House votes for war spending and withdrawl mandate

[usmcluke]

We are officially a weak backed no mettle having country of whiny vaginas. At least Bush will veto this bitch with a quickness.

I would like to thank the Deomcratic Party for fueling the fire in the bellies of our would be enemies. Your vote to mandate a withdrawl has given them a timeline in which they can plan to ensure that goals are impossible to meet. You fucking yellowbelly bitches make me sick. I hope I can spit on your graves the same as you have the men and women who have been lost. Burn in hell bitches.

RIP lost warriors your sacrifices were not in vane or without honor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17750825/

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a $124 billion war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease by Sept. 1, 2008 if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements.

Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

[Denny]

The Liberals will be the source of the end of the free world as we know it. Our biggest enemy is ourselves. Call me crazy, but a civil war MIGHT just be what this country needs.

[mardyn]

Fucking cowards... every fuckin' one of 'em.

Get the veto pen ready.

mardyn

[636ryder]

No surprise really though. If you look at our history war wise, Americans aren't against it, but at the same time our support for it goes away rather quickly. I don't think anyone will get elected to office without a pullout plan of sometype. I agree that eventually we need to get the hell outta there, but the whole having an exact date is pretty stupid. Not like motherfuckers can't read english and know when shit will be easier for em to start up again full force and undo everything we've accomplished.

[Denny]

I mean, really... what the fuck are they wanting out of getting our troops back? Do they not know what the repercussions will be? Do they want our nation to fail? WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?!?!

MM2000, black01gt, Stang Seller, etc. please enlighten me!

[Paladin]

I mean, really... what the fuck are they wanting out of getting our troops back? Do they not know what the repercussions will be? Do they want our nation to fail? WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?!?!

MM2000, black01gt, Stang Seller, etc. please enlighten me!

You apparently think the Dems care about the country, they only care about getting back into power.

[mardyn]

The Republicans have done a pretty piss poor job of managing the war, and I'll be the first to admit that some changes are necessary ( like how about letting our military manage the war rather than the fuckin' media)...

but this chickshit display of cowardness by the democrats will do nothing but embloden the enemy. Just unbelievable....

mardyn

and btw... 636ryder... wth is a chickenears intake?

[Casper]

The real story is the battle between the far left of the party and the blue dog democrats. This is meant as a shot across the bow of the blue dogs telling them, in effect, roll with us or fall against us.

It isn't going to work out well, it means another rift in the DNC at the wrong time.

Thank Howard Dean for that :D

[Haji the Exploding Iraqi]

Thanks Democrats!! We can see victory in site now...we were starting to get worried.

[exlude]

I saw this was being presented and figured it would never get this far, also that Bush will veto it. But gd it saddens me.

I have never been a straight ticket voter, but this will be the straw that breaks that camels back that pushes me toward a Republican presidential candidate...foreign/military policy.

[636ryder]

and btw... 636ryder... wth is a chickenears intake?


Here ya go.
http://www.chickenears.com/cool_aid_scoop_lrg.htm
http://www.chickenears.com/sb_coolaid_stage1_03_lrg.htm
http://www.chickenears.com/cool_aid_stage_two_lrg.htm

The best intake for Lightnings 20WRHP proven and additional Lb of boost.

[ruffdaddy]

Our nation wont fail when we pull out of this war. It's pointless to continue funding a war that cannot be won and should not be taking place. You guys act like America needs war to survive. And I do agree that a civil war needs to take place just because the government has gotten out of control, and taxes are rediculous.

[exlude]

Our nation wont fail when we pull out of this war. It's pointless to continue funding a war that cannot be won and should not be taking place. You guys act like America needs war to survive. And I do agree that a civil war needs to take place just because the government has gotten out of control, and taxes are rediculous.

No, our nation will not. But I would figure even you would feel bad for how the Iraqis will be left without us, I know I do.

[usmcluke]

Our nation wont fail when we pull out of this war. It's pointless to continue funding a war that cannot be won and should not be taking place. You guys act like America needs war to survive. And I do agree that a civil war needs to take place just because the government has gotten out of control, and taxes are rediculous.
No one said the country would fail if we pulled out. You want to fight fellow Americans because you think you pay too much in taxes and yet you think that the war in Iraq isn't justified. Seriously how does that come together in your head?

[636ryder]

No one said the country would fail if we pulled out.

Denny did. I don't think he meant that us pulling out will be the direct cause, I think he meant more along the lines of like what would make the dems happy.

[Haji the Exploding Iraqi]

Our nation wont fail when we pull out of this war. It's pointless to continue funding a war that cannot be won and should not be taking place. You guys act like America needs war to survive. And I do agree that a civil war needs to take place just because the government has gotten out of control, and taxes are rediculous.
I like this guy!

[exlude]

Denny did. I don't think he meant that us pulling out will be the direct cause, I think he meant more along the lines of like what would make the dems happy.

Denny meant failing at our goal in Iraq.

Ruff meant failing as a nation, i.e. caving in.

[usmcluke]

Denny did. I don't think he meant that us pulling out will be the direct cause, I think he meant more along the lines of like what would make the dems happy.
OK I re-read his second post! I agree he is inferring an indirect connection. But failure in the war, like Exlude said.

[Denny]

Our nation wont fail when we pull out of this war. It's pointless to continue funding a war that cannot be won and should not be taking place. You guys act like America needs war to survive. And I do agree that a civil war needs to take place just because the government has gotten out of control, and taxes are rediculous.
Taxes aren't rediculous. It's the people managing the money we collect. This war might or might not be able to be won, but as long as the troops over there aren't allowed to do shit, nothing will happen anyway. You need to shove your head up your ass and roll yourself down the street with the rest of these sympathizing faggots who think this war doesn't need to be taking place. People like you only look at hindsight. You don't think about the shit that could have happened if we never went over there. 9/11 was bad because it happened, yes, but if you honestly don't think anything else would occur if we just sat on our hands, then you're an idiot. And no, going into Afghanistan wasn't enough.

[Denny]

Denny did. I don't think he meant that us pulling out will be the direct cause, I think he meant more along the lines of like what would make the dems happy.
No I didn't, you no-reading, CNN listening dumbass. I just asked if the Dems wanted this nation to fail. Not just because of pulling out of the war, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There will be more, just give it time.

[exlude]

Lol, Denny is a bit angry today :p

[Denny]

Listen to what I say... there is no beating around the bush on this one (no pun intended). The Dems' charge at pulling out of the war is one of many issues they're pushing right now to break our nation. The Democratic party as a whole has gone from their original stances to just opposing everything the Republicans push for. That mindset WILL be the end of our nation. If you people don't think that a continued push like that won't be our downfall, then you guys need your heads checked.

[636ryder]

Do they want our nation to fail?!

This says it all, and in the midst of you typing rage you failed to see that im on your side. :D I made an attempt to convery your potential feelings/mindset. Sorry my telepathic abilities were off today. :p

[Casper]

Lady, Fuck off! Make your own movie, sugartits!

[D]

Who is that hot Army chick standing behind and to the right of the President?!?!?! I'd hit it!

[Shaithis]

Anyone read about what is included in this bill? Tons of money going out for bullshit reasons like peanut storage and more money to katrina victims and relief. The Dems were crafty on this one so that whether or not bush veto's (and he will) that he is painted the bad guy by denying victims help and making sure peanuts don't have homes. :rolleyes: If the demon-crates would stop trying to play "power tug of war" and focused on what needs to be done, our troops just might come home a bit quicker.

[usmcluke]

Anyone read about what is included in this bill? Tons of money going out for bullshit reasons like peanut storage and more money to katrina victims and relief. The Dems were crafty on this one so that whether or not bush veto's (and he will) that he is painted the bad guy by denying victims help and making sure peanuts don't have homes. :rolleyes: If the demon-crates would stop trying to play "power tug of war" and focused on what needs to be done, our troops just might come home a bit quicker.
I have been trying to find the actual bill but can't. Could you please post it?

[AL P]

At least it won't get past the Senate. Or the president.

They'll use it to demonize Bush though, just watch.

On a different note, the Democrats are hell bent on doing everything they can to not get a Democrat president in office. To be honest I find it all very amusing. But it is what I have been saying along, they don't stand a chance even with a president that has terrible approval ratings. The idiots are so far left that they could fuck up a wet dream. I think a lot of people are going to realize that you CAN do worse than what we had in office before this last election.

[Shaithis]

I have been trying to find the actual bill but can't. Could you please post it?


They had the proposed copy on www.gpoaccess.gov . But i can't find it now. They could be updating the site now that it passed the house. I'll keep checking to see if it pops back up. It shouldn't be too long.

[usmcluke]

They had the proposed copy on www.gpoaccess.gov . But i can't find it now. They could be updating the site now that it passed the house. I'll keep checking to see if it pops back up. It shouldn't be too long.
Thanks...I thought I had lost my google magic. :(

[Paladin]

At least it won't get past the Senate. Or the president.

They'll use it to demonize Bush though, just watch.

On a different note, the Democrats are hell bent on doing everything they can to not get a Democrat president in office. To be honest I find it all very amusing. But it is what I have been saying along, they don't stand a chance even with a president that has terrible approval ratings. The idiots are so far left that they could fuck up a wet dream. I think a lot of people are going to realize that you CAN do worse than what we had in office before this last election.


I have said it many times, the Democrats are so far left that guys like MM2000 who claim to be in the center are still extreme in their liberal beliefs. Howard Dean, Kerry, Murtha, and all of the other extreme haters have insured that.

[ruffdaddy]

Lol, Denny is a bit angry today :p

and just a tad dumb. Maybe he should go over there and help them kill more civilians, women, and children! That way we can really show them whats up!

[01WhiteCobra]

Taxes aren't rediculous. It's the people managing the money we collect.

Both are rediculous.

[Casper]

Both are rediculous.

I have to agree.

Fucking uncle sugar and his pound of flesh...

[Paladin]

and just a tad dumb. Maybe he should go over there and help them kill more civilians, women, and children! That way we can really show them whats up!

Are you accusing the military of killing innocent women and children on purpose? Watch what you say Jane Fonda.

[Denny]

and just a tad dumb. Maybe he should go over there and help them kill more civilians, women, and children! That way we can really show them whats up!
Maybe I'm too busy raping your mom's ass. I figured it wouldn't bother you too much. By the way you post on here, you're used to people walking all over you while supporting them even more.

[usmcluke]

and just a tad dumb. Maybe he should go over there and help them kill more civilians, women, and children! That way we can really show them whats up!
If you feel we are on the wrong side of the war I encourage you to join the "correct" side, see ya over there.

[Denny]

Are you accusing the military of killing innocent women and children on purpose? Watch what you say Jane Fonda.
This fudgepacker just blushed when you compared him to his leader.

[shrp88lx's]

and just a tad dumb. Maybe he should go over there and help them kill more civilians, women, and children! That way we can really show them whats up!
:rolleyes:

[Denny]

If you feel we are on the wrong side of the war I encourage you to join the "correct" side, see ya over there.
The faggot wouldn't have the balls to join any side. He'll just comsume his coke and popcorn while wearing out his pom-poms in front of his TV with CNN blaring through the air. Fucking armchair war commentators.

[shrp88lx's]

If you feel we are on the wrong side of the war I encourage you to join the "correct" side, see ya over there.
he doesnt have the balls.

[Vertnut]

That bullshit bill has more pork in it, than Barney Franks ass. The entire middle-east will lose faith in this country, and our ability to back up what we say. Our biggest problem, is that we didn't obliterate Iraq on the first day this turd-hunt started. We have become WEAK. This is the perfect time for some Jihadist to detonate a suitcase nuke on the eastern seaboard, to make a point. We won't do shit about it until they're over here, kicking down our doors. Problem is, at that point, it's too late.

[usmcluke]

Can someone tell me what 24 million for Spinach farmers has to do with war in Iraq? Like said before Pork FTL!

[Trip McNeely]

We should start raising millions of pigs over there. Breed them like wildfire and let them run loose.

[Walsted]

Our nation wont fail when we pull out of this war. It's pointless to continue funding a war that cannot be won and should not be taking place.

I disagree. Iraq was a threat to the stability of the region. They were contributing funding to Libya's nuclear research and training terrorists (as evidenced by the aircraft at Salmon Pak); thus, they were definintely a threat to worldwide security.

Personally, I would much rather have our military fighting the battles there than the terrorists bringing them here. I think the war will be won if we let the generals in the field run it. If we don't win it, Iran will gain significant influence in the region, gas prices will climb, our economy will start to crash, and we will get to relive Carter's economy. No thanks.

You guys act like America needs war to survive. And I do agree that a civil war needs to take place just because the government has gotten out of control, and taxes are rediculous.

How would a civil war reduce taxes? We have a constitution that allows for change, and elections that allow for change. If people would become educated and vote for those who will first work for the country, then taxes wouldn't be wasted. The man-hours spent working on this bill knowing that it will be vetoed were a great waste of taxes, and if you think tax rates are ridiculous, you should vote out those who pushed it to a vote.

The US doesn't need war to survive. We need this war to end on OUR terms for our own future security. A pull-out planned before the mission is complete will not accomplish that.

Or, others may disagree, and I welcome intelligent responses.

[Walsted]

...Maybe he should go over there and help them kill more civilians, women, and children! That way we can really show them whats up!

You do know that the insurgents are the ones killing the innocent civilians, women and children, right?

[Mustangman_2000]

The Liberals will be the source of the end of the free world as we know it. Our biggest enemy is ourselves. Call me crazy, but a civil war MIGHT just be what this country needs.

ah...pro-conservative radicalism at it's finest.

you're a radical and i can't believe i even abase myself to debate with you.

wow....

[Stang Seller]

I mean, really... what the fuck are they wanting out of getting our troops back? Do they not know what the repercussions will be? Do they want our nation to fail? WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?!?!

MM2000, black01gt, Stang Seller, etc. please enlighten me!

I didnt bother to read all the way down, only about 3/4s of the way. It seems all you boys have the same mindset with all of this, so I guess this is a generalized reply.

Think about it this way, you guys have said many times over that your troops are over there and are unable to fully engage the "enemy" which hinders their efforts. American soldiers die every day, the death toll is mounting higher and higher. Iraqi deaths are worse now than during Saddam's rule. You know you're fighting a pointless war, Iraqis and all Middle Eastern people don't want you there and you know it. You always say how the Middle East is fucked up and let themselves blow themselves up and whatnot.

Don't you think it would be better to bring troops home, to their wives/husbands and children? Avert more dead American soldiers, save innocent Iraqi lives and try to spend the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars at home! I believe this will allow Americans to fix the numerous problems at home, spending money to educate and hopefully the next generation isn't as impoverished and undereducated. I hope that Americans can save themselves, get rid of the crack and methamphetamine that is killing so many Americans. Close your borders to illegal immigrants, or at least secure them somewhat to reduce the number of illegals. Protect individual Americans rights, like the ideals the nation was once founded upon.

Though the crazy muslims will have to be dealt with, I figure they'll do that on their own. There will most likely be a civil war in Iraq because nobody believes in the US backed government. Let them sort it out for themselves, Saddam is dead and gone and I'm sure they'll realize sooner than later (I hope) that they need to calm down and behave like humans to fix their country.

Someone said that if you pull out that "they'll undo what we accomplished". What has been accomplished in Iraq besides Saddam being removed?? Nothing but death. Osama is still hiding somewhere. Iran is still funding Hezbollah. Iran is about to become a nuclear power. Americans are dead, and at odds with one another. What good has been accomplished that can be undone?
Enlighten me.
SS

[Mustangman_2000]

I mean, really... what the fuck are they wanting out of getting our troops back? Do they not know what the repercussions will be? Do they want our nation to fail? WHAT THE FUCK IS IT?!?!

MM2000, black01gt, Stang Seller, etc. please enlighten me!

being absolutely serious........turn your computer off, grab a beer, and watch some comedy central or grab the dog and take a walk around the block.

you seem to be injecting anger into this topic that might not necessarily have anything to do with dfwstangs or politics.

bang the hell out of the wife or girlfriend or boyfriend :p , then take a breather and come back.

[Walsted]

...Though the crazy muslims will have to be dealt with, I figure they'll do that on their own. There will most likely be a civil war in Iraq because nobody believes in the US backed government. Let them sort it out for themselves, Saddam is dead and gone and I'm sure they'll realize sooner than later (I hope) that they need to calm down and behave like humans to fix their country...

Unfortunately, it looks like other countries (such as Iran and Syria,) are the ones behind the insurgency, and would likely be the ones in control if we left. Not good for us, oil stability, the world economy, etc., from what I figure.

[Stang Seller]

Unfortunately, it looks like other countries (such as Iran and Syria,) are the ones behind the insurgency, and would likely be the ones in control if we left. Not good for us, oil stability, the world economy, etc., from what I figure.

Thats a point well made. Iran is definitely going to try to get in there and either cause some shit or to try to invade and take over part of Iraq. Whether this happens or not, is obviously debatable. Syria is not much of a threat as Iran. And I hesitate to say that Iran is 50% responsible for the insurgency. I believe most of that is caused by angry Iraqis themselves.
And no, if Iran were to expand its power base it would not be good for the US. It will definitely benefit China and Russia however. I strongly believe that once the US pulls out and Iran starts to capitalize on the power vacuum, it will trigger a war with Israel and there will be some serious shit brewed up for the US due to all the weapons that have been supplied to Israel. It's a messy situation, but pulling out will definitely help the Americans at home.
SS

[Mustangman_2000]

most polls from varying news sources show over 70% of americans express broad dissatisfaction with the war in iraq and support a troop withdrawal.

i'm sure there will be negative consequences of a premature troop withdrawal, but the reality of the political situation is complex.

if you want to keep your job you have to appeal to the voting majority. it may be wrong or it may be right, but that's how the political process works.

everyone likes to demonize the democrats, but they are responding to the voting majority.

some people on here need to take a political science class and learn that you have to appeal to the voters to get re-elected and the business of politics is not chaste.

[Walsted]

most polls from varying news sources show over 70% of americans express broad dissatisfaction with the war in iraq and support a troop withdrawal.

i'm sure there will be negative consequences of a premature troop withdrawal, but the reality of the political situation is complex.

if you want to keep your job you have to appeal to the voting majority. it may be wrong or it may be right, but that's how the political process works.

everyone likes to demonize the democrats, but they are responding to the voting majority.

some people on here need to take a political science class and learn that you have to appeal to the voters to get re-elected and the business of politics is not chaste.

I believe that one of the problems is that the action in Iraq is being reported with a slant, and I believe that was part of the plan of the Democratic leadership and/or liberal press. Since the focus of many politicians in front of the press is "our sons and daughters are getting needlessly killed" instead of "men and women of the all-volunteer armed forces are doing an important job, and unfortunately, some are killed", some people will support the pull-out due to emotional thought rather than rational thought. Others think that so many "cool" people (musicians, actors, etc) are Democrats, they must follow the Democratic party line so that they, too, can be cool. (Met a few of those. Try to have an intelligent discussion with one of them. It is nearly impossible.)

Many (not all,) anti-Iraq presence folks that I have talked to (including some who are very vocal) haven't looked one second past a forced pull-out. When I ask what they expect oil prices and the economy to do if we pull-out before mission completion, I get the deer-in-the-headlights look, or a "what does that have to do with anything" response. When I ask about the likely increase in fundamentalist islamic terrorism if we abandon the Middle East, I usually get a response about not having found bin Laden in Iraq, anyway, like he is the only islamic terrorist. Few folks are aware of the Iraq-Libya uranium connection, or the terrorist training facility at Salmon Pak, and many will tell me that Saddam had no bad intentions. I don't know where they get their news, but it is obvious that the anti-Bush forces are doing a better job at spreading their point of view than the pro-Bush forces. Consequently, the polls will favor the anti-Bush forces

Also, as many people don't know much about foreign affairs and questions are often skewed, it isn't likely that a poll result will have the best answer on how to run a country. For example, if a poll asked if we should leave early, assuming that a $1/gal gas price increase would result, or the likelihood of domestic terrorism would increase, the results would be different than if it were asked assuming that fewer of America's sons and daughters would be killed abroad.

So, my point is, although the Democrats are responding to the desires of the voting majority, they were prettty much able to do this because they were better at manipulating the mindless masses than the other group, thereby defining the majority. They were able to define the issues in terms favorable to themselves, and took advantage of it. Previously, the Republicans defined the issues in terms of security, and were able to take advantage of it. If I were a Republican strategist, I would start defining the issue in such a way that people saw a connection between Middle East stability and the world economy. I would show a correlation between price increases on the oil market and Democrat moves to leave Iraq. That way, if the Dems force a pull out and the world economy starts to tank due to speculation in the oil market, the idea is in everones' minds and the Dems wouldn't be able to win an election against a Republican Mr. Ed. This assumes that the "no-blood-for-oil mantra" doesn't convince the masses that a price increase represents saved lives - that ad line could be used by big oil and the Dems to quiet complaints about higher prices in the event of a pull out.

Or I could be wrong. And/or way too long-winded

[Stang Seller]

So, my point is, although the Democrats are responding to the desires of the voting majority, they were prettty much able to do this because they were better at manipulating the mindless masses than the other group, thereby defining the majority. They were able to define the issues in terms favorable to themselves, and took advantage of it. Previously, the Republicans defined the issues in terms of security, and were able to take advantage of it. If I were a Republican strategist, I would start defining the issue in such a way that people saw a connection between Middle East stability and the world economy. I would show a correlation between price increases on the oil market and Democrat moves to leave Iraq. That way, if the Dems force a pull out and the world economy starts to tank due to speculation in the oil market, the idea is in everones' minds and the Dems wouldn't be able to win an election against a Republican Mr. Ed. This assumes that the "no-blood-for-oil mantra" doesn't convince the masses that a price increase represents saved lives - that ad line could be used by big oil and the Dems to quiet complaints about higher prices in the event of a pull out.

Or I could be wrong. And/or way too long-winded

Well, it certainly seems that you understand how Democratic politics work. The fact of the matter is, and you pointed it out yourself, is that the government has steered the public into these decisions. It's a mind game, give someone an idea and make them believe that it was their idea to begin with!
What you're advocating is basically what the Bush administration did post 9/11 and Afghanistan. Play on people's fears, skewer the facts and highlight *possible* problems that may arise to sway the popular vote in your favour. This is how the game is played, and people have seen it and are more aware of it. Though most are still sheep who cannot see beyond party affiliation, there are many who are looking to alternate methods for getting the information they need to make an educated and less biased opinion. And those numbers are growing steadily with access to the internet.
The reporting is definitely done on a slant, but it has been in favour of the Republicans for the most part of the war. Now, some of the smarter media outlets are beginning to portray things in a light that they believe will appeal to the coming majority.... which many are betting will be a Democratic administration. This is right in line with what you were saying above.
SS

[Mustangman_2000]

Many (not all,) anti-Iraq presence folks that I have talked to (including some who are very vocal) haven't looked one second past a forced pull-out. When I ask what they expect oil prices and the economy to do if we pull-out before mission completion, I get the deer-in-the-headlights look, or a "what does that have to do with anything" response. When I ask about the likely increase in fundamentalist islamic terrorism if we abandon the Middle East, I usually get a response about not having found bin Laden in Iraq, anyway, like he is the only islamic terrorist. Few folks are aware of the Iraq-Libya uranium connection, or the terrorist training facility at Salmon Pak, and many will tell me that Saddam had no bad intentions. I don't know where they get their news, but it is obvious that the anti-Bush forces are doing a better job at spreading their point of view than the pro-Bush forces. Consequently, the polls will favor the anti-Bush forces



you have some good points.

however, i have a retort to your statement regarding the pullout increasing islamic terrorism.

most, if not all the religious extremist in the arab world see the u.s. occupation as a war on islam. in fact, some will argue that this only serves to embolden fundamentalist and their terror campaign.

i think that particular situation is a catch 22 with no viable solution. i think the u.s. occupation breeds terrorist and martyrdom. however, i also agree that u.s. military withdrawal will destabilize the region.

this particular issue is not black and white. it is all shades of gray.

[Walsted]

I disagree on a few points...

.. The fact of the matter is, and you pointed it out yourself, is that the government has steered the public into these decisions. It's a mind game, give someone an idea and make them believe that it was their idea to begin with!
So, my point is, although the Democrats are responding to the desires of the voting majority, they were prettty much able to do this because they were better at manipulating the mindless masses than the other group, thereby defining the majority.
I did not say that the government has steered the public into these decisions, I believe I said it is the political parties that do this, as quoted above. Sort of a cart and horse thing in this particular case. The Democrats took control of Congress by manipulating the public, and continued to do so. I'm not saying the rest of the government doesn't do this on its own, however, just that the Democrats were more sucessful than the Republicans in the most recent elections.

... Though most are still sheep who cannot see beyond party affiliation, there are many who are looking to alternate methods for getting the information they need to make an educated and less biased opinion. ..
I think your focus is too narrow when you refer just to party affiliation. I know of people who won't vote against their friends' opinions, the general opinion of their place of worship, etc. The problem isn't so much the groups as such, the problem is with any and all sheep who will follow whatever seems to be popular, regardless of actual truth. Their ability to be manipulated by presentation vice content is what makes dishonest politics so sucessful.

...The reporting is definitely done on a slant, but it has been in favour of the Republicans for the most part of the war...
Surely you jest, or are speaking about an early part of the war. I have spoke with quite a few folks that have been in the big sandbox, and most of them have been disgusted with the way the major networks' news portrays the situation. From what I can tell, most of the major news outlets paint a hopeless picture, which favors those Democrats who tout the hopelessness of the Iraq situation, while the word I get from people who were actually working there is that they are making significant progress and believe they are doing a worthwhile job, which would show that the current Administration is following the correct path, and thus favor those Republicans who support the current Administration's path. The situation there is not all rosy, but it is nowhere near as bad as Pelosi and company (including the major network news outlets) portray.

[1985GT]

i am drunk and didnt read this whole thing.. f you... but i wish that democrat didnt = dumbass. it sure would be nice to have two sides that werent both fucking stupid.

[Stang Seller]

I disagree on a few points...



I did not say that the government has steered the public into these decisions, I believe I said it is the political parties that do this, as quoted above. Sort of a cart and horse thing in this particular case. The Democrats took control of Congress by manipulating the public, and continued to do so. I'm not saying the rest of the government doesn't do this on its own, however, just that the Democrats were more sucessful than the Republicans in the most recent elections.

My apologies, you did say that.

I think your focus is too narrow when you refer just to party affiliation. I know of people who won't vote against their friends' opinions, the general opinion of their place of worship, etc. The problem isn't so much the groups as such, the problem is with any and all sheep who will follow whatever seems to be popular, regardless of actual truth. Their ability to be manipulated by presentation vice content is what makes dishonest politics so sucessful.
I understand your point, but I did not mean to paint all in that specific shade. There are those, and they seem to be of a high concentration on this board, that only see things in regard to their political affiliation being positive. Many of these people will look you straight in the eye and tell you that a good idea is actually a bad one because their party opposes it. Some actually have the brains to say what is a good idea but those are few and far between, and those don't qualify as the sheep I refer to.

Surely you jest, or are speaking about an early part of the war. I have spoke with quite a few folks that have been in the big sandbox, and most of them have been disgusted with the way the major networks' news portrays the situation. From what I can tell, most of the major news outlets paint a hopeless picture, which favors those Democrats who tout the hopelessness of the Iraq situation, while the word I get from people who were actually working there is that they are making significant progress and believe they are doing a worthwhile job, which would show that the current Administration is following the correct path, and thus favor those Republicans who support the current Administration's path. The situation there is not all rosy, but it is nowhere near as bad as Pelosi and company (including the major network news outlets) portray.
I cannot say from my experience because I do not know anyone fighting there, the information I get is second hand as I have Iraqi friends with family there and I get their perspective. They don't seem to believe that there is any such progress, because their people and family are dying plainly because of US occupation. If there was no US occupation, they strongly believe the violence and killing of innocents would be drastically reduced and even quelled in most parts. From my vantage point in Canada, what I see on American news networks and Canadian news networks differs greatly. The Canadian news networks, with a couple of exceptions, give a less biased viewpoint of the war and its effects on the Iraqi people. These views seem to be more in line with what I hear from my Iraqi counterparts.
Also, FWIW..... my cousins in Iran get very upset if I ever ask "so, how are things there????" because they know we get a distorted image of life in the Middle East. Most of my family is not happy with the Islamic Regime, but they live their lives and their lives are not as bad as we are led to believe. Just something to think about.
SS

[Walsted]

you have some good points.

however, i have a retort to your statement regarding the pullout increasing islamic terrorism.

most, if not all the religious extremist in the arab world see the u.s. occupation as a war on islam. in fact, some will argue that this only serves to embolden fundamentalist and their terror campaign.

i think that particular situation is a catch 22 with no viable solution. i think the u.s. occupation breeds terrorist and martyrdom. however, i also agree that u.s. military withdrawal will destabilize the region.

this particular issue is not black and white. it is all shades of gray.
I agree that it is a catch-22. I don't believe all Islamic extremists who support terrorism will stop hating us if we leave Iraq, so they will still have desires to harm us. Those terrorist-extremists that are state-funded would likely still be paid to hate us to accomplish the goals of their state. Thus, I believe that even if we were to remove all US military from Southwest Asia, at least some terrorist-extremists would still wish us harm due to their desire for a paycheck, our support of Israel, and who knows what else. My line of thinking is that a lot of the terrorist capital (money, manpower, goodwill) is being used in Iraq, which reduces the amount available to be used elsewhere, and if we leave, much of that capital then becomes available for use elsewhere. If we can clean up Iraq and leave with a complete mission, that should harm the recruiting of the terrorist-extremists, as Iraq would be neither an undesireable place to be nor under US influence. The lack of recruits would hurt the terrorists ability to hurt us. Others may disagree, and I appreciate intelligent disagreement and discussion.

[Walsted]

...
I cannot say from my experience because I do not know anyone fighting there, the information I get is second hand as I have Iraqi friends with family there and I get their perspective. They don't seem to believe that there is any such progress, because their people and family are dying plainly because of US occupation. If there was no US occupation, they strongly believe the violence and killing of innocents would be drastically reduced and even quelled in most parts.

But are US soldiers doing the killing or preventing life-essential services? If not, how can it be directly attributed to US occupation? If the US was to leave, (assuming that US soldiers aren't directly responsible for the deaths,) why would the violence stop? Isn't much of the violence directed toward the new government, and if so, wouldn't the country then deteriorate into either anarchy or a replay of the cruelty of the Saddam dictatorship if the US left early?

[Stang Seller]

But are US soldiers doing the killing or preventing life-essential services? If not, how can it be directly attributed to US occupation? If the US was to leave, (assuming that US soldiers aren't directly responsible for the deaths,) why would the violence stop? Isn't much of the violence directed toward the new government, and if so, wouldn't the country then deteriorate into either anarchy or a replay of the cruelty of the Saddam dictatorship if the US left early?
US soldiers are NOT directly responsible for the deaths. Their presence brings the extremists with bombs strapped to their chests, and they take out as many American soldiers as possible and wind up taking out a whole lot more Iraqi's than Americans. In the beginning of the war though, most innocent casualties were done by American soldiers.
They violence wouldn't stop, it would deteriorate greatly and would eventually stop once the government issues are resolved from within. Remember, there was no such violence during Saddams time.... no crazy Muslims with bombs. We cannot determine how that will play out, no amount of guessing or educated reasoning can draw any sort of conclusion as there are many different ways with which it could play out. I do not believe any replay of Saddam is possible, the people had been oppressed for so long and now they have even less. You know what happens to a dog when you cage him, taunt him, and don't feed him right? They will fight back.
SS

[636ryder]

They violence wouldn't stop, it would deteriorate greatly and would eventually stop once the government issues are resolved from within. Remember, there was no such violence during Saddams time.... no crazy Muslims with bombs.

You are correct that the stuff going on over there now wasn't happening during saddam's reign. Then again im not sure you even know why that is. Luckily for you, im here to help. He killed anyone and everyone who posed a threat. Hell people who even talked against what he did were beaten and dragged in for questioning and in some cases(probably most) killed for their ideology. Im pretty sure if we started killing all felons, rapists, thieves, etc the rest w/ these tendencies would get the hint and stop that shit to save their life. Now take the death outta the equation and you can act whatever way you want and use what ever justification you want to do what it is your doing, then you have a totally different situation. Our country is a perfect example, we can use racism as a basis. Several racists sects have completely warped their religion to justify their hate/actions towards people of different skin color. Not because they have actually done something to them, but cause they look different. Now throw in hundreds of years of killing and hatred for motivation then obviously the results will be worse.

[Stang Seller]

You are correct that the stuff going on over there now wasn't happening during saddam's reign. Then again im not sure you even know why that is. Luckily for you, im here to help. He killed anyone and everyone who posed a threat. Hell people who even talked against what he did were beaten and dragged in for questioning and in some cases(probably most) killed for their ideology. Im pretty sure if we started killing all felons, rapists, thieves, etc the rest w/ these tendencies would get the hint and stop that shit to save their life. Now take the death outta the equation and you can act whatever way you want and use what ever justification you want to do what it is your doing, then you have a totally different situation. Our country is a perfect example, we can use racism as a basis. Several racists sects have completely warped their religion to justify their hate/actions towards people of different skin color. Not because they have actually done something to them, but cause they look different. Now throw in hundreds of years of killing and hatred for motivation then obviously the results will be worse.
You make a good point, and one that I am fully aware of. Just because I did not post what you wrote doesn't mean that I do not understand it or know about it. Don't forget, I come from the country where Saddam's regime (and the Islamic Republic is to blame as well) killed half a million of my countrymen. I just didn't find it necessary to point out the obvious, just that this kind of violence was available back then but not used. Thats all.
SS

[Fox466]

Very nice! Intelligent debate with a minimum of name calling. How refreshing... :)

[Casper]

It's not about Iran taking over the middle east militarily, sheesh.

It is about how North Korea blackmailed a US administration and legislature politically, and now Iran wants to see if they can play the same game. After all, they have fantastic precedent.

And while this is playing out, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are all waiting patiently with their own nuclear programs. All they need is a program to blackmail the West with.

[exlude]

US soldiers are NOT directly responsible for the deaths. Their presence brings the extremists with bombs strapped to their chests, and they take out as many American soldiers as possible and wind up taking out a whole lot more Iraqi's than Americans. In the beginning of the war though, most innocent casualties were done by American soldiers.
They violence wouldn't stop, it would deteriorate greatly and would eventually stop once the government issues are resolved from within. Remember, there was no such violence during Saddams time.... no crazy Muslims with bombs. We cannot determine how that will play out, no amount of guessing or educated reasoning can draw any sort of conclusion as there are many different ways with which it could play out. I do not believe any replay of Saddam is possible, the people had been oppressed for so long and now they have even less. You know what happens to a dog when you cage him, taunt him, and don't feed him right? They will fight back.
SS

Saddam just committed genocide on whoever didn't agree with him, that's why we didn't have all the crazy Muslims with bombs. No RoE made it a lot easier for him to combat his enemies w/in his own country.