House Democrat Plan: Slowly choke off funding for Iraq

spidergoat said:
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.
Click to expand...
You folks are less than half the people, or don't you know?
Who anthraxed senate Democrats? I would like to know.
Click to expand...
Of course: The secret cabal behind global warming. Now you know.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
I now agree that Iraq has now become Vietnam all over again,
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...

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!).
 
crazy151drinker said:
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!).
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...
 
samcdkey said:
US backed Lon Nol regime 1970-75.
Click to expand...

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
 
Baron Max said:
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
Click to expand...

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
 
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.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
spuriousmonkey said:
It means that the US is evil.
Click to expand...

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
 
crazy151drinker said:
Hey no worries though, we left, Pol Pot came to power, and 2,000,000+ Cambodians were systematically starved to death
Click to expand...

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... :)
 
madanthonywayne said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

I can accept our 2nd defeat in American history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top