Politics – The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal to pay for the Iraq war but require that troops start coming home.
I see this as a positive step for two reasons:
1. The US has been into this 'war' in Iraq for almost 5 years now. If the our federal government feels that there is reason to continue it, then it should be a budgeted item. There is absolutely no reason that monies should be appropriated outside of the normal budget cycle. If our glorious leader has a vision of victory he should be able to project that into a plan of action and budget it accordingly. After more than 4 years, they cannot say that these are unanticipated expenses.
2. Not providing this funding is a step towards forwarding my (and a majority of Iraqi and Americans) vision which is to simply let the Iraqis have Iraq. It is not a matter of victory or defeat as GW et al would have us believe. Although he doesn't say it, victory for GW is to claim Iraq's oil wealth and use Iraq as a base to claim more. But that really isn't victory as neither Iraqis or Americans (in general) gain from that. (cont next post)
(cont) and to remove our military is not defeat. It is simply to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
The DOD is not going to run out of money any time soon and the troops will not be left without the tools they need (certainly not the tools they need to come home). Of course that is not what we will be hearing for the next month and half or so. Gates will probably find some civilians to lay off to make a point, and there will be words tossed around about the irresponsible Democrats and the pain that the Pentagon is feeling. It will all be an act to create public pressure for the Dems to cave.
The Democrats would like to make next year's election a referendum on the war, and on the manner in which it has been conducted (and mismanaged). From the standpoint of attracting votes and winning elections, this is probably a very good strategy. From the standpoint of American casualties, it will probably have little direct effect--in fact, if shortages of manpower and equipment occur in Iraq, commanders will have to act less aggressively and casualties might actually go down.
Oh, but the military will run out of money soon, and it will effect their ability to protect themselves on the ground in Iraq. Democrats could not stand the fact the Surge is a success, and they will do anything to insure defeat. They sould not wonder why Americans see them as un-Patriotic, or un-American, because they are both.
aniokly, soon is a relative word. I don't know what that means. They will not run out of money in 3 months. Congress will reconsider the appropriations question in January. The DOD can fund the war out of their budget if it's that important to them. After all, we all do need to live within our means and make spending choices don't we?
Look at it this way, if you want to teach a dog a new trick and your using dog biscuits as the reward for learning, you don't feed him a huge dinner just before doggie class. If the dog's not hungry, a biscuit is not much of a reward. (This may not be a good metaphor as a dog will eat 'til overfull, puke, and then eat some more. Hmmm, on second thought, that is kind of like how DOD handles money.)
It's past time for the Iraqi's to take control of their own destiny. They need to govern themselves and defend themselves. If we leave the Shiites in the country will not allow Al Quiada to stay and with out us they will have no reason to. The Shiites will also align themselves with Iran, but since we put them in power there is no stopping that. There may be civil war for a while but us staying is only delaying that.
The best thing we can do for our soldiers is thank them for their service and bring them home for a much deserved rest.
I agree, tchef. The majority of Americans want the military out of Iraq. Of course, the majority of Iraqis by far, want us out. There really is nothing that our military can achieve in Iraq by staying that is of direct benefit to the American people. There really is nothing that the American people lose if the military were to withdraw completely. So what is it that we are actually accomplishing by continuing this mission?
I come up with maybe 3 things.
1. US interests gain advantage in the exploitation of Iraqi oil resources.
2. US gains a military position to project power throughout the region.
3. Israel has one less arab country to worry about.
Those are not reasons for me to want to go over and kill Iraqis or anybody else.
Even the great General Petraeus said early on that there is no military solution to the Iraq problem without a political solution. How much time do we give them to come up with that political solution, two years, five years a hundred years? Theyve had two years since elections and they have come up with zero political reconcilitations and there are apparently none on the horizon. These people have been feuding with each other for centuries. We must cut our losses and get out as quickly as possible so we can focus our resources on real terrorist threats not GWB's bogeymen.
Is it just me, or have the conservatives on this thread missed the point?
I seem to recall (among others) crghss, tanglang and aniokly criticising the Democrats for spinelessness earlier. Now the Dems have discovered their spine, and you're criticising them for that too?
Your words reveal your true opinion - no matter what the Democrats do, it will be wrong in your eyes. If they vote to cough up the money, they're "spineless". If they vote to pay the money only on conditions, they're traitors and out to get the troops. Talk about Hobbs' choice....
I, for one, think that it is long overdue that Congress discovers its prerogatives again, and one of those prerogatives is control of the public purse. Conservatives never objected to the Repub Congress using it to their own political ends, so kindly tone down the hypocrisy when the Dems are using the treasury to force a withdrawal from a war that you shouldn't be in.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MaryP.Murphy
LyleW.Cortez
RichardD.Phelan
odiedog2
Dan and Jennifer
puffin
angelitobcn
GregD
Radiofreeeuropa
DianCor
Kresta
dadesider
fsev41
rebner
msaleem
chsemi
quicksilver0602
wangyy1980
rimbaud
tchef
mickoleon
miklkit
agentX
onlyonesecret
studentambassador
quackpot
memaskman
TimALoftis
Floppyr
1-2-Oscar
hurr1
LisaFo
Calligula
zaph22
ekklesiawarrior
dandt1612
MidnightPrism
dexlovex2
berkeley
Candida
namecritic
MaryLynn_
engineer
texangelwings
Beau7890
nccneon
gamahuche
blowback
JamesMarcus
bugluver
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
72)
Vote
Just what war are you talking about there crap head? The war in Iraq? The war in Afghanistan or the war our troops fight to get decent equipment? Are we at war with the people of Iraq? Just what war are you talking about?
If you are thinking this is a national defence problem then you are sadly mistaken, just as George Bush was when he invaded Iraq and set off this chain of events.
The rationale for this continued war is that we need a "Victory". There is none to be had. We are not at war with the Iraqi people. They are at war with each other. So what will constitute "Victory"?
I would like you to tell me exactly what "Victory" is. What will it take for you to say it's time to bring our people home?
And, yes, I will remember the gutless wonders in November, I'll remember George W. never served a day in Viet-Nam while my buddies died in that s**thole. Yes I do know what a gutless wonder is.