House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

well thats a shame b/c it was obviously we had different opinions so, of course, i pushed to find out more. But im affraid there wasnt much more.

 

Bush is the instigator, and thus should rightfully recieve his share of the blame. It's called accountability.

No, you responded in such a manner to mark's claim that the war was a "collossal failure" - not regarding the timetable.

It is true, however, that you have not complained about dissent. I never claimed that you did, but I respect you for it all the same.

Oh give me a break. You only mentioned mark's irritation with Bush because it gave you an easy way to avoid discussing the war's futility. You chose to imprint mark with the "anti-bush" motive only because it allowed you to ignore his rhetoric as biased when we both know the emphasis is on the war itself, inasmuch as it occurred due to the choice of *gasp* one person.

 

we were talking about the bill that the house offered and the pros/cons of setting arbitrary withdrawl dates. If you want to be technical, the house was the instigator b/c they are the ones that deliberately offered a bill with strings attached to make a political point.

well saying its a failure really doesnt help the conversation much does it? that wasnt what we were talking about...nor the amount of "kids" we are willing to kill ...thats soapbox fodder.

.

not really. i'd rather talk about the topic than bush, but its hard to when every other sentence refers to him.

he chose to imprint himself with that label by his comments and reasoning. And yes, im going to ignore irrational and unproductive comments like "how many kids have to die, blah blah blah".

come on, you can see through that fluff

 

its not about wanting out. At this stage of the game, its about getting out without leaving a country in complete shambles and actually providing iraq with a solid leg to stand on.

Maybe you guys are willing to give a big "F-You, i'm gone" to Iraq, regardless of the countries state of affairs. personally, thats not how i feel.

 

nice...havent heard that today.

 

Yes we are. We said so in the polls already.

 

thats actually kind of sad.

 

Why? We are capitalists. Being selfish is what makes capitalism works.

 

Donkey:

If you really wish to solely talk about the bill in question, I can sympathize.

However, calling out mc mark as being anti-war only becuase of he's anti-bush is a complete fabrication, and reeks of the "neocon-warhawk handbook". I daresay that all of us here who are against the Iraq war could care less if it was Bush or Charlie Brown in charge at the time of the invasion. I am anti-bush for a variety of reasons - many of which are related to the war. But no one reason would make me implicity dislike everything done under his administration. To suggest so is insulting and childish.

The argument that mark's proclamations regarding the stupidity and failure of the war are independent of the democratic ploy to set a timetable for withdrawal is fallacious. Much of my support for this manuever stems from the admistrations ineptitude in both a) getting us into this war in the first place, and b) never giving a modicum of thought to properly planning for it.

It is difficult (if not impossible) to look at the two issues independently. Certainly, you would agree that this bill would not even be on the table if the aforementioned screwups had not occurred!

 

Well if you're a republican you can still blame Clinton, hell the guy has been out of office for 6 years and right wing nut jobs have been blaming him for a lot that goes wrong during shrubs administration. (see Chris Wallace, Mark Foley scandal and US attorney firings if you doubt that it's true).

Shrub is to blame for the war. Others like Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve to be saddled with blame as well, but shrub is the CIC. Who else wanted war more than him? Saddam??

" The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

I'm even leaving out the infamous 16 words, that were known to be dubious at best.

Blaming shrub for everything that goes wrong in the world is foolish, but this thread is about the war, the one he wanted, the one that was "forced upon us" by Iraq, the one that was based on faulty intelligence that was used by the administration to sell it to the american people and congress.

Paragraph after paragraph of his state of the union was selling this war. As far as the Iraqi people went, this was their only mention:
"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom."

Now I know this isn't enough to make you understand why shrub is to blame for the mess in Iraq (Rumsfeld and Cheney deserve quite a bit as well), you probably have an idea why that is or maybe you feel, like McCain, that things are getting better. But to me and maybe others, this whole mess was based on LIES. Lies that were talked about ad nauseum and very little to do with Iraqi freedom, or maybe they would have talked about that a little more, especially right before march of 2003.

If it's still not comprehensible to you, then there either isn't enough evidence to convince you or you don't want to be convinced.

 

The "best" Iraq solution is going to be the lesser of the various evils anyway. With where we are today, I see the "best" solution as one that includes an exit strategy and this is the only one on the table.

 

A point that will, no doubt, be settled by the courts in the next 18 months.

If there is a conflict, the courts will resolve it. That is their place in our system.

We had an election and the pro-war people lost in a big way. Now, the people who were elected are doing what they were elected to do.

 

No, it is out of the handbook that deals with this little thing called reality.

 

American Heritage Dictionary
tac·ti·cal (tāk'tĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or using tactics.
2.
1. Of, relating to, used in, or involving military or naval operations that are smaller, closer to base, and of less long-term significance than strategic operations.
2. Carried out in support of military or naval operations: tactical bombing.
3. Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill.
__________________________________________________________________
strat·e·gy /ˈstrætɪdʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[strat-i-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

__________________________________________________________________

Neither of these definitions describes what the bill does. The bill does not "direct[] large military movements and operations," nor does it direct tactical actions. It puts a timetable on the action, during which the President and military are able to freely exercise their strategy and tactics in order to achieve some sort of victory.

This bill makes it so that if things continue to devolve the way they have for the past four years, we have given notice and we can begin to extricate ourselves from the civil war. If things start going better, we can modify the timetable if need be, as nearly every timetable for a large project is.

 

No, they aren't interested in figuring out how to get along with each other, so screw them if they continue to have that attitude.

This bill is a wake up call for Iraqis. It is us telling them to s*** or get off the pot.

 

The person is the topic. If ever a single person were responsible for a war, it is George W. Bush, and his invasion and occupation of Iraq. The war was completely voluntary. Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11, despite the lard foisted upon the American people that he was involved. There were no weapons of mass destruction. None were found before Bush's invasion by the UN inspectors, and none have been found since. Saddam's refusal to catagorically deny having them is perfectly explained by his fear of his neighbors, particularly Iran, and it was a fear well-grounded by both history and circumstances, many of his own making, but not all. Many leaders in the US military advised against this course, and were given early retirement for their troubles, with those willing to say what Bush and his people wanted to hear being rewarded with promotions.

All this, and much else, has been discussed ad nauseum here. You can certainly deny that Bush was responsible for this tragedy, which is your right, but don't expect to make such statements without a response you likely won't care for.



D&D. Space between Ears.

 

Having an exit strategy is completely different than setting a hard date for withdraw. In fact, even when you have an exit strategy/plan laid out, you don't announce it to world.