House Democrats have crafted a weasle plan to slowly choke off funding for the Iraq war through the "readiness" strategy. They plan to tack on regulations regarding funding for any new troops sent to Iraq to make it impossible for sufficient troops to be found and funded to continue the war.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Murtha's proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnestoa, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.

Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war, a direct challenge to conservative incumbents who are attempting to straddle the political line between their pro- and anti-war constituents.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html
It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.

It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.
What about the previous 3 years? Were they stopping you then?

Nickelodeon, yes with ever word they spoke, and every amendment and investigation they brought forward to destroy the present administration.

Such as?

What happened to all the "funding" given before?

Its not gone for armor for soldiers, nor for veterans and the situation in Iraq does not seem to have improved, so what were the advantages of the "funds" given?

Actually, SamCDKey, a lot of the money was given to soldier armour, repair of vehicles, soldier's pay, food, Iraqi food and care, medical expenses, munitions...

Basically, you know, the costs of war.

It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat.
Damn them Democrats for making sure the troops are supported! Republicans treat them like cannon fodder, sacrificing them for political reasons. There is no other way to end this war, (other than impeachment) which is why all those Democrats got elected, remember?

Damn them Democrats for making sure the troops are supported! Republicans treat them like cannon fodder, sacrificing them for political reasons. There is no other way to end this war, (other than impeachment) which is why all those Democrats got elected, remember?
Bull. The Democrats have no interest in supporting the troops. Quite the contrary. These "readiness" rules they want are designed solely to decrease the number of troops available to send to Iraq.

I do eye exams on soldiers almost every day, and they are pissed at the Democrats. They understand who really supports them and who is sticking a knife in their backs.

spidergoat, no that isn't why they got elected, they got elected to do the peoples business, and if they don't get going and do the peoples business thing will change with the next election, the job of the government first is to protect the people, and I don't see anything that the democrats are doing to do so, I am now waiting for the next big boom, or maybe the hiss of escaping biological?

Bull. The Democrats have no interest in supporting the troops. Quite the contrary. These "readiness" rules they want are designed solely to decrease the number of troops available to send to Iraq.

I do eye exams on soldiers almost every day, and they are pissed at the Democrats. They understand who really supports them and who is sticking a knife in their backs.The knife is going into the backs of the American people and the Iraqi people. Bush's mafia put those troops in this situation, knifing them in the back, by sending them in under equipped and on phony intelligence. Until you chickenhawks figure out a way to pay for your wars don't dare condemn those that demand accountability for the first trillion dollars shit down the drain. Cut The Funding and use the money in America, on American soil. You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.

House Democrats have crafted a weasle plan to slowly choke off funding for the Iraq war through the "readiness" strategy. They plan to tack on regulations regarding funding for any new troops sent to Iraq to make it impossible for sufficient troops to be found and funded to continue the war.

It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.Ha! Too bad for you. The American people wanted the Dems to gain control over your party's failed strategies in the Bush wars. It was all in your party's hands, since 2000! And STILL you failed. The People wanted change, you'll need to shed your disdain for democracy. Your support for King George is revealing indeed.

spidergoat, no that isn't why they got elected, they got elected to do the peoples business, and if they don't get going and do the peoples business thing will change with the next election, the job of the government first is to protect the people, and I don't see anything that the democrats are doing to do so, I am now waiting for the next big boom, or maybe the hiss of escaping biological?

The people business, which in this case means ending our involvement in Iraq's civil war, providing oversight on Bush's fascistic power grabs and war profiteering, AND dealing with domestic issues.

Who anthraxed senate Democrats? I would like to know.

It was all in your party's hands, since 2000! And STILL you failed.


I was under the impression that the war happened AFTER the year 2000?

You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.
Trust me on this one, I pay plenty in taxes. And I have to pay quarterly, which means I have to write checks to the government rather than have it taken out before I ever see it.

The knife is going into the backs of the American people and the Iraqi people. Bush's mafia put those troops in this situation, knifing them in the back, by sending them in under equipped and on phony intelligence. Until you chickenhawks figure out a way to pay for your wars don't dare condemn those that demand accountability for the first trillion dollars shit down the drain. Cut The Funding and use the money in America, on American soil. You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.



Oh no no. The Knife is most certainly going into the tax payers backs but the wielder stabs to the left. The bills calling for kind treatment of noted terrorists halts the stream of information that could have been vital in the war. Left wing media blasts our troops nightly and then their asses lay down to sleep, being kept safe by the very fucking people they rip to shreds every night.

My cousin just got back from his second tour in Afghanistan and, as anthonywayne said, troops hate democrats for doing everything possible to halt any progress.

I now agree that Iraq has now become Vietnam all over again, the democrats cutting funds for the troops, and wanting to pull out, afraid of their own shadow, they promised in Vietnam that the killing would stop if only we pulled out of Vietnam, but did it? ask 3,000,000 Cambodian, 1,670,00 Vietnamese, 107,000 Lao/ Humong, the killing didn't stop because we left, and the same thing is going to happen if the democrats force a pull out in Iraq.

My cousin just got back from his second tour in Afghanistan and, as anthonywayne said, troops hate democrats for doing everything possible to halt any progress.
Exactly. Democrats aren't fooling anyone with this crap and it will come back to bite them on the ass. One way or the other.

Check out this video of an American hero pleading his case before back stabbing Democrats in Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCXt6MD0qyA&eurl=

Damn them Democrats for making sure the troops are supported! Republicans treat them like cannon fodder, sacrificing them for political reasons. There is no other way to end this war, (other than impeachment) which is why all those Democrats got elected, remember?
Damn them Democrats who can't support the troops because so very few Democrats are actually in the trenches beside, and watching the back of, their mostly Republican fellow combat troops.

Democrats' "Support" sounds an awful lot like Democrats' "is" to the troops --as substantial as wet toilet paper.

The knife is going into the backs of the American people and the Iraqi people. Bush's mafia put those troops in this situation, knifing them in the back, by sending them in under equipped and on phony intelligence. Until you chickenhawks figure out a way to pay for your wars don't dare condemn those that demand accountability for the first trillion dollars shit down the drain. Cut The Funding and use the money in America, on American soil. You guys lusting for more money for more time in the civil war should pay triple in taxes to pay for your disaster.
I dare you to walk into a bar near any U.S. Army or Marine base and say the same things to the "troops".

Go ahead, chickenschmuck. Support your troops.

The people business, which in this case means ending our involvement in Iraq's civil war, providing oversight on Bush's fascistic power grabs and war profiteering, AND dealing with domestic issues.
You folks are less than half the people, or don't you know?
Who anthraxed senate Democrats? I would like to know.
Of course: The secret cabal behind global warming. Now you know.

I now agree that Iraq has now become Vietnam all over again,

Come on Buffy,Vietnam has/had no oil...

but did it? ask 3,000,000 Cambodian, 1,670,00 Vietnamese, 107,000 Lao/ Humong, the killing didn't stop because we left,

Had we stayed, more US soldiers would have died. But I am with you, let's attack North Korea, I am right BEHIND you!!!!!

P.S.: Since when do we care about Cambodia? Last time I checked we were illegally bombing them....

ask 3,000,000 Cambodian, 1,670,00 Vietnamese, 107,000 Lao/ Humong, the killing didn't stop because we left, and the same thing is going to happen if the democrats force a pull out in Iraq.

Funny how the left claims to be for 'peace' and against the deaths of civilians (how many lefties here cry about the civilian deaths of Iraqis?) yet as long as its not Americans dying they really dont care (Case in point Cambodia and Rwanda where democrats in power did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of civilians).


P.S.: Since when do we care about Cambodia? Last time I checked we were illegally bombing them....

Actually we were 'illegally' bombing the North Vietnamese who had 'illegally' invaded Cambodia so that they could further support their 'illegal' invasion of the South (which of course was 'illegally' supported, funded, and supplied by the Chinese and Russians). Hey no worries though, we left, Pol Pot came to power, and 2,000,000+ Cambodians were systematically starved to death (but shame on us for bombing the North Vietnamese!).

how many lefties here cry about the civilian deaths of Iraqis?
What planet have you been on? Dont mistake your own indifference for others.

Funny how the left claims to be for 'peace' and against the deaths of civilians (how many lefties here cry about the civilian deaths of Iraqis?) yet as long as its not Americans dying they really dont care (Case in point Cambodia and Rwanda where democrats in power did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of civilians).



Actually we were 'illegally' bombing the North Vietnamese who had 'illegally' invaded Cambodia so that they could further support their 'illegal' invasion of the South (which of course was 'illegally' supported, funded, and supplied by the Chinese and Russians). Hey no worries though, we left, Pol Pot came to power, and 2,000,000+ Cambodians were systematically starved to death (but shame on us for bombing the North Vietnamese!).


US backed Lon Nol regime 1970-75.


Lon Nol officially invited the United States to extend the Vietnam War into Cambodia. In its campaign to wreck the Ho Chi Minh supply trail from North to South Vietnam, which ran through Cambodia, the U.S. Air Force dropped 539,129 tons of bombs on Cambodia in 1969-73 (more than all of the bombs dropped on Japan in World War II), killing about 700,000 people, according to the CIA, and driving half of the rural population into the cities as refugees.

The bombing and flood of refugees led to the collapse of the agricultural system and induced a famine in which hundreds of thousands died from starvation. In fact, many of the deaths after 1975 that are attributed to the Khmer Rouge were actually caused by starvation from the famine induced by U.S. bombing before 1975. As the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975, a U.S. Agency for International Development report estimated that it would likely take two to three years until Cambodia would regain its rice self-sufficiency.

Also not widely understood is that, according to CIA documents declassified in 1987, the U.S. bombing served to radicalize the population against the Lon Nol regime and helped the Khmer Rouge to move from being a politically weak and isolated movement in 1970 to having enough support to overthrow Lon Nol by 1975.

Despite the horrific record of the Khmer Rouge regime, this did not later prevent the Reagan Administration's policy "tilt" in favor of supporting the Khmer Rouge, once they were again rebels in the countryside, this time fighting to oust the Vietnam-backed Hun Sen government in Phnom Penh.

According to the "tilt" policy in Cold War logic, because the Khmer Rouge were fighting against the Vietnamese, and by association, the Soviets, it was acceptable for the United States to support them throughout the 1980s.

US backed Lon Nol regime 1970-75.

You seem very like most radical Muslims, Sam .....you hold the descendants of people that you consider responsible for past historical errors or mistakes. Forgiveness is not in the Muslim belief, is it? Vengence is mine, sayeth Samcdkey!

Baron Max

In this case history shows a structural consistency in foreign policy. Do I need to explain what that means?

You seem very like most radical Muslims, Sam .....you hold the descendants of people that you consider responsible for past historical errors or mistakes. Forgiveness is not in the Muslim belief, is it? Vengence is mine, sayeth Samcdkey!

Baron Max

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

"Vengence is mine, sayeth Samcdkey!" And, of course, the same for most radical Muslims in the world.

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey

In this case history shows a structural consistency in foreign policy. Do I need to explain what that means?


Yes.

Baron Max, you know Baron, I don't think that I have met a Moslem that can't rant in detail all the supposed wrong done to them and their religion from day one, and how they need to get even with the people who have done them wrong, even when the people in question were only defending themselves from Islamic aggression, and weren't even alive at the time that the supposed offence took place.

Yes.

It means that attrocities, immoral acts, undemocratic behaviour or whatever you want to label it, due to the foreign policy of the USA is not caused by a few incidents. It is the foundation of US Foreign policy.

You want me to explain what that means?

It means that attrocities, immoral acts, undemocratic behaviour or whatever you want to label it, due to the foreign policy of the USA is not caused by a few incidents. It is the foundation of US Foreign policy.

You want me to explain what that means?

Yes, I would like you to explain. And please don't include things that PRIVATE COMPANIES and PRIVATE CORPORATIONS might have done.

I'd also like to see an outline of the actual "policy" of which you speak ...ie., the laws or rules or whatever that's been approved by congress. I continually see the term "US foreign policy", yet I know of no such policy. Would you be so kind as to provide that particular document(s)?

Baron Max

It means that the US is evil.

spuriousmonkey, and please not your opinion, Facts Only.

It means that the US is evil.

Interesting, the Baron wants my opinions and BR wants your facts.

It means that the US is evil.

All of the US? Or just part of it? Or all the people of the US? Or just some of the people? OR just the elected government? Or all US politicians? Or just the republicans?

When you say, "The US is evil", what exactly do you mean? Does that include your hero Osama Baraka??

Baron Max

samcdkey, no I think the Baron like me has ask for fact with your opinion.

Hey no worries though, we left, Pol Pot came to power, and 2,000,000+ Cambodians were systematically starved to death

Yes, we should have intervened in Cambodia. By the way, remind me, why we aren't going into North Korea, where the situation is pretty much the same???

You should stick to your crazy drinking, because logic isn't your strength. Let's say we stay. There are 2 possibilities:

1. Eventually we win, but obviously we would have lost way more soldiers, or if we try something funky, like nukes, then the Vietnamese casualties would have been the same, just the RIGHT people would have died.

2. We lose again, just later. Of course we lose more soldiers, and there is a possibility that 2 million Cambodians STILL die. So what did we win by staying longer? (beside warprofiters making more profits?)

You see, you simply can't argue by quoting those death numbers occuring after we left.

For extra credit: Why should just 1 American soldier die for another country's freedom???

As the Reps like to say: Freedom isn't free. They have to work for it themselves....

P.S.: That's why I am here to make a logical argument for Reps, because you guys couldn't even win an argument against yourself... :)

House Democrats have crafted a weasle plan to slowly choke off funding for the Iraq war through the "readiness" strategy. They plan to tack on regulations regarding funding for any new troops sent to Iraq to make it impossible for sufficient troops to be found and funded to continue the war.

It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.


YES!!!!! Finally they're doing a good job.

I can accept our 2nd defeat in American history.

Why should just 1 American soldier die for another country's freedom???

Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. We can not run away from that fight. We are not only fighting for them, we are fighting for ourselves. Sure, we can leave. Then the front line in the war on terror will move to New York City.

I prefer to fight them over there. I prefer that they fight our soldiers, not our women and children. You can close your eyes and try to wish this fight away, but it's not going away. If you libs get your way, we will pay one-hundred fold in blood what we'll pay if we stay.

Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. We can not run away from that fight. We are not only fighting for them, we are fighting for ourselves. Sure, we can leave. Then the front line in the war on terror will move to New York City.

I prefer to fight them over there. I prefer that they fight our soldiers, not our women and children. You can close your eyes and try to wish this fight away, but it's not going away. If you libs get your way, we will pay one-hundred fold in blood what we'll pay if we stay.

So even though the Americans started this war, Iraqis are fair game but Americans are not? Nice reasoning, especially with so many Iraqis made refugees and 30% in extreme poverty with nowhere left to go.

Do you think the relatives of the victims are going to forget? Or forgive? Would you?

So even though the Americans started this war, Iraqis are fair game but Americans are not? Nice reasoning, especially with so many Iraqis made refugees and 30% in extreme poverty with nowhere left to go.

Do you think the relatives of the victims are going to forget? Or forgive? Would you?
You think they'd be better off if we left? No way. The whole fuckin' middle east would decend into chaos far worse than anything seen so far.

By the way, Sadam Hussain started the war by invading Kuwait and then violating the cease fire agreement.

You think they'd be better off if we left? No way. The whole fuckin' middle east would decend into chaos far worse than anything seen so far.

By the way, Sadam Hussain started the war by invading Kuwait and then violating the cease fire agreement.

I think the US ignores and vetos more UN resolutions than anyone else. When was the last time UN inspectors examined US nuclear arsenal? Seeing as they have the most and are the only nation to have used it? And they've invaded (http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html)more countries and killed more people than any other country post WWII.

And it does not matter if you stay there for 5 days, 5 years or 500 years. You cannot win this war. Its like we say in India, once the arrow leaves the bow, it is like a word that has left your tongue, neither can be brought back and the consequences must be borne. That is why its important to consider before, not after. Look at Palestine, Afghanistan, and now Iraq. The mess is only going to get worse the longer you stay there. You cannot resolve it now, no matter how much you wish you could.

I think this is a good point here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1301867&postcount=2

And it does not matter if you stay there for 5 days, 5 years or 500 years. You cannot win this war. You cannot resolve it now, no matter how much you wish you could.
I can not agree. No war is unwinable. And, as I said, this is not a war we can quit. If the terrorists can not engage us in Iraq, they will engage us in the US. We must stay there and keep killing them indefinately if necesary.

I can not agree. No war is unwinable. And, as I said, this is not a war we can quit. If the terrorists can not engage us in Iraq, they will engage us in the US. We must stay there and keep killing them indefinately if necesary.

Well every Rome has to eventually fall. This must be the American Waterloo.
You've already lost this war in every way that matters, whether you recognise it or not.

Well every Rome has to eventually fall. This must be the American Waterloo. You've already lost this war in every way that matters, whether you recognise it or not.
If a Democrat gets in in 08 or the Democrats in congress defund the war, we lose by default. Otherwise, we'll see.

Actually, we could easily secure Iraq: We just don't have the balls to do it.

And you know, there exists a Democratic party that wants to make sure America dies.

In other words: If you win, it's because of Bush. If you lose, its the Democrats' fault.

Sound like your just covering your ass.

Actually, we could easily secure Iraq: We just don't have the balls to do it.



How can you secure it? By killing everybody?

I can not agree. No war is unwinable. And, as I said, this is not a war we can quit. If the terrorists can not engage us in Iraq, they will engage us in the US. We must stay there and keep killing them indefinately if necesary.

What 'terrorists' are you talking about? The factions there are mainly interested in killing eachother and as far as I can tell only kill Americans because they understand the true purpose of their presence - to keep the American economy running at Iraqs' expense.

How can you secure it?

Roadblocks, checkpoints and strict curfew. Each time it's been used, it's cut the level of violence down to almost nothing. And yet, each time it works so well, they (the Iraqi government mainly) calls it off.

Right now, a similar strategy seems to be working. The soldiers, both USA and Iraqi, are patrolling the areas of the city like "beat cops" and that seems to be working well already, and that's without the added troop levels that's planned.

Spurious, just curious ....do you think that such violence couldn't be contained in, say, New York City? Do you think that there's something special about the criminal behavior in Iraq that nothing can be done to stop it?

Baron Max

Nickelodeon:

When they are purposefully trying to call us out of Iraq -and- making demoralizing nonsense...

spuriousmonkey:

Harsher policies, but certainly not "kill everybody".

Nickelodeon:

When they are purposefully trying to call us out of Iraq -and- making demoralizing nonsense...

Yep, sounds like you're trying to cover your ass either way.

Bottom line: Failure in Iraq is because it is an ill-conceived war. The Neocon dream that invading Iraq would lead to a pro US/Israel democracy is pure fantasy. As if the Iraqis themselves didnt have a say in things.

Yep, sounds like you're trying to cover your ass either way.

Not at all. We're saying the only way we can lose is if the Democrats don't let us win. If they cut funding for the war forcing a pull out or a Democrat president gets in and orders an immediate pull out, we lose.

Otherwise, we keep fighting until we win. Period. Every war has a point where it seems hopeless. You think Democrats weren't crying for Lincoln to end the civil war? In typical form, they were. They called him a dictator and all the same crap they're pulling on Bush. But he ignored the "peace Democrats" and kept up the fight until we won.

Not at all. We're saying the only way we can lose is if the Democrats don't let us win. If they cut funding for the war forcing a pull out or a Democrat president gets in and orders an immediate pull out, we lose.

Otherwise, we keep fighting until we win. Period. Every war has a point where it seems hopeless. You think Democrats weren't crying for Lincoln to end the civil war? In typical form, they were. They called him a dictator and all the same crap they're pulling on Bush. But he ignored the "peace Democrats" and kept up the fight until we won.

What do you win in Iraq exactly?

What do you win in Iraq exactly?

Peace for all Iraqis in which they can live and thrive and prosper in the world economy. In exactly the same way we did for Germany and Japan.

Baron Max

So, how does patrolling the streets of Baghdad led to peace? Isn't it true that sectarian forces can just wait us out forever? Aren't we only postponing the inevitable? How does patrolling the streets keep terrorists from attacking the US? Al Quida is now based in Pakistan, so it's not like they are bogged down in Iraq.

So, how does patrolling the streets of Baghdad led to peace? Isn't it true that sectarian forces can just wait us out forever?

Sure, but just a few minutes before "forever", the Iraqi government and the Iraqi police will step up to the plate and take over their own nation. Then they won't need the US Army anymore and we'll leave ....just like we did in Germany and Japan.

Aren't we only postponing the inevitable?

One could say that about almost any nation and almost any situation, huh? Since America is probably going to fall one day, then we should all just lie down and wait for it to happen? ...LOL!

How does patrolling the streets keep terrorists from attacking the US?

Huh? You can't figure that out? Think about it some, then get back to me.

Al Quida is now based in Pakistan, so it's not like they are bogged down in Iraq.

It's not just Al Queda that we're fighting in Iraq, it's also the various Muslim factions who are trying to seize power. In fact, from what I can tell, it's mainly those factions rather than Al Queda.

Once the Iraqis can government and police themselves, Al Queda will have little or no impact.

Baron Max

Remind me Bax, were Al Queda in Iraq BEFORE your moronic invasion?

Sure, but just a few minutes before "forever", the Iraqi government and the Iraqi police will step up to the plate and take over their own nation. Then they won't need the US Army anymore and we'll leave ....just like we did in Germany and Japan.
The Bush administration has been saying that for a long time. There are systematic problems with this idea, the most important being that every potential Iraq policeman has sectarian loyalties. Only half of them show up when called, and most are only in it for the money or the weapons.

Another important point is that the US cannot presently contain Iraq's civil war, how could the police?

One could say that about almost any nation and almost any situation, huh? Since America is probably going to fall one day, then we should all just lie down and wait for it to happen? ...LOL
Well, no. Most nations aren't in a civil war, with more than 2 factions well armed, angry and ambitious.

Huh? You can't figure that out? Think about it some, then get back to me.
No, I'm at a complete loss. It's not like any insurgent is busy defending territory, they hit and run. If they wanted to and were suitable for attacking the US, there is no reason a few could be sent right now. This fight them there or here is a brainless soundbite based on no factual information whatsoever.
In fact, from what I can tell, it's mainly those factions rather than Al Queda.
So you just contradicted yourself. If Al Quida doesn't have a massive presence in Iraq, there is no reason why they cannot conduct operations in the US. Since the 9.11 attacks only took 15 people, the argument that the war in Iraq is keeping us safe from terrorism is a lie.

House Democrat Plan: Slowly choke off funding for Iraq

Isn't this similar to what Republicans like to do? Slowly choke off funding for social programs?

It's funny how, on the subject of Iraq, the tables have turned. Now the Republicans seem to promote Big Government, and Democrats feel they are powerless to stop it through normal means, by voting on the issue itself. They feel they have to be sneaky about it and resort to cutting funding.

How does it feel to be on the same side the Democrats have been on for a while now? ;)

The Bush administration has been saying that for a long time.

Yeah, and the Roosevelt administration said the same things during World War II ....and look how well all that turned out. You and most people seem to think that with a few minutes of "war", without any US casualties, that all wars should be over and peace on Earth should reign.

There are systematic problems with this idea, the most important being that every potential Iraq policeman has sectarian loyalties. Only half of them show up when called, and most are only in it for the money or the weapons.

Sounds like what they said about the Irish cops in Boston in the early days. Practically every cop in Boston had Irish connections, and people bitched and complained and ranted and raved .....and yet through it all, they discovered that the greater majority of Irish cops were honest, hardworking and loyal to the city. Odd, huh, how the past comes back to us all the time?

Another important point is that the US cannot presently contain Iraq's civil war, how could the police?

Huh? By "contain" do you mean that no bombings would ever occur anywhere in the entire nation of Iraq???? Spider, the violence is being contained, and it's going to be more contained as more troops become available in the region.

The rest of your post is somewhat confusing and I didn't wish to go back over all of the thread to see what the fuck you were talking about. But somehow I get the idea that you think winning the war in Iraq means that never again, in all of the future, will any terrorist ever strike the US. Which, of course, is utter foolishness and not worthy of comment.

Baron Max

It's funny how, on the subject of Iraq, the tables have turned.

Yeah, but you seem to be forgetting that many/most of the democrats voted to go to war in Iraq in the first place!

Baron Max

Yeah, but you seem to be forgetting that many/most of the democrats voted to go to war in Iraq in the first place!

Hey, we agree again!

OK, I will explain the situation quickly, so this silly thread can be put to death:

There are 1.2 parties in the USA, the Republican party and the Republican Light party (aka Democratic Party). They pretty much do the same as Max mentioned above.
To make it seems there is an actual political fight going on, they have to make the illusion of disagreement. Thus you have these silly votes on non-binding resolutions and choking off of funds for the war.

The Dems know very well, that even if they would/could do that, Bush can juggle the military budget in a way that he still has money left for the surge, thus he is going to get what he wants. But the Dems could look like they actually did something, although they can be accused of messing with the fighting forces' money. And that just doesn't sound good.

At the end Bush will get his surge, the Dems looked like they actually/effectively opposed it and there was a political struggle.

The real struggle is that nobody has any idea how to fix the broken Iraq. It is not their fault, because sometimes you just can't fix what is broken...

Yeah, but you seem to be forgetting that many/most of the democrats voted to go to war in Iraq in the first place!

And the ones that have grown a brain since then realized it was a mistake, have openly admitted it, and are now committed to trying to do the right thing. Nice try, old man.

It's interesting to note that there are at least two Democrats I'm aware of that were against this war from the very start, or so I hear. These two are Al Gore and Barack Obama, if I hear correctly. Does someone have more reliable info?

Anyway, like I stated in my last post, most of the Democrats in Congress have had the veil removed from their eyes and seen the mistake they made, and while it's regrettable they supported Bush in the first place, we must realize that people can be easily blinded by fear and misled by a horrible leader. We must allow ourselves room for some level of forgiveness, and the forgiveness should go out to the ones who have admitted they were wrong and are now truly committed to making it right.

So no more saying "hurrr but day voeted 4 it durr", because nowadays it's pretty pathetic to cling to this largely inconsequential fact as if it changes anything. :cool:

One last thought (grrr, I keep remembering stuff): If you still have the insatiable urge to criticize some Democrat for supporting the war in the first place, direct this criticism at Hillary Clinton. She says she'll end the war if she's elected president, but at the same time says that her initial support was not a mistake. It's one of the reasons I fucking hope she's not chosen in the primaries.

For dreamers:

(on bipartisan empire building)

http://counterpunch.org/jensen02192007.html

"Illegal and immoral U.S. aggression is, and always has been, a bipartisan affair. Democrats and liberals are responsible for their share of the death, destruction, and misery caused by U.S. empire-building along with Republicans and conservatives. I mention the Wellstone incident not to suggest he and George W. Bush are equally culpable, but to make the point that even politicians with Wellstone's progressive politics can be twisted by the pathology of power and privilege.

Precisely because we face such crucial policy choices in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, we must remember that while W. and the neocons are a problem, they are not the problem. Sweep this particular gang of thugs and thieves out of office, and what? A kindler-and-gentler imperial policy designed by Democrats is still an imperial policy, and imperial policies always have the same result: The suffering of millions -- others that are too often invisible to us -- in support of policies that protect the affluence of us."

The real struggle is that nobody has any idea how to fix the broken Iraq. It is not their fault, because sometimes you just can't fix what is broken...

Maybe you should have thought about that before you broke iraq.

Maybe you should have thought about that before you broke iraq.

So you expect everyone to know the future before they act? If everyone did that, then nothing would ever get done, would it? Is that how you conduct your life, Spurious ...never do anything until you know for sure what's going to happen?

Interestingly, did we know for sure what was going to happen when we entered World War II? So ...according to your philosophy, we should not have gone to war against Germany and Japan?

Ahh, the best laid plans o' mice n' men, huh?

Baron Max

Maybe you should have thought about that before you broke iraq.

Me? What do I have to do with the situation?

Yeah, and the Roosevelt administration said the same things during World War II ....and look how well all that turned out. You and most people seem to think that with a few minutes of "war", without any US casualties, that all wars should be over and peace on Earth should reign..
They didn't have to rely on training foriegn troops with questionable loyalites to win that war.
Sounds like what they said about the Irish cops in Boston in the early days.
Right. It's just like that. My argument is based on racism, then?
Spider, the violence is being contained, and it's going to be more contained as more troops become available in the region.
For how long? As soon as we leave the killing will begin again, for sectarian reasons. The Iraqi police won't stop it because they won't be willing to. Unless this escalation results in some positive outcome, it is a waste of time, money, and lives. It's doesn't change the essential situation at all.
The rest of your post is somewhat confusing and I didn't wish to go back over all of the thread to see what the fuck you were talking about. But somehow I get the idea that you think winning the war in Iraq means that never again, in all of the future, will any terrorist ever strike the US.
I'll make it simple. By no stretch of the imagination is our presence in Iraq preventing terrorism.
Yeah, but you seem to be forgetting that many/most of the democrats voted to go to war in Iraq in the first place!
No, only a third of them, and all of the Republicans.

As soon as we leave the killing will begin again, for sectarian reasons. The Iraqi police won't stop it because they won't be willing to.

And just exactly how do you know what the future will bring? The Sunnis and the Shiites lived together previous without any major difficulties ...why are you so sure that they can't do it again? And you'll notice that all of your ideas about the war are based on that one, single issue ...of which you can't possibly know ...you only "believe" it to be true. (Or perhaps "hope" it to be true so the USA looks worse in the world opinion???)

Unless this escalation results in some positive outcome, it is a waste of time, money, and lives.

My, oh, my. The Spidergoat actually presenting even a remote possibility of success???? No, tell me it ain't so ....tell me you really didn't mean it! :D

It's doesn't change the essential situation at all. []quote]

Back to reading the future in your crystal ball, Spider?

[QUOTE=spidergoat;1303403]I'll make it simple. By no stretch of the imagination is our presence in Iraq preventing terrorism.

I don't think it'll "prevent" terrorism, but it can sure as hell have a major impact on it if things turn out well in Iraq, don't you think? If Iraqis learn to live in peace with a good democratic government, then it'll sure make the terrorist's goals seem pretty fucked up, won't it?

Baron Max

The Sunnis and the Shiites lived together previous without any major difficulties.
Reveals a complete ignorance of history.
My, oh, my. The Spidergoat actually presenting even a remote possibility of success???? No, tell me it ain't so ....tell me you really didn't mean it!
Contrary to righty rhetoric, I do want Iraq to have a positive outcome, but we would need to do something very different. This escalation is just more of the same.
I don't think it'll "prevent" terrorism, but it can sure as hell have a major impact on it if things turn out well in Iraq, don't you think?
Best case scenerio, it will be the same as before we invaded.
Back to reading the future in your crystal ball, Spider?
That's a laugh coming from you, one of the most pessimistic people here when it comes to human nature. Don't you see, Bush promotes unrealistic optimism to buy time, because he's busy stealing in Iraq. I find it hard, sometimes, to understand how such a basically cynical person like you is willing to be so transparently manipulated.

..., I do want Iraq to have a positive outcome, but we would need to do something very different.

No, I don't believe that you do .....regardless of what you say. My guess is you'd love to see Iraq sink deeper and deeper into civil war and strife just to say "I told you so, dammit!" My guess is also that you revel in the present violence as added "proof" of your crystal ball theories.

Baron Max

I would love to see Bush fail, if only because I knew he would, but is tragic for the Iraqi people. If I didn't care about them, I wouldn't care what Bush did over there. It doesn't take a crystal ball to make the predictions I and the left do, only an understanding of the present.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to make the predictions I and the left do, only an understanding of the present.

But that's what others seem to say, even tho' they're directly opposed to your point of view and understanding. So what is it ...just two different viewpoints battling it out while the world keeps on turning 'round n' 'round? I.e., all talk and no action? ...like the fuckin' worthless UN?

Baron Max

Contrary to righty rhetoric, I do want Iraq to have a positive outcome, but we would need to do something very different. This escalation is just more of the same.



Would you care to elaborate on the details of "something very different"?

Would you care to elaborate on the details of "something very different"?

Spider probably thinks that we should just tell the Iraqis to kiss and make up, then everything would be just fine and dandy.

"Let's all just love each other, and the world will be a wonderful place." :D

Baron Max

Spider probably thinks that we should just tell the Iraqis to kiss and make up, then everything would be just fine and dandy.

"Let's all just love each other, and the world will be a wonderful place." :D

Baron Max


At the same time, it's naive to think that America can solve 1000 years of religious schism in the Islamic world. If "victory" calls for Shiites and Sunnis to be at peace, America will never win in Iraq. The only thing we're doing is standing in the middle of their hatred, as evidenced by the daily mounting casualties with little to no progress is defeating the insurgency.

I think it would've been easier for America to solve the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox schism than the Sunni/Shiite schism.

Would you care to elaborate on the details of "something very different"?

No. I would like to see the Republicans and Democrats have a real discussion on what should be done. At this point, even the administration's own Iraq Study Group contains many good ideas, but that seems to have been ignored. I wonder if Bush even read past the "executive summary".

But that's what others seem to say, even tho' they're directly opposed to your point of view and understanding.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you mean.

An interesting article points out the likely result of the "slow bleed" strategy:
President Bush will have no choice but to reject the Murtha restrictions should they reach his desk. But a veto is problematic. As Murtha points out, a veto means that Bush doesn’t get the continued funding for the war. He might have to sign the bill, take the funding and ignore the restrictions as an unconstitutional trespass on his powers. In that event, a cry to impeach him will go up from the increasingly powerful antiwar Left.

The result of the Democrats’ clever gambit could be a constitutional implosion from which no one — certainly not the country — will emerge a winner. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_coming_constiutional_crisi.html
So this whole thing could end in an impeachment. The Supreme Court would no doubt get involved. Things are about to get very interesting.

It's not a slow bleed, but a slow approach to truth. Time to expel those feces; we're done.

Murtha ...would require that troops have a year at home before redeploying, that they train with their own equipment before deploying and so on. Because the too-small U.S. military is under enormous strain, these conditions would be impossible to meet while still doubling the number of U.S. combat troops in Baghdad.
So who's really supporting the troops, and who's breaking them?
The surge is the best chance of turning the war around.
Obviously the Democrats don't agree.

Interesting link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17245359/

Obviously the Democrats don't agree.

which is, of course, the great thing about democracy ....the differing sides fight and argue and hate each to the point that nothing is ever done ....until one person, with firm conviction, is willing to stand up and do the task at hand!

Baron Max

Max, I agree in theory, but I am not sure, just where have you seen democracy lately in practice??

which is, of course, the great thing about democracy ....the differing sides fight and argue and hate each to the point that nothing is ever done ....until one person, with firm conviction, is willing to stand up and do the task at hand!


Then you have a dictatorship baron.

Then you have a dictatorship baron.
Or a leader. Andrew Jackson said,
"One man with conviction makes a majority"

Or a leader. Andrew Jackson said,
"One man with conviction makes a majority"

same difference

House Democrats have crafted a weasle plan to slowly choke off funding for the Iraq war through the "readiness" strategy.
Kudos to them. Less people murdered. Less money wasted. Otherwise the same outcome.

It's tough to win a war when you have Democrats stabbing you in the back.
The war was lost the moment it was badly conceived. The US never stood a chance of subjugating 20 million people with ready access to weapons, including the contents of Saddam's many huge weapons depots that were left unprotected. Republican voters have severely damaged the US. They are the ones stabbing everyone in the back. The Democrats are fixing their mistakes and are not even demanding jail time. You should be thanking them.

The Democrats are fixing their mistakes and are not even demanding jail time.

I wish they would.