Iraq War Emergency funding

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Godfearingsecular, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. Which side are you on in the Iraq War Emergency funding? I'm on America's side. There are those who would argue that one party or the other is not on America's side. I choose to support the President's Plan. I think Senator McCain explained it best in his speach to VMI (I think that was where he presented it)... His points were very powerful and sounded like they were taken from my favorite movie The Scent of a Woman, Colonel Slate addressing the student body and facualty staff as he dressed down the Democratic Party for celebrating surrender and defeat without addressing what will happen after withdraw.
    Do you think actions like this will help?

    Or do you think the people will buy acitons like this?

    I don't think either of these address the problem... The problem is that America is at WAR in Iraq, we have moral responsibilities and national interests that the nation of Iraq doesn't become a terrorist haven as Afghanistan pre-9-11... I think Senator McCain hit the nail on the head with his speech. While I don't particularly like Senator McCain he has this fact correct.

    The Democratic Party should end funding or simply provide funding. Managment is the job of the Commander in Chief as I read the US Constitution. How do you read it?

  2. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    So you believe one party in particular is with the terrorists?

    Wanna know another fact? McCain is personally responsible for the deaths of 20 Iraqis.

    Bush is holding the troops hostage, threating congress with their death unless the pentagon gets another blank check for the war. That stops now.
  3. No, I didn't say that. I think one party is playing politics and desires the war to end in failure for political reasons and little more. If the Democratic Party would clearly state what actions they would take when Iraq falls apart as the result of failure there then I would respect them. I would respect them if they said Iraq is on its own. But they don't address anything but leaving Iraq. They don't address how that is in America's interest to have Iraq as a failed state. They don't speak to force on ending Iran's nuclear ambitions yet know that the issue is pending. We rely on Mid East oil and within months of failure it could easily be shut off. If the Democrats causes failure then they can blame Bush... but if they accept the fact we need ME oil then they should accept America has national interests in Iraq ending in a stable maner.

    Lets share a bad dream... the Democrats get a pair... cut off funding... Iran helps the Shiite's and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordon helps the Sunni's... The Democrats win the Whitehouse and all of Congress in 08... Millions of Sunni's and Shiite's are killing each other...Israel bombs Iran in fear of Nuclear attack... no oil leaves the ME and gasoline goes to $15 a gallon... Sunni oil rich terrorists stabalize Iraq and totally control the Iraqi oil and build weapons to destroy America... will the Democrats admit they were wrong and ask congess to go to war with Iraq or just bomb them into the stone age killing the rest of the Iraqi's?

    All deaths in war are the direct result of the failure of diplomacy. Saddam chose war and not America.

    We restarted the war with Iraq because they refussed to live up to the ceasefire agreement... Saddam demanded to be feared by his neighbors impling he had WMD's while not completely disarming... The ceasefire agreement Saddam signed could have been met within 180 days had he desired to show he had no claws... Apply logic which seems to be in short supply and ask why after a decade and a half he still fudged? Saddam chose a hostile end every day after the 180 days in which he could have lived up to the ceasefire and the US reluctantly gave him his wish after practically begging him to send out his scientist and you choose to support a brutal dictator and blame America... I think it is clear where you stand.

    If you are objective then you may conclude the Democrats are holding the troops hostage for political gain. The Executive Branch has no funds to fight war... the war could not have happened in a democratic republic without the will of Congress who controls the money. The Democrats need to send money or cut off money... you say "That stops now" but they haven't agreed with you to cut off money. They only offer money for failure to be certain which is the reason they claim they were elected into the majority. Bush has offered a method of success and they offer a political Bush failure assuring each and every death in this war was for nothing... but worst of all by funding in such a manner assure each and every death after funding for sure failure is immoral and for nothing but politics.
  4. CMK_Eagle

    CMK_Eagle Registered Member

    To be fair, the Democrats believe the US has already failed, and that the situation in Iraq is beyond redemption, and as such pulling funding does make sense, though I agree that it'd be more courageous of them to cut it off immediately.
  5. That is the basis I use for the Democrats actions to only support politics... If they truly think there is no chance of success then defund the war and own the results... to leave soldiers on the battlefield with no plan for success while funding failure to blame on another politician is immoral. Want it own it!
  6. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Ever consider the fact that they might want to save America from complete failure and try to reverse the terrible damage already done while stil keeping a realistic view of the situation? Maybe that's what we need.

    How about Biden's plan to split Iraq into 3 parts. The entire country was made up by the British to be exploited for oil in the first place.

    If we needed it that badly, maybe we shouldn't have destabalized the country in the first place.


    Saddam didn't do much differently since the end of the Gulf War, and Bush wasn't to intrested in him before 9/11. Since the Bush cronies knew there wasn't a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, I'm a bit puzzeled as to how he just decided to declare war one day in March of 03.

    The post war treaties were ridiculous, and with the crushing embargos the only weapons Saddam had were the ones we had sold him. Again, why wasn't Iraq targeted the day Bush got into office if Saddam was such a repeat offender?

    A man with a gun walks into a building with a gun and when the authorities arrive threatens to shoot his hostages unless they give him cash. From where I'm sitting, Bush is putting the troops in harms way by sending them with the surge without the proper equipment just as the hostage taker endangers the hostages with his gun. Congress and the authorities both have the choice to just give in and hand over the omeny (but seeing how it's been so poorly mismanaged and abused so far this wouldn't be plan A) or they could try and stop the hostage taker's plan.


  7. Of course I considered it but if you look at the current war funding bill and how votes were bought I see politics. To rationalize one must listen to what politicians say and the left always speaks to Move On… never is a war speech started with “the war must be successful” by someone on the left.

    The west has managed the ME since WWI, the ME chose the wrong side on WWI and II. When President Bush addressed the ME foreign policy after 9-11 he clearly stated no longer will the US manage the ME through propping up dictators but will give the people the right to choose democracy. Senator Bidens’ plan has some merit but should only be used if the current plan fails. It was the terrorists that rekindled the ethnic civil strife now ongoing… it’s possible to resolve this tit for tat if the legislation works on dividing issues. Should the nation be broken into three sectors further ethnic cleansing could accelerate and regional neighbors could start disputes in the North and the South. The current mission could be accomplished just as easily as Bidens’ plan.

    Saddam destabilized the region when he invaded Kuwait. From the end of the Gulf War to the beginning of the restart of hostilities nothing changed. If you recall the first installment for war funding was $87 billion… of that war money 24 billion were needed to remove US AF Bases from Saudi Arabia… answer me this if Saudi Arabia didn’t fear Saddam in 03 then why did they not demand the bases be removed before the restart of hostilities? The region feared Saddam as they now fear Iran up until the statue fell in Baghdad.
    In 1998 during the Clinton administration the US Congress passed legislation stating that a regime change must take place in Iraq before America recognizes Iraq as a sovereign nation regardless of Saddam living up to the UN Ceasefire agreement. Saddam declared America as an enemy and then after 9-11 it was clear that Saddam show he had totally disarmed or be forced to… logical people would think Saddam would use the enemy of my enemy is my friend to fight his enemy, America.

    UN-Iraq Ceasefire agreement required Saddam provide a list of wmd’s to the UN and then destroy all the weapons on that list in the presence of UN weapons inspectors… That is not ridiculous, what is ridiculous is that Saddam didn’t just expedite the destruction of wmd’s and be returned to sovereign nation status in 180 days following the Gulf War. Stop making excuses for a dictator that desired to have his cake and eat it too.

    Your analogy doesn’t hold water… America voted for hostilities or war and not a police action… but, let’s visit a similar police action, the Korean Conflict… let’s say that the Democrats held a similar funding bill as the N. Koreans and Chinese had forced the S. Korean and US Army to the Pusan perimeter… a measure that required us to redeploy to Japan and train S. Korean soldiers… I see the remaining US troops being evacuated like the scenes in Vietnam… then N. Korea and China would take on their arch enemy Japan while it was weak… Now this is an equal analogy of what the Democrats are doing… There would be no thriving S. Korea or Japan now and Asia would look much differently… but hey we can live without Kia’s and Hondas’ but we can’t live without oil nor can we allow Israel to be destroyed. And with certain oil profits the terrorist that ran us out will build a deliverable bomb or wmd to destroy America.

    The plan shows possibilities of victory as did the Incheon invasion in the Korean Conflict…

    He listened to his military commanders and the DOD civilian staff… He had the entire staff reevaluate the mission after the terrorists had started ethnic upheaval and the staff came up with a new plan… the plan is to win… like in the Korean Conflict, WWI and WWII. Keep trying until you find the right plan.

    It saddens me that Americans or westerners would consider a nations leadership would go to war for profit.
  8. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    You know, it breaks my heart that that's happened for so long, it really does, but Iraq will never restabalize without an iron-fisted dictator, similar to Saddam (who the US installed in 1963). The country overlaps 3 different, deeply divided ethnic regions that won't reconcile their 1300 year-old sectarian war because Bush tells them too. I'm not saying every Sunni hates every Shi'ite and vice-verse, because that isn't accurate, but when I see an entire battalion of the new Iraqi army throw down their guns and helmets on the parade grounds and quit after hearing they'll be deployed in a different ethnic region than theirs, it doesn't inspire much hope.

    In fact, Winston Churchill specifically carved Iraq out of those 3 regions so that they would be too splintered to ever unite and overthrow foreign occupiers, and his plan seems to be working.

    The only thing he destabilized was Kuwaits oil producing capabilites, which Washington was not too happy about.

    Iran isn't actually a threat. And even if it is, we don't have the man power to do anything militarily and Bush isn't helping diplomatic relations by calling them evil.

    It's no secret that the US and Iraq havn't been on the best of terms, but that still doesn't prove they had connections to 9/11 or WMDs.

    Think he could have seen a connection?

    No, it doesn't. The middle class has fled the country, car bombs still rip through neighborhoods and US troops continue to die all while ruled by a puppet Iraqi presidency.

    No he doesn't. That's one of the reasons for the failure.

    Article stupid. I thought it was to lose. Also, we didn't win Korea.

    It saddens me to think that there are those that would so blindly follow a president, use red font and think that a majority of the congress would make US troops their political enemy.
  9. blenderboy55

    blenderboy55 Guest


    Technically, the Dems have and also will believe we're failures. That's why moving them to Europe might not be a bad idea. Cheaper than this war anyway.

  10. I think the region was managed for the oil resources that are necessary for war in the beginning. Then, latter on the oil demand around the world required a steady source of supply for domestic purposes. You have to keep in mind that the cold war started just as soon as WWII finished and that Russia, then the USSR was already in the region and southwest Europe as America warred in Korea. Most of the region was managed by France and England. The only area free from the old Ottoman Empire was Kuwait, a protectorate of England. The different tribes lived together just fine until an outside terrorist caused the tipping point by bombing the holy place.

    Again, America could care less at the time because the oil at that time was our European allies problem... we didn't even concern ourselves with the Indian Reservation known as Israel until much, much latter.

    I don't think America would have joined in on an action to remove Saddam from Kuwait if a normal supply of oil was expected. We went to war with Iraq in Desert Storm because the neighbors, and I mean all the neighbors were afraid of Saddam. America thought that Saddam would control the oil out of the ME with his intimidation tactics... taking Kuwait would allow him the additional resources to become such a power to dominate the ME... He would set world oil prices on his terms, thus America joined in on the fight. Keep in mind that Saddam and team are Sunnis' and so are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The same worry exists today with Iran. America's interests in the region are free flow of world oil and Israel.

    Iran is a threat, it is just that the best corse of action isn't war because the people of Iran are very nationalistic and will rally to the cause. The Iranian government should be made so unpopular the masses kicks them out of power... starve them off of every contact with the outside world and blame the clerics... make life more miserable until they fold... at the same time threaten Russia that if they help they will pay a big price.

    Well no, but the reason we entered into war with Iraq in the first place was stated above and nothing had changed according to UN, World and US Intel. Saddam was still considered a threat as evident by Saudi Arabia allowing US air bases on their sacred wind blown sand out of continues projected fear from Saddam.

    The only connection seen was the reality of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Al Queda terrorists equally dislike Russia, Europe, Israel and the US along with moderate Muslim leadership governments that have open relations with outside enemies stated. Within Saudi Arabia Al Queda is in competition with the Kingdom... Most ME nations are happy as pigs in crap wallowing in their oil money and then one pops up like Saddam or the clerics in Iran to screw up their good thing.

    Iraq has the possibility of being the richest nation in the ME if the people can work out their differences... requires some sort of security to work out the wrinkles... the people who fled will flock to Iraq if agreement comes. I think there is a 50-50 chance of success.

    One cool thing about the Army and the DOD as a whole is that it is an equal employment opportunity employeer... there are Democrats in every level of the organization that have a political leaning and your article shows the leaning.

    We, the American led UN force kicked N. Korea and China's butt all the way to the Yallow river forcing their militaries into China... there was a US election and Eisenhower had ran on an Oboma platform and "allowed" N. Korea to be formed... it could have been one Korea today had the political resolve been there because the allied military kicked serious butt.

    The majority of Congress sent the troops to war and then some of them saw political opportunity with wet fingers in the breeze and started repeating over and over the same message... I don't blindly follow the president, I think the "rules of engagement" with a civilian clothed enemy should be much different... I would burry them under pig guts and coat each and every bomb with Jewish or pig blood... if a hostile round was fired from a dweling it would be answered with a blood coated 500 bomb.

    I copy and paste long posts to Word and then edit in answers in red to allow me to quickly cut and paste in the reply... I didn't know the color would transfer to the thread... each site is different... but I got it figured out now.

    I worked in DC in 1982 with the DC National Guard on a full time manning program... what a town...

Share This Page