Democrats Officially Become Citizens Of France

[FaninAma]

So does the idiot Chuck Hagel:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262320,00.html

Bunch of nutless, skirt-wearing surrender monkeys.:mad:

[JohnnyMack]

Doesn't matter as far as funding and timelines go as W will just veto it and they won't be able to muster the votes to override it.

The Dems just can't seem to get out of their own way.

I personally think they would have been smarter to bide their time and use the election as the jumping off point for this. As it is, now the Elephants have ammunition to paint the Dems as unpatriotic cutters and runners.

[SoonerBorn68]

As it is, now the Elephants have ammunition to paint the Dems as unpatriotic cutters and runners.

But aren't they? ;)

[landrun]

The Dems want this over before the election for 2 reasons

1) They don't know how to argue against a war that we may well be winning hands down by then
2) They certainly don't want to be the ones to bring the troops home in spite of all their screaming - They would then be held accountable for what happens in the aftermath.

Right now, they've sent our troops into war (only congress can vote for war - go read the constitution if you doubt this) and have managed to portrait themselves as not only being completely innocent of this fact, but victims of the brilliant think-tank George Bush who duped all of them. :rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

Doesn't matter as far as funding and timelines go as W will just veto it and they won't be able to muster the votes to override it.

Actually, as far as funding goes, it does matter.

Until Bush signs a bill that provides funding, he gets no funds. Congress has all the power on that front.

[JohnnyMack]

The Dems want this over before the election for 2 reasons

1) They don't know how to argue against a war that we may well be winning hands down by then
2) They certainly don't want to be the ones to bring the troops home in spite of all their screaming - They would then be held accountable for what happens in the aftermath.

Right now, they've sent our troops into war (only congress can vote for war - go read the constitution if you doubt this) and have managed to portrait themselves as not only being completely innocent of this fact, but victims of the brilliant think-tank George Bush who duped all of them. :rolleyes:

Was it a Democratic congress that sent the troops to war? I forget.

[JohnnyMack]

Actually, as far as funding goes, it does matter.

Until Bush signs a bill that provides funding, he gets no funds. Congress has all the power on that front.

Would you like to make a wager on whether or not he gets those funds?

[Vaevictis]

Right now, they've sent our troops into war (only congress can vote for war - go read the constitution if you doubt this) and have managed to portrait themselves as not only being completely innocent of this fact, but victims of the brilliant think-tank George Bush who duped all of them. :rolleyes:

Congress has the power to declare war. That's not the same as having the power to send the troops to war. That power lies soley in the hands of the President, tempered only by Congress' ability to control funds.

[Vaevictis]

Would you like to make a wager on whether or not he gets those funds?

What odds are you gonna give me? Keep in mind that you're asking me to bet on politicians having a spine, and set the line appropriately.

[NormanPride]

At least Inhofe and Coburn voted nay. That's all I can ask for, really.

[landrun]

It was a Republican controlled congress, but every legit Democrat presidential candidate who has ran since that time, voted to send our troops into war.

[picasso]

I like French bread.

[JohnnyMack]

I like French bread.

And wine.

And cheese.

That ain't bad either.

[JohnnyMack]

What odds are you gonna give me? Keep in mind that you're asking me to bet on politicians having a spine, and set the line appropriately.

No odds. Just a yes or no.

[C&CDean]

"We’ve taken a step backwards,” he said after the vote. “It is the wrong message at the wrong time, surely this will embolden the enemy, it will not help our troops in any way.”


Truer words have never been spoken.

[landrun]

Congress has the power to declare war. That's not the same as having the power to send the troops to war. That power lies soley in the hands of the President, tempered only by Congress' ability to control funds.

Strange. The Dems apparently disagree with you because they're arguing the exact opposite right now saying that the Pres does NOT have the power to send troops into Iran without their approval. Yet, if they do give their approval and the war isn't a cake walk, they'll convince you that they had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

[SoonerStormchaser]

Dems are pussies!

[JohnnyMack]

"We’ve taken a step backwards,” he said after the vote. “It is the wrong message at the wrong time, surely this will embolden the enemy, it will not help our troops in any way.”


Truer words have never been spoken.

Who said that, Howard Dean?

;)

[1stTimeCaller]

Strange. The Dems apparently disagree with you because they're arguing the exact opposite right now saying that the Pres does NOT have the power to send troops into Iran without their approval. Yet, if they do give their approval and the war isn't a cake walk, they'll convince you that they had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

If you want, I'll argue with you that the Sun rises in the West. It won't make it any more factual be we can argue about it if you want to.

[Vaevictis]

Strange. The Dems apparently disagree with you because they're arguing the exact opposite right now saying that the Pres does NOT have the power to send troops into Iran without their approval.

shrug, then they disagree with me. So what? Lots of people disagree with me.

It's pretty much reality that just about the only thing the Congress can do about the President deploying troops is vote on sending him a stern letter, and if they're feeling really saucy, telling him that the USA ain't gonna pay for it.


Yet, if they do give their approval and the war isn't a cake walk, they'll convince you that they had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Put it to you this way: The issue isn't so much that the Democrats gave their initial approval, it's what they did after. Unlike the Republicans, who turned a blind eye to and provided cover for every **** up, the Democrats actually said something.

That's why they're in control of Congress today. It ain't because they had a better platform. It's plain as day -- it's because the Congressional Republicans were acting like a bunch of lap dogs when they should have been acting like guard dogs and calling the President to task when he (or his subordinates) did something wrong.

Somehow, the Congressional Republicans forgot that their allegiance lies with the country and with their constituents, not with Bush. And they got punished for it.

When the Democrats commit the same sin, they'll be ousted too.

[Vaevictis]

And by the way, lest you think I believe that the Democrats are 100% in the right on this...

It is my opinion that this is a good thing. The President will veto, Congress will try to override, fail, and guess what?

The two sides will actually have to come to a compromise. That's a good thing.

[landrun]

shrug, then they disagree with me. So what? Lots of people disagree with me.

It's pretty much reality that just about the only thing the Congress can do about the President deploying troops is vote on sending him a stern letter, and if they're feeling really saucy, telling him that the USA ain't gonna pay for it.

You didn't miss the point even though you act like you did.
The point isn't that the Dems disagree with you. Its that your arguments are inconsistent and you're wrong. We would not have, could not have the war in Iraq without your beloved Democrats sending our boys to war. That is fact.

If you want to argue that its time to come home, that's fair game. But the very Dems that voted to send our boys over there are the same dems who argue that it was 'the wrong war at the wrong time'. Amazing stupidity only exceeded by the ignorance of people willing to overlook it.

[soonerscuba]

I, as a Democrat, welcome making Iraq the focal point of the 2008 elections, considering our good leader's established, totally reputable, and steady march to victory in Iraq. Did I say victory? I meant bottomless moneypit/quagmire.

[NormanPride]

And by the way, lest you think I believe that the Democrats are 100% in the right on this...

It is my opinion that this is a good thing. The President will veto, Congress will try to override, fail, and guess what?

The two sides will actually have to come to a compromise. That's a good thing.

****, those founding fathers were smart.

[landrun]

If you want, I'll argue with you that the Sun rises in the West. It won't make it any more factual be we can argue about it if you want to.

You might as well. Your argument that the Dems had nothing to do with the Iraq war is just as dishonest, or stupid ... or both. :D

[Vaevictis]

The point isn't that the Dems disagree with you. Its that your arguments are inconsistent and you're wrong. We would not have, could not have the war in Iraq without your beloved Democrats sending our boys to war. That is fact.

Buddy, the President can deploy whenever, wherever, however he wants, and the only thing that Congress can do to stop it is restrict funding. That's why they're using the funding bill to try and get their way -- they have no other redress.


But the very Dems that voted to send our boys over there are the same dems who argue that it was 'the wrong war at the wrong time'.

This is why they say "Hindsight is 20/20." And just because you agreed to set out on a course, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to continue it once you find that you think it's the wrong course.

[SleestakSooner]

The Democrats want this over before the election for 2 reasons

1) They don't know how to argue against a war that we may well be winning hands down by then
2) They certainly don't want to be the one to bring the troops home in spite of all their screaming - They would then be held accountable for what happens in the aftermath.

Right now, they've sent our troops into war (only congress can vote for war - go read the constitution if you doubt this) and have managed to portrait themselves as not only being completely innocent of this fact, but victims of the brilliant think-tank Karl Rove who duped all of them. :rolleyes:

How much are you willing to bet that we are winning the war "hands down" in the next 20 months?

You give Bush baby too much credit.

Weren't the Pubes in control of the congress when this war was first waged?

[Tear Down This Wall]

Let me speak as one who has a young cousin in Baghdad right now...

Justin is due to finish his tour in August. If he's killed between April and then due to lack of funds, I guaran-damn-tee you America will see the Anti-Cindy Sheehan rise up against the Democrats, Gordon Smith, and Chuck Hagel.

Further, if that kid's blood is so much as spilled because a pis*ing match between the Democrats, Gordon Smith, Chuck Hagel and Bush, there will be hell raised like Satan himself could not fathom.

Now, I wrote about this crap after Justin came home over Christmas for R&R. Dammit, those fools in D.C. better do all they can to let those boys fight! And, that means keeping them supplied and armed to the teeth.

I can't believe I'm living in an era with a Congress more cowardly than the ones which hamstrung our troops in Vietnam. And...Chuck Hagel of all people. Shameful. :mad:

[mdklatt]

Justin is due to finish his tour in August. If he's killed between April and then due to lack of funds, I guaran-damn-tee you America will see the Anti-Cindy Sheehan rise up against the Democrats, Gordon Smith, and Chuck Hagel.


Speaking of defunding, I hope he doesn't need VA medical care when he gets back.

[usmc-sooner]

Speaking of defunding, I hope he doesn't need VA medical care when he gets back.

why everything has worked out fine for me.

[usmc-sooner]

if another country came to the USA and disbanded our government, our military, set up elections, removed and executed George Bush and his 2 kids, only idiots and Democrats would think that the other country wasn't winning.

Only idiots and Democrats think we are losing in Iraq. Either that or they don't want us to win.

[1stTimeCaller]

You might as well. Your argument that the Dems had nothing to do with the Iraq war is just as dishonest, or stupid ... or both. :D

WOW! That was my argument?

My point was, the Dems are wrong about who has the power to send troops into war. That was it. That's all I meant. I'm sorry I had to spell it out for you.

You see there is a mat that has conclusions on it...

[jk the sooner fan]

Speaking of defunding, I hope he doesn't need VA medical care when he gets back.

you dont get VA medical care until you're out of the service

dont confuse ****ty facilities due to congressional under funding with actual bad medical care

[jk the sooner fan]

as the father of his first son over there, i cant even begin to tell you how much this boils my blood....i will be writing Senator Hagel a poignant letter

[OklahomaTuba]

Either that or they don't want us to win.

Why would the liberals want us to defeat AQ and Iran and finish the job in Iraq??? They obviously don't care about the Iraqis getting slaughtered if we leave, or the mess it could leave in the middle east.

Nah, hatred for all things George Bush trumps all. Even backstabbing our troops in the field by de-funding them is a minor issue. As long as they get their pork projects funded for their special interests, and we lose.

[OklahomaTuba]

as the father of his first son over there, i cant even begin to tell you how much this boils my blood....i will be writing Senator Hagel a poignant letter

I cannot even begin to imagine how this must make you feel right now.

I do not think the dims really realize what they have done.

No wonder Iran is getting cocky, they know the dims are on their side.

[OklahomaTuba]

Amazing...


How can you even think of pushing forward legislation to set a withdrawal date for US forces from Iraq? Do you know how much you embolden the insurgency here in Iraq? YOU ARE JEAPARDIZING THE LIVES OF US SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WITH YOUR ACTIONS. You and your fellow Democrats are causing the Al Qaeda supported insurgency to use more catastrophic attacks against us and Iraqi forces. You will see more SVBIED's with chlorine gas, more VBIED's against civilians and security forces every time you and other Democrats open your mouths. You will have to live with yourself and try to sleep at night knowing all the defeatist propaganda you have spewed forth is nothing more than ammunition for Islamic extremist groups around the world and more US deaths. The unsuspecting people who support you know nothing of what goes on over here; you fill their heads with nonsense and talk of pullout to appease them. The only thing that will happen is the establishment of an extremist Islamic state where sharia law is the law of the land and no one is safe.

Sunni Moslems here are coming to our side and joining forces with the government to defeat Al Qaeda(AQI) here in Iraq, but they need our help and they need us to stay. I have spent the last 7 months(3rd tour) in Iraq. I have watched Iraqi citizens pick up weapons and form militias in areas to join forces with Iraqi police/Army. Common citizens who fight and die because we are standing next to them. Not cutting and running or talking of withdrawal. This started after the surge forces the President sent here arrived. We have lost Marines also and it hurts more than you will ever know but we have made a commitment to these people. And I for one will not abandon them and I have of a platoon of Marines who feel the same. I have no control over what happened in 2003 and why we invaded Iraq. That is another discussion, but we are here and they need our help to rid their country of these terrorists. Yes eventually we will leave but we need to do a phased withdrawal without a timeline. At least without a timeline that is published for the world to know. The citizens of Iraq need to see some solidarity in our government, Democrats and Republicans coming together and supporting our President in this war. There is a middle ground here for both parties, you all need to come together and work towards a solution. What we don't need is more theatrics and clashes between the parties. AQI loves to see that it causes them to do more attacks and continue with the murder and intimidation campaign against Iraqi citizens.

Someone needs to step forward and bring the two parties together. Meet and talk about what you all can do and come to an agreement on the war. Like I said before we need a unified front to present to the world on the Iraq war. The Iraqi people need a morale boost, they need to see we are behind them and we will support them and not cut and run. The insurgency needs to see our resolve is strong and we will endure and defeat them. Extremist Islamist terror groups use our perceived weakness against us. They misunderstand our kindness for weakness. Weakness shown to the world brings more recruits to their cause; it causes more civilian deaths and violence.

Please I implore you to not push this agenda. I have watched you on television and you seem to be using this as a steppingstone to further your political career. STOP!!! More is at stake here. Our countries word is on the line, my word to many Iraqi citizens is on the line. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines lives are at stake. We know the risks and we face them daily. Don't make our mission more difficult.

Gunnery Sgt. Stephen F. Krueger
Platoon Sgt 3rd Recon Bn


Amen.

[Tear Down This Wall]

as the father of his first son over there, i cant even begin to tell you how much this boils my blood....i will be writing Senator Hagel a poignant letter

My letter to Hagel, and all of the Republican Senators, left two days ago. I imagine their interns are reading it now, or will be tomorrow. I can assure you it's very succinct - so much so that even dullards like Hagel and Smith will understand it.

[SoonerProphet]

2.When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory,
not lengthy campaigns.

Sun Tzu

[usmc-sooner]

2.When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory,
not lengthy campaigns.

Sun Tzu

while I don't disagree with you on this, Sun Tzu lived in a different time. A lengthy campaign, with slow reinforcements, slow modes of travel and supply were almost a death sentance.

[Hatfield]

if another country came to the USA and disbanded our government, our military, set up elections, removed and executed George Bush and his 2 kids, only idiots and Democrats would think that the other country wasn't winning.

Only idiots and Democrats think we are losing in Iraq. Either that or they don't want us to win.


you are wearing your simplicity crown today aren't you?

[Hatfield]

Why would the liberals want us to defeat AQ and Iran and finish the job in Iraq??? They obviously don't care about the Iraqis getting slaughtered if we leave, or the mess it could leave in the middle east.

Nah, hatred for all things George Bush trumps all. Even backstabbing our troops in the field by de-funding them is a minor issue. As long as they get their pork projects funded for their special interests, and we lose.


i love how those that don't care about the iraqis currently being "slaughtered" are concerned about the ones that will be upon our leaving.

[SoonerProphet]

while I don't disagree with you on this, Sun Tzu lived in a different time. A lengthy campaign, with slow reinforcements, slow modes of travel and supply were almost a death sentance.

Well, seeing how we are losing the ability to influence events in the region and the good King of Saudi Arabia called our excursion into Iraq an occupation...I'll disagree. The longer we are in the sand box the more our power and influence declines.

[jk the sooner fan]

you'd think a vietnam vet would have learned a lesson....

[Tear Down This Wall]

you'd think a vietnam vet would have learned a lesson....

You'd think.

[SoonerProphet]

you'd think a vietnam vet would have learned a lesson....

Hasn't he been an outspoken critic from the get go?

I realize many are not fans, but I'll take conservative realism over idealism any day.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'll take "we can" over "we cant" any day......

[Tear Down This Wall]

Agreed. He's turned into a media whore. And, like McCain, he'll learn that it does him no good. The media will toss him out once they're rung enough crap out of him to hurt the G.O.P. You figure he'd learn from watching McCain's perpetual, failing presidential runs.

[usmc-sooner]

Well, seeing how we are losing the ability to influence events in the region and the good King of Saudi Arabia called our excursion into Iraq an occupation...I'll disagree. The longer we are in the sand box the more our power and influence declines.

what? we are the power and influence in that region. Which is why we are fighting cowardly suicide bombers and such. That's what I don't understand about you liberals, you've never even been there you watch CNN and determine were losing power and influence.

If they came to the USA and took out George Bush, killed his kids, toppled our government, defeated our military, disbanded our military. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would say the longer they stay the weaker and less influentual they were becoming. Cause yeah we'd be saying as long as they are here running our show, we are gaining power and influence, and when they leave our country they have won. It's wacky liberal thinking, I can't stand listening to this BS anymore.

[Scott D]

while I don't disagree with you on this, Sun Tzu lived in a different time. A lengthy campaign, with slow reinforcements, slow modes of travel and supply were almost a death sentance.

eh....the symbolism remains the same. the longer the siege, the deeper the drain on finite resources. even in his period the battle depended on the coffers.

[royalfan5]

Chuck Hagel is the perfect example of what happens when a Politician gets to run unopposed for office.

[Octavian]

Bunch of nutless, skirt-wearing surrender monkeys.:mad:


Who? The American people?


The Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress because the American people put them there in the '06 midterms....which were a direct referendum on the Admn.'s policies in Iraq...the electorate resoundingly opted to change course.


This vote happened in November...it's just now being formally implemented by those who were chosen by the majority of the people.


What were Democrats supposed to do after the people sent them to DC because they had grown tired of the war in Iraq?


In any event, like JM said, it's pretty meaningless. Bush will veto and they wont have enough votes to override the veto.


There won't be anything the people can do about that.

[FaninAma]

Who? The American people?


The Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress because the American people put them there in the '06 midterms....which were a direct referendum on the Admn.'s policies in Iraq...the electorate resoundingly opted to change course.


This vote happened in November...it's just now being formally implemented by those who were chosen by the majority of the people.


What were Democrats supposed to do after the people sent them to DC because they had grown tired of the war in Iraq?


In any event, like JM said, it's pretty meaningless. Bush will veto and they wont have enough votes to override the veto.


There won't be anything the people can do about that.

Not one person I voted for has voted to capitulate. The American public does not support a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. They weren't happy with the way the Iraq war was beeing conducted so they threw a little temper tantrum. The Dims are overreaching and it will bite them in the ***. The GOP could have filibustered this bill but I think it was a smart idea to let the Dims go on record and show their true color(yellow) to the American people.

[Octavian]

Not one person I voted for has voted to capitulate. The American public does not support a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. They weren't happy with the way the Iraq war was beeing conducted so they threw a little temper tantrum.


I think it was a little more than a temper tantrum. A recent Pew Poll shows that only about 25% of the electorate currently identifies itself as Republican.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/politics/animal/main2622993.shtml


That's because of Iraq and that's not a temper tantrum...it is, as the link suggests, an implosion.



The Dims are overreaching and it will bite them in the ***. The GOP could have filibustered this bill but I think it was a smart idea to let the Dims go on record and show their true color(yellow) to the American people.


That depends on how events go on the ground in Iraq.


I don't support leaving now (OTOH, I didn't support going), but there are a lot of justifiable reasons to leave....and I certainly wouldn't want American troops to stay there because people were afraid of being perceived as "yellow."

[Vaevictis]

eh....the symbolism remains the same. the longer the siege, the deeper the drain on finite resources.

The most finite of which is the public's stomach for it.

[Octavian]

it doesn't matter what is said anyways...we're not leaving Iraq.


If a Democrat is elected POTUS, we're still not leaving. There will be tactical changes but an American presence will be in Iraq for a long, long time.

We've built the world's largest embassy in Iraq, carved out the center of their capitol, and constructed permanent military bases. Whatever your value judgment of those decisions may be....we're not just going to pack up our stuff and leave.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think it was a little more than a temper tantrum. A recent Pew Poll shows that only about 25% of the electorate currently identifies itself as Republican.

Party ID means nothing. Elections do.

Oklahoma is nearly 2:1 donk, if that tells you anything, and any donk that even mentions surrender is dead meat here. And if the last election had so much to do about Iraq, then why did so many conservative donks get elected. Hell, why did Joe Libermann get elected for that fact?

[FaninAma]

http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20070220.cfm

The Dims are in the process of going out on a limb and helping the GOP saw it off. Why pick this fight now? They are taking the heat off of Bush and putting it on themselves. They have blown the fired federal attorneys off of the front page by making this an issue. The GOP and Bush appreciate it, I'm sure.

[JohnnyMack]

Iraq makes my head hurt.

This thing is such an unbelievable cluster****.

I don't know how we ever recover in the court of public opinion. Especially the Middle East's court of public opinion.

We've lost so much more than just lives in this.

[Scott D]

Iraq makes my head hurt.

This thing is such an unbelievable cluster****.

I don't know how we ever recover in the court of public opinion. Especially the Middle East's court of public opinion.

We've lost so much more than just lives in this.

I disagree, we didn't have much of the 'so much more' beforehand, so it's more an argument of we didn't improve on the 'so much more' with it.

[usmc-sooner]

Iraq makes my head hurt.

This thing is such an unbelievable cluster****.

I don't know how we ever recover in the court of public opinion. Especially the Middle East's court of public opinion.

We've lost so much more than just lives in this.

spoken from a true liberal who's never been there. This unbelievable cluster**** has removed one of the worlds worst men. Maybe we should employ hussein's method's to get us recovery in the world's public opinion, especially the mid east.

[JohnnyMack]

This isn't about W or Republicans or Democrats. It's about the systemic failures of our nation as a whole. It isn't about Hussein or Iran or Al Qaida. It's about our nation's inability to provide the necessary resources to sustain itself. Our Imperial nature and our penchant for nation building allowed us for too long to think we could take what we wanted from wherever we wanted because we were the United States of America. We never took a long hard look at how our actions would affect the rest of the globe.

09/11 didn't go down just for ****s and giggles. Those people were ****ed off and most of us still haven't figured out why.

[usmc-sooner]

This isn't about W or Republicans or Democrats. It's about the systemic failures of our nation as a whole. It isn't about Hussein or Iran or Al Qaida. It's about our nation's inability to provide the necessary resources to sustain itself. Our Imperial nature and our penchant for nation building allowed us for too long to think we could take what we wanted from wherever we wanted because we were the United States of America. We never took a long hard look at how our actions would affect the rest of the globe.

09/11 didn't go down just for ****s and giggles. Those people were ****ed off and most of us still haven't figured out why.

you're absolutely right, had we just done it like the Muslims:rolleyes: What kinda crack smokin kingdom do you live in?

[JohnnyMack]

you're absolutely right, had we just done it like the Muslims:rolleyes: What kinda crack smokin kingdom do you live in?

Do you feel like you understand the why of events like 09/11? Or is not to you to ask such questions?

[usmc-sooner]

Do you feel like you understand the why of events like 09/11? Or is not to you to ask such questions?

yeah I do

I experienced it first hand


how bout you?

[JohnnyMack]

yeah I do

I experienced it first hand


how bout you?

Yeah, I feel like I do.



This is the part of the discussion where you roll your eyes at me and tell me that I couldn't possibly understand why 09/11 happened.

[usmc-sooner]

Yeah, I feel like I do.



This is the part of the discussion where you roll your eyes at me and tell me that I couldn't possibly understand why 09/11 happened.


No, I've never said that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This isn't about W or Republicans or Democrats. It's about the systemic failures of our nation as a whole. It isn't about Hussein or Iran or Al Qaida. It's about our nation's inability to provide the necessary resources to sustain itself. Our Imperial nature and our penchant for nation building allowed us for too long to think we could take what we wanted from wherever we wanted because we were the United States of America. We never took a long hard look at how our actions would affect the rest of the globe.

09/11 didn't go down just for ****s and giggles. Those people were ****ed off and most of us still haven't figured out why.You've outdone yourself, John!

[Harry Beanbag]

I think it was a little more than a temper tantrum. A recent Pew Poll shows that only about 25% of the electorate currently identifies itself as Republican.


And you actually believe that?

[Harry Beanbag]

09/11 didn't go down just for ****s and giggles. Those people were ****ed off and most of us still haven't figured out why.


Personally, I don't give a **** why they did it.

And I'm guessing the dudes that actually carry out these attacks don't really understand the real reasons either. They're pawns.

[SoonerGirl06]

09/11 didn't go down just for ****s and giggles. Those people were ****ed off and most of us still haven't figured out why.

9/11 happened because you have a bunch of Radical Islamiss who hate us. It doesn't matter to them what we do... they hate Christians and they hate America for what we stand for. No matter what we do to try and "appease" them... like most liberals think we should be doing... they're still going to hate us and do what it takes to destroy America. You can't rationalize with people like AQ or other terrorist groups.

[olevetonahill]

OUT befor I get piszed
Cause I pretty much like and respect all Here .
All this ole dude can ask Is
Please dont be a hanoi jane .
thanks in advance

[olevetonahill]

This is from My lil buddy Troy whos doing his second tour there .
That means 2nd year this in response to Us losing our ex chief ,

yeah i heard about danny i hate it too he was a really good man and i wil always remember the time he helped pull a fishin hook out of my shoulder with a pair of pliers i got from your shop one night. or the time he almost rolled the squad car cause he was seein how fast he could get to moms house from the city hall.

well the politice ot the thing are what gets most of us over disgruntled. last time i was here it was a religious war for these guys all jihad on our asses and stuff now it is totally different and it is a political war and they politics of the thing are stopping us from getting the job done right and over so we can go home so as long as the politics are involved and as long as they keep steppin on the presidents dick we wont be able to go anywhere troy

[olevetonahill]

Thatsd a verbatim from Troys Email to me .
Yall figure out if the BS from libs or whoever Is hurtin Our boys ,

[SicEmBaylor]

1)Johnny Mack has no need to worry. There's nothing we can ever do to repair our relationship with the Muslim nations regardless of what we did or shouldn't have done in Iraq. They hate us because our culture threatens and undermines the linchpins of their society. We can't stop that unless we stop the spread of our culture would require changing who we are as a people and what makes us great.

2)Iraq, overall, was a mistake. We have no business engaging in nation building efforts and installing western style democracy on a foreign society that doesn't even accept the basic tenets that are required to support and sustain a viable democracy. Regardless of the stories we hear of some Iraqis wanting to be "free" what they want is stability and security which, in their world, doesn't mean democracy.

3)Removing Saddam from power was the right decision. No question in my mind that removing him from the region was a positive move for American security. What is wrong about the Iraq war is the crap about their people yearning to be free and trying to nation-build a democratic government.

4)Having said that....we are at war and there is no way to turn the clock back. As Americans we absolutely positively must support final victory in any war that we commit ourselves to regardless of whether we believe that war was a good idea in the first place. There's noting wrong with dissent in the run up to the war, there's nothing wrong with saying that overall you think it was a mistake, but it's another to advocate a policy of anything less than final victory. Unfortunately, that's going to be VERY difficult to achieve since we've committed ourselves to creating a stable democratic government. I think the best we can hope for is to give them enough stability that we reach a "tipping point" in their favor keeping their government stable enough to sustain itself long enough that its collapse can't be blamed on us.

5)I'm not sure what else to say except that I hate the French.

[Octavian]

And you actually believe that?


Yes, I do. As of today, I believe it's true, give or take a few % points.


First, the general public typically isn't radical in either direction. Most people aren't hardcore Dems or Repubs and are more generally moderate. There's a huge myth about Red and Blue America but that's for another thread.


That doesn't mean that when they step in the booth, they won't pull the trigger for the same party they usually do...I think they will.


But party identification has been on the wane for a two decades...on both sides. Right now, neither are popular. It's just that, because of the war, the GOP is being harder hit. Cheney's approval ratings are under 20%....Bush's have been under 35% for nearly two years.


To think that only 1 in 4 people would claim to be a Republican (even if they're registered as such) when asked, isn't far fetched at all.


I really think that if an uber-wealthy independent came along in '08 who could hold his -yes, HIS- own in debates...he could win the Presidency simply because the American public has taken a look at the performance of both parties and said "no thanks." But that's for another thread too.

[Octavian]

This isn't about W or Republicans or Democrats. It's about the systemic failures of our nation as a whole. It isn't about Hussein or Iran or Al Qaida. It's about our nation's inability to provide the necessary resources to sustain itself. Our Imperial nature and our penchant for nation building allowed us for too long to think we could take what we wanted from wherever we wanted because we were the United States of America. We never took a long hard look at how our actions would affect the rest of the globe.


It's not so much about the failures of our nation as it is about its evolution...and the obstacles we've encountered on our gradual shift from away from being a Republic and becoming the leader of an Imperium (not "empire").


But about the American role around the globe....


According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the United States currently has an active military presence in 135 of the 192 nation-states on Earth.


That list includes:




Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe


That's a cool 70% of the Earth's countries.


And that's just the military. We haven't even touched on the sociocultural ("soft power") influence upon the rest of the globe. We're talking everything from food (McDonald's, Coca-Cola) to entertainment (MTV, Hollywood).


And that's not saying anything about the global financial institutions the Imperium employs to implement its policy aims: the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank. This element, more than any other, fosters radicalism and creates the most enemies for us....and it's this element we know the least about.


Our leaders didn't create these financial institutions to level the playing field or be a detriment to our nation. They were designed to maintain and promote the economic interests of the status quo. Most of them didn't even have the Imperium in mind when they designed them....it's just what we've become over the course a century.


Its just our historical evolution as a nation. Not saying it's good or bad...it is what it is.



09/11 didn't go down just for ****s and giggles. Those people were ****ed off and most of us still haven't figured out why.


agreed 100%.

[Octavian]

And I'm guessing the dudes that actually carry out these attacks don't really understand the real reasons either. They're pawns.


agreed 100%

[landrun]

Well, seeing how we are losing the ability to influence events in the region and the good King of Saudi Arabia called our excursion into Iraq an occupation...I'll disagree. The longer we are in the sand box the more our power and influence declines.

The Saudis also said that if we leave Iraq that they're going into Iraq for fear of Iran. Basically, if we leave, it will turn into an open war between the Saudis and Iran. Right now it is a controlled war between the Sunnis and Sheites. They fight each other a whole lot more than they fight us right now. But we keep the region from exploding into all out war between the factions. Right now it is a terroristic 'car-bomb' type of war. When we leave the Iran government and Sunnis across the glove will have an all out slug fest for the control of Iraq. Whoever wins that war will not be our friend.

The best we can do is to help Iraqis control their own country.

[landrun]

if another country came to the USA and disbanded our government, our military, set up elections, removed and executed George Bush and his 2 kids, only idiots and Democrats would think that the other country wasn't winning.

Only idiots and Democrats think we are losing in Iraq. Either that or they don't want us to win.

Exactly. If this is losing then we lost WWI and WWII - decisively.
We lost more soldiers in the battle at Iwo Jima in a week than we have in this entire war over the last 4 years.

Seriously. Can you imagine the democrats of today controlling congress in that war? And the reporting you would have received from the press.

[OklahomaTuba]

From 2002:


Working on multiple fronts poses a difficult test for American leadership, but there is no escaping the fact that we face several related, interlocking crises in the region. As the bulwark of freedom and democracy, the United States faces the need to disarm Saddam Hussein and set the stage for a stable Iraq, win a protracted war on terrorism and engage fully on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Working with our friends and allies, it is a challenge we can, and must, meet.

###

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) is chairman and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=189649&&

Its too bad how weak in the knees people get, even now when events on the ground seem to be getting better.

[SicEmBaylor]

We're about on par casualty and time wise with the insurrection in the Philippines that we inherited from the Spanish as a result of the Spanish-American war.

If memory serves me correct, it took something like 4-5 years and 4,000+ American casualties to finally stabilize the country.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's not so much about the failures of our nation as it is about its evolution...and the obstacles we've encountered on our gradual shift from away from being a Republic and becoming the leader of an Imperium (not "empire").
Nevermind the fact that most of those countries probably asked us to be there, pay us to be there, and fund huge PAC's in Washington to make sure we don't leave.

Needless to say, your argument that we are declining in power because we are fighting the war on terror and giving millions that chance to live in freedom is so flawed it is actually laughable.

I really miss the libz of old, when they cared about human rights, doing the right thing, standing up for their country and all that, instead of stabbing our troops and Iraqis in the back to score some political points and get some pet projects funded for their special interests.

[OklahomaTuba]

We're about on par casualty and time wise with the insurrection in the Philippines that we inherited from the Spanish as a result of the Spanish-American war.

If memory serves me correct, it took something like 4-5 years and 4,000+ American casualties to finally stabilize the country.

Of course, the Philippines didn't have friendly neighbors like Iran or terrorist groups like AQ hanging around.

[SicEmBaylor]

Of course, the Philippines didn't have friendly neighbors like Iran or terrorist groups like AQ hanging around.

That's true, so does that speak well of the war effort in Iraq and our ability to accomplish our goal of stable democracy or not?

[Tear Down This Wall]

9/11 happened because you have a bunch of Radical Islamiss who hate us. It doesn't matter to them what we do... they hate Christians and they hate America for what we stand for. No matter what we do to try and "appease" them... like most liberals think we should be doing... they're still going to hate us and do what it takes to destroy America. You can't rationalize with people like AQ or other terrorist groups.


WARNING: THREAD HIJACK

Again, SicEm and other single male posters, why is it, again, what one of you have not made the effort to sweep 06 off her feet? She's got a brain in her head.

I've already got a wife with a brain in her head and an awesome little boy. You morons need to get to work..and such. SicEm, buy a GPS system if she asks to meet you somewhere. And such.

[Fugue]

WARNING: THREAD HIJACK

Again, SicEm and other single male posters, why is it, again, what one of you have not made the effort to sweep 06 off her feet? She's got a brain in her head.

I've already got a wife with a brain in her head and an awesome little boy. You morons need to get to work..and such. SicEm, buy a GPS system if she asks to meet you somewhere. And such.

mention of this eliminates SicEm. :texan:

[Tear Down This Wall]

:D

:eek:

:D

[SicEmBaylor]

IN!

[Ike]

We're about on par casualty and time wise with the insurrection in the Philippines that we inherited from the Spanish as a result of the Spanish-American war.

If memory serves me correct, it took something like 4-5 years and 4,000+ American casualties to finally stabilize the country.


now...correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not so up on my history for that time period...but, after they were finally beaten, didn't we basically tell them that they weren't ready for this liberty and democracy stuff because it's too difficult?

[Tear Down This Wall]

Dammit, Ike! We're trying to hijack the thread!

[Scott D]

WARNING: THREAD HIJACK

Again, SicEm and other single male posters, why is it, again, what one of you have not made the effort to sweep 06 off her feet? She's got a brain in her head.

I've already got a wife with a brain in her head and an awesome little boy. You morons need to get to work..and such. SicEm, buy a GPS system if she asks to meet you somewhere. And such.

she's too um..what's the word...eclectic in her tastes for someone like SicEm to handle. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

now...correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not so up on my history for that time period...but, after they were finally beaten, didn't we basically tell them that they weren't ready for this liberty and democracy stuff because it's too difficult?

Well, we inherited the same revolution for independence they fought from Spain. We armed, trained, and gave them support during the Spanish-American war but we didn't extend that help to granting them democracy.

But yes, you're right.