Iraq resolution passes House

mmarsh said:
And BTW, you still haven't answered my question. I'll ask it again (for the third time) in case you missed it. Aside from the failed policy of stay-the-course, whats your idea to end the situation in Iraq?

I anxiously await your reply on this...
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in telling you my ideas. It in fact doesn't matter what my ideas are and you do not have a clue what my ideology is. You seem to think that because I ask you for a reference and that I disagree with you must mean I stand for the complete opposite of you. Keep waiting because your out of hand dismissal of the opinions of some people on this board I respect renders me unable to discuss things with you without losing my temper.

And Jequirity, get :cen:ed!
 
mmarsh said:
And BTW, you still haven't answered my question. I'll ask it again (for the third time) in case you missed it. Aside from the failed policy of stay-the-course, whats your idea to end the situation in Iraq?

I anxiously await your reply on this...
Click to expand...

Step back and let the military commanders do their jobs. Quit micromanaging things. Remember that the US is trying to get Iraqis to work together and form a union so they can get a constitution ratified and put into place. If the US was to just pull out it would be a bloodbath and the world would point fingers at the US for allowing it to happen. Stay the course or pull out. We stay the course the focus of the terrorists and militant groups are on the troops in theater. We pull out it releases some or alot of them to focus on the international community. Seeing as how, from what you say, they are saying "Go Home America" I can't help but htink their focus would turn to the US.

What is YOUR solution? I seem to have posed this very same question to other members of the forum that took your viewpoint and never received an answer either. Let's hear it.

As for the tightening of immigration laws and tougher border patrols etc etc. . odd that when we do this we have people screaming about civil rights violations. Heck, you already have that now about the Mexican border. People are griping about paying taxes and government spending on building new border defenses with Mexico.

The US has a massive border 12,034km (with an additional 19,924km coastline) vs France's 2,889km (with an additional 4668km of coastline). The US has a bit over 4x the border length that France does with appx 5x the population. Tell me again about tighter border controls and better accounting of it's citizens? You are from NY. You should know better than anyone how people feel about "Big Brother" getting in their day to day lives. http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-land-border-lengths
https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/fields/2060.html

As for the people here on expired visas. I am sure our immigration and visa department would love to have the additional manpower to track these people down. "This is odd, they aren't at that address and their phone number is out of service, no forwarding address". Uh-huh. I can see it now.
 
Last edited:
bulldogg said:
And Jequirity, get :cen:ed!
Click to expand...

Thank you for deleting your earlier post containing the insulting comment concerning my mother Bulldog, that was not an appropriate nor witty thing to say

Marinerhodes: I agree that the military commanders should be left to work their magic but their is a role for politicians to play, Iraq cannot be solved purely by the military. It needs decent input and effort from politicans and diplomats. I personally think that a surge of troops in iraq would be worth a shot and might have some benefits, in the long run or short term i don't know yet
 
jequirity said:
Iraq cannot be solved purely by the military. It needs decent input and effort from politicans and diplomats.
Click to expand...

Iraq can, in my opinion, be solved by the United States Military alone, but many, many, many Iraqis would be killed by the United States Military, many indiscriminately, many innocent of any crime.
You need to remember that Saddam kept those people under control.

Much like the catchphrase of "fight them over there so we wont have to fight them over here" the catchphrase of "War should not fought by Committee" is also tossed around by some, and yet President Bush, CinC, has never in his life served in Combat, and does not personally lead US Troops into Battle on todays Battlefields, so Wars are indeed fought by Committee, and will in my opinion continue to be fought by Committee if they are to be successful ventures, in my own opinion.
 
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, with 6 not voting.
Click to expand...
That right there shows it was nothing more than a waste of time and tax dollars, note the key word ;)

Mmarsh

So basically then with your logic Israel should just completely level Palestine or vice versa? Since those people do not want to get along and like you said you cant make people. So basically your logic is then to completely eliminate anyone that does not want to get along for you can not make them.
 
bulldogg said:
I'm not interested in telling you my ideas. It in fact doesn't matter what my ideas are and you do not have a clue what my ideology is. You seem to think that because I ask you for a reference and that I disagree with you must mean I stand for the complete opposite of you. Keep waiting because your out of hand dismissal of the opinions of some people on this board I respect renders me unable to discuss things with you without losing my temper.

And Jequirity, get :cen:ed!
Click to expand...

Oh I see, its all so clear now.

You wanted me to answer your questions (which I did) but you won't answer a single one of mine. Thats precisely what I expected from you. Is your argument so flawed that you cannot defend it properly without getting angry?

It doesn't matter, I don't care, you've shown your true colors and so I'll never answer a single question of yours ever again.

Oh, and was that little nasty comment to Jequirity how you keep your temper in check? He rightly told you to piss off because you were being rude to another member of this forum. Several of us more senior members know that this isn't the first time you've let shown your nasty streak at people who disagree with you.

Anyway, I am growing bored of your baiting tactics, rudeness, and snide comments. Obviously that all you have to offer, so I am done with you. On the 'Ignore' list you go.

To all

Anybody who disagrees with me and can reply calmly and politely is welcome to. Otherwise Bulldogg will be getting company.

MarinerRhodes

I said in an earlier post that the reason we were losing was because of Iraqi politics, not military force. It is the political scene that must improve, and I'm afraid its too late for that. We blew that chance in 2003, and Gator is right to say that we cannot win on military force alone.

I am not a soldier, so I will avoid giving useless military advice and take your word for it. But I am a student of Military History, and History shows that its very difficult (although I admit, not impossible) for a Foreign Army destroy a local home-brewed insurgency. The ones who succeeded (the British during the Boer War, the Greeks against the communist) did so by using tactics that would be totally unacceptable today. That is why I still think its better to fight them here, rather than there. And yes, if my country requested it I would come home to serve.

Which brings me to your question, What do I suggest? Like the SS TITANIC, Iraq is doomed to Civil War. Its regrettable, but its inevitable. We either head for the lifeboats now (or within 1-2 years), or we go down with the ship. Its that simple.

Our losses have already been considerable. 3000 dead, 21000 seriously wounded, over $1.2 Trillion spent. And whats worse, our government is totally clueless about how to resolve the crisis. They don't even know where to begin. I mean its so hopeless and pathetic its like watching a bad episode of The 3 stooges.

I see no need to continuous throw away good (our people) into bad (Iraq). Some people may think this is cowardly or defeatist, but I have a college classmate friend of mine is on his second tour as a Blackhawk pilot. (You can imagine how I feel about when hear about a chopper goes down).

I would rather be defeatist and save lives by urging withdrawl, then be considered brave by supporting this utter nonsense and get good people needlessly killed.

And its just not worth the price, it just isn't. The Iraqis don't even want us there. Its their choice, lets stop trying to play GOD and leave them to it. They don't want us? Fine by me, lets go home.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier. I simply don't think the terrorists will follow us here. Not in significant numbers at least. I think thats a Washington political spin to cover up a disastrous foreign policy. The vice-president is one of the most dishonest people I have ever seen. Sooner or later all of you are going to have to stop trusting these people. I guess thats my great luxury of being a civilian. I don't have to stay idly by and keep my tongue in check about these people.

BTW, I do support the military operations in Afghanistan. I think thats a far more important (and dangerous) situation. I would gladly agree about shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan.

As for immigration. I agree with you. I actually disagree with the liberals on this. I think the Mexican frontier should be closed (but regulated). Especially considering how cozy al Qaeda is getting in South America. And sure, if I move back to the US, if INS is needing a Network Engineer I am game. As long as the conditions are good I have no objections. Unfortunately considering how under-funded the Department is...

Donkey

I apologize for this. I'm tired, and its a long subject so I will chicken-out tonight and just say the Isreal-Palestine is different situation entirely. Its conflict is more political and economic rather than religious (although religion plays a part too). We can pick this up tommorow.
 
Last edited:
How do you know the Iraqi's don't want us there, do you talk to them or are you just working off what the television tells you?

One can also argue that who is to say we should or shouldnt be involved in others problems, who is to say that we having the capabilities of dealing with problems sit idle while humans are treated worse than PETA wants any animal treated.
 
mmarsh said:
Donkey

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/01/29/polls_show_iraqis_want_us_troops_out.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1537965.htm

And about a dozen or so more of these polls. Its unanimous.
Click to expand...

You prove you believe what the television tells you....

You are trying to tell me that because American News Media says so then it must be true?????

But I'm sure they want us out and to be self sufficient as much as we want them too....

Regardless of all that, the most recent passing of a resolution means absolutely nothing and is a complete waste of our tax dollars....
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
You prove you believe what the television tells you....

You are trying to tell me that because American News Media says so then it must be true?????

But I'm sure they want us out and to be self sufficient as much as we want them too....

Regardless of all that, the most recent passing of a resolution means absolutely nothing and is a complete waste of our tax dollars....
Click to expand...


One or two, sure. You can dismiss it as bias. But when the different news media all points to the same conclusion (which is almost every case is a overwhelming majority) yes I do.

I'm sure they want to be self-sufficient, but they don't want our help to do so. They view us as a occupier not as a benefactor. You cannot force help on people if they don't want it. As the saying goes:

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

It is a waste of our tax dollars. Then again, its a drop in the bucket compared to what this war has cost us.
 
Last edited:
Worse than a waste of tax dollars it provides aid and comfort to the enemy. They now know they simply need to wait us out and that the troops they are facing from our country are not fully supported at home. They will exploit this to the hilt as the Japanese and Germans did in previous wars. The traitorous bastards have put our troops in increased harm with this "non-binding" symbolic bullspit.

Further along this line is these god damn visits from the politicos to the troops so they can look like they care. They know damn well the gag order these troops are under so its safe for them to visit as no one is free to speak their mind.

One question I have for our vets and current active military who have been at one of these dog and pony shows... can you ask for permission to speak freely of an elected official and be immune from prosecution if they grant it??
 
I think a solution in Iraq is a lesson that we heard the politicians tell us they had learned from Viet Nam and that was to fight to win. Politicians have there place and it is not running the military and undermining our troops which is what this nonbinding resolution does. Give the current commander what he says he needs and let him do his job. Stop fighting with political correctness tied around your balls and fight to win.
 
bjackson911 said:
I think a solution in Iraq is a lesson that we heard the politicians tell us they had learned from Viet Nam and that was to fight to win. Politicians have there place and it is not running the military and undermining our troops which is what this nonbinding resolution does. Give the current commander what he says he needs and let him do his job. Stop fighting with political correctness tied around your balls and fight to win.
Click to expand...


First of nonbinding resolution is just that, nonbinding. It has no teeth at all, and not undermining the troops its not even directed at them, its directed at the White House. All it says is "we disagree with what you are doing".

I told my boss the same thing just yesterday. It doesn't mean I am trying to sink the company. Its simply a disagreement over strategy. The President's reponse was simply "thanks for the input, But I am going to do things my way". -Come to think of it, my boss said the same thing. :confused:

Frankly the White House needs to hear more of it, for their sakes if not for ours.

You are forgetting that the CnC was allowed to do what he wanted, without anyone getting in his way for the past 4 years. Its not like the Dems have been restricting is authority, he has had total control. His loss of total control only started last month.

Its not that the Dems are undermining him, its his own strategy, it simply hasn't worked. Its time for the CnC to start listening to people who disagree with him, because the talking heads hes got now are not serving him well at all.

Just look how long it took him to fire Rumsfeld. His own party (John McCain), his Chief of Staff (Andrew Card), his wife, even the friggin dog begged him to can Rummy months ago.
 
Last edited:
Here were a couple of alternatives suggested in an article in the washington post

"Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801823.html

Any comments on the feasibilty of these suggestions?
 
mmarsh-"First of nonbinding resolution is just that, nonbinding. It has no teeth at all, and not undermining the troops its not even directed at them, its directed at the White House. All it says is "we disagree with what you are doing"."

What is the point if it has no teeth? Do you not think this has a demoralizing effect on US troops fighting? Do you not think that this would embolden US enemy's? I disagree that it has no teeth I believe in fact it cuts to the core. Everything gives off something. It is well known that the trend in the United States right now is against US troops being stationed in Iraq and this nonbinding resolution did not need to happen in order to establish that. I believe as others have pointed out that it was simply a waist of tax payer money.

I also believe that it is not so much that the public disaproves the war as much as how it is being handled. There were weapons of mass distruction he was using on his own people but it was not the only reason we went in. He was a Evil bastered that got what he deserved. I believe that we should be sending in 150,000 troops and passify the whole damn thing, wait till they have a established gov and get out or just pull out everything now. I personally am in favour of sending over 150,000 and finishing what we started. FIGHT TO WIN
 
One point I left out there is a new commander being sent over if he is not there already and this is whom I was reffering too.
 
bjackson911 said:
mmarsh-"First of nonbinding resolution is just that, nonbinding. It has no teeth at all, and not undermining the troops its not even directed at them, its directed at the White House. All it says is "we disagree with what you are doing"."

What is the point if it has no teeth? Do you not think this has a demoralizing effect on US troops fighting? Do you not think that this would embolden US enemy's? I disagree that it has no teeth I believe in fact it cuts to the core. Everything gives off something. It is well known that the trend in the United States right now is against US troops being stationed in Iraq and this nonbinding resolution did not need to happen in order to establish that. I believe as others have pointed out that it was simply a waist of tax payer money.

I also believe that it is not so much that the public disaproves the war as much as how it is being handled. There were weapons of mass distruction he was using on his own people but it was not the only reason we went in. He was a Evil bastered that got what he deserved. I believe that we should be sending in 150,000 troops and passify the whole damn thing, wait till they have a established gov and get out or just pull out everything now. I personally am in favour of sending over 150,000 and finishing what we started. FIGHT TO WIN
Click to expand...

I agree with the first part. it should have had teeth. I think the reason it didnt is that there are still a few Democrats in Congress whom are scared to be labeled 'anti-American, anti-troop' by the GOP. They are chicken, so they simply bend over. Worms have more backbone. Its maddening.

It certainly demoralizes me, but I think the troops in Iraq have much more to worry about then a bunch of spineless congressmen in Washington. For example, not getting killed. I think seeing your friends killed and wounded is much more demoralizing than politics.

Send massive reinforcements might work (but you'd need at least 300000). Unfortunately such numbers simply don't exist. The military is stretched to its breaking point. There are only 3 ways to bolster the troop numbers. A) Convince the allies to send troops, B) Move forces from other areas to Iraq C) reintroduce the draft.

A) Will never happen, they few allies we have left are LEAVING IRAQ.
B) This would destabilize the rest of the world.
C) Would gaurentee that the GOP wouldn't win a single election ever again.

There there is no real way to bolster the troops in the way thats needed.
 
mmarsh-"There there is no real way to bolster the troops in the way thats needed."

So that being said would you then support the actions we are taking if enough troops could be sent?

mmarsh-"I agree with the first part. it should have had teeth. I think the reason it didnt is that there are still a few Democrats in Congress whom are scared to be labeled 'anti-American, anti-troop' by the GOP. They are chicken, so they simply bend over. Worms have more backbone. Its maddening."

I agree Dems have no backbone. The Clintons have a uncanny knack for jumping on whatever bandwagon will suit there political gains. As do most politicians regardless of there affiliation.

mmarsh-"It certainly demoralizes me, but I think the troops in Iraq have much more to worry about then a bunch of spineless congressmen in Washington. For example, not getting killed. I think seeing your friends killed and wounded is much more demoralizing than politics."

I agree, seeing your friends die is very demoralizing. So is being sent to do a job only to have your leadership denounce your efforts and make the dying of your friends pointless. It goes back to what I was saying about fighting half ass. We need to be all in or all out never half way.

And I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I saw earlier post that you would do your part if called back to America. Why wait for that? I joined the Army to do my part and no one had to ask me too.



​
 
FYI Rumsfeld was not fired because he was serving his purpose in the greater scheme. I've talked about this before and put the bloody links up for it as well. NOBODY reads anything anymore ffs... he was the fall guy. He wasn't fired, he bowed out on his own to salvage his post-administrative career. He may be a lot of things but politically stupid he is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top