

29th November 2007, 11:15 AM	#24
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by Ohmer Support our troops. Elect better leaders. They deserve it. Does that qualify as a sound byte? A good one at that. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

30th November 2007, 04:47 AM	#25
real american Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Good Ol' U.S. of A Posts: 265	Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on.
	__________________ "It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand

30th November 2007, 05:04 AM	#26
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,611	Originally Posted by real american Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on. You're intentionally dodging the point with nothing more than pure bluster.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

30th November 2007, 05:09 AM	#27
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	The "war" has been an utter failure from the start. There was no plan for after the invasion, and every step the Bush administration took led to a worsening of the situation. The failure of the surge, combined with the dynamics of the civil war, demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops. By all respectable accounts, our presence there is actually helping to drive the violence.

30th November 2007, 05:13 AM	#28
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,944	Originally Posted by real american Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on. Is it really necessary to refer to the Democrats as "dims"?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

30th November 2007, 06:07 AM	#29
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,480	Originally Posted by real american Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Who doesn't wish the war was over? For that matter, why would someone not wish the war was over? Originally Posted by real american The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on. Actually, the whole reason for the military is to protect and defend the US. The war in Iraq does neither. It is the responsibility of the civilian government to utilize the military effectively and wisely. We do a disservice to them to do otherwise. The military deserves better than this baloney.

30th November 2007, 06:16 AM	#30
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,676	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote eta: We really need a kids section on this forum. We call it "Politics".
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

30th November 2007, 06:47 AM	#31
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by JoeEllison The "war" has been an utter failure from the start. There was no plan for after the invasion, and every step the Bush administration took led to a worsening of the situation. The failure of the surge, combined with the dynamics of the civil war, demand an immediate withdrawal of American troops. By all respectable accounts, our presence there is actually helping to drive the violence. That is false, Joe. There was indeed a plan for Phases II, III and IV. I got to read it in 2004. (Not a quick read. Sort of like reading a phone book. ) Not saying the plan that eventually was approved and executed was airtight -- obviously not, given the outcome and the under resourcing for post conflict ops -- nor that some of the assumptions weren't a bit absurd, which has also been well shown, not to mention the original plan had a withdrawal timetable that seemed to many overly ambitious and optimistic. If you have not read Rick's book "Fiasco" I'd recommend it, in terms of how he covers some of that detail. See also Cobra II, another sober assessment of what the delta was between conception and execution. To state there was no plan is blatantly false. To assess the plan as approved as lacking would be true. Speaking of Op Plans and phases, I think that the current state of the Op Plan for Operation Iraqi Freedom, or rather, the Op Order, is in "Phase Fourever." DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 30th November 2007 at 06:49 AM.

30th November 2007, 07:08 AM	#32
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,370	Originally Posted by Chaos Except that he would NOT, since he is a Libertarian snip Off-topic and not true. Ask in the Ron Paul thread. Originally Posted by Tokorona Where do you expect it to come from Oliver? From money wasted in stupid wars. 443,784,000,000 (Official Cost (By now - and ONLY Iraq!) without hidden costs) : 300,000,000 (Americans) = $1480 How would you spend your $1480? How could a veteran spend it?
	__________________ Last edited by Oliver; 30th November 2007 at 07:09 AM.

30th November 2007, 10:18 AM	#33
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by real american Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. They're still entitled to their opinion, which I support. When they say that the war was a mistake and that they should be brought home, do you support the troops? Or do you support the Republicans and the body-bag industry? Quote: No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on. And to think there was a time when you guys promised to bring it to a conclusion.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 30th November 2007 at 10:21 AM.

30th November 2007, 10:50 AM	#34
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,321	Originally Posted by real american Are there some who wish the war was over, yes. Then why did you join the army? The whole reason for the army is to fight for America. A soldier does what a soldier does. No matter how much the dims may try the war shall go on. Actually the reason for the military, properly used, is to make sure no one is stupid enough to fight America.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,321

30th November 2007, 11:39 AM	#35
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,927	Originally Posted by Oliver Off-topic and not true. Ask in the Ron Paul thread. From money wasted in stupid wars. 443,784,000,000 (Official Cost (By now - and ONLY Iraq!) without hidden costs) : 300,000,000 (Americans) = $1480 How would you spend your $1480? How could a veteran spend it? You are being disingeious. Where do you think Bush is getting the money, that Paul will still have?
	__________________ Don't mind me.