People think withdrawing funding is a good idea? Really?
So our troops get LESS body armor? FEWER weapons?
I'm all for ending the war, but you don't do it by bleeding the army dry.
Then again, I believe Robert has said that anyone in the army is an agent of the devil or some such... I guarantee you he will not say this to a soldier's face.
Cutting funding does not mean the troops are left sitting there with no support. It means the Pentagon has no choice but to redeploy them.
Some people here need to quit parroting GW.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
People think withdrawing funding is a good idea? Really?
So our troops get LESS body armor? FEWER weapons?
I'm all for ending the war, but you don't do it by bleeding the army dry.
Then again, I believe Robert has said that anyone in the army is an agent of the devil or some such... I guarantee you he will not say this to a soldier's face.
Cutting funding does not mean the troops are left sitting there with no support. It means the Pentagon has no choice but to redeploy them.
Some people here need to quit parroting GW.
It's like people have adopted what they've come to know as the way of politicians as their own. But there is no need for a private citizen to hem and haw and compromise themselves in order to merely state their opinions clearly. It's like giving up half the battle before it even begins.
Jesus... the rhetoric in this thread is astounding. If the love of hearing one's self talk, the levy of heavy-handed accusation and self-serving slogan are any indication, I'd say those that accuse me of parroting politicians doth protest too much.
I am all ears to hear some good, thoughtful solutions to ending this war. Do we just pack up and go home, and say "sorry bout that"? I believe that merely cutting the funding - without strategic withdrawal and a shift in priorities - to an army that has been TRAGICALLY, LETHALLY underfunded since day one is not going to help stabilize Iraq or get our troops home safe. It will not force the pentagon to redeploy (anyone with an actual military background or experience, feel free to step in and correct me. I am just a civilian).
If we cut funding without actually changing the mission, we force American troops to withdraw to their bases and watch the country tear itself apart. We will run missions with one iota the strength and get torn apart. Like we were doing before "the surge".
I never once wanted to go into this war, I never lent a single word of support to it. But we've broken Iraq. I'm frankly surprised that Robert is advocating a position of leaving the country run through and tattered... seems like politics/business as usual for the USA. I would have imagined a more caring position from someone who bases his on what the other 75% of the world thinks.
I frankly don't know *what* to do. My gut feeling is that we should withdraw a significant portion of our troops and run a high-level anti-terrorism campaign to ensure that we do not allow Al Qaeda In Iraq (a demon of our own manufacture) to get a hold in the country. But I'm no military strategist.
How would you guys feel if we withdrew all of our forces and Iraq turned into Rwanda? Would you turn away?
I'm frankly surprised that Robert is advocating a position of leaving the country run through and tattered...
How would you guys feel if we withdrew all of our forces and Iraq turned into Rwanda? Would you turn away?
These would just be added to the list of things he can get on his soapbox about. Just like the rest of us.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Jesus... the rhetoric in this thread is astounding. If the love of hearing one's self talk, the levy of heavy-handed accusation and self-serving slogan are any indication, I'd say those that accuse me of parroting politicians doth protest too much.
I am all ears to hear some good, thoughtful solutions to ending this war. Do we just pack up and go home, and say "sorry bout that"? I believe that merely cutting the funding - without strategic withdrawal and a shift in priorities - to an army that has been TRAGICALLY, LETHALLY underfunded since day one is not going to help stabilize Iraq or get our troops home safe. It will not force the pentagon to redeploy (anyone with an actual military background or experience, feel free to step in and correct me. I am just a civilian).
If we cut funding without actually changing the mission, we force American troops to withdraw to their bases and watch the country tear itself apart. We will run missions with one iota the strength and get torn apart. Like we were doing before "the surge".
I never once wanted to go into this war, I never lent a single word of support to it. But we've broken Iraq. I'm frankly surprised that Robert is advocating a position of leaving the country run through and tattered... seems like politics/business as usual for the USA. I would have imagined a more caring position from someone who bases his on what the other 75% of the world thinks.
I frankly don't know *what* to do. My gut feeling is that we should withdraw a significant portion of our troops and run a high-level anti-terrorism campaign to ensure that we do not allow Al Qaeda In Iraq (a demon of our own manufacture) to get a hold in the country. But I'm no military strategist.
How would you guys feel if we withdrew all of our forces and Iraq turned into Rwanda? Would you turn away?
Seems like it's the Vietnam discussion all over again. The Iraq situation, just like the Vietnam siuation, presents an endless war. The US has been steady pulverizing Iraq for 17 years now...bombed the hell out of it, gutted its army, destroyed its oil fields, siezed its assets, starved its children, killed its leader, tortured its soldiers, made the people adopt our way of democracy, spread cancerous depleted uranium, etc.
What more is there for the US to do? And in order to achieve what exactly?
It's been long past time to
Broker for someone else to pick up the pieces. Put much of the US money now going towards mlitary spending in the area to recovery relief as the Soviets, the British, the UN even...whoever takes the reigns on stabilizing Iraq.
Of course the US would never do that, since the goal is securing the area for its own economic interests rather than this total farce of an idea that the US is genuinely interested in helping the Iraqi people.
So instead of letting hawk-ass Lyndon Johnson, I mean George Bush talk you into thinking that if we pull funding from this catostrophe-from-day-one that it's some moral issue and ultimately blood on your hands for not wanting the US to completely follow through on their most conniving and disasterous mission, shout that shit down from the rafters.
Especially since our voices are so miniscule, we always need to make them ring loud and clear. Again, there is no need for a private citizen who claims to not support the war to concede so much to the point of becoming complicit to the wrongdoing of their government.
The troops are being exposed to the depleted uranium just like the Iraqis are. They are our family members, our friends, our neighbors. Bring them home and put them to work helping our own democracy and economy. Our schools over here suck. Our health care over here sucks. It's such a waste of resources to be so overextended in Iraq when we are so clearly lacking right here at home. And oil isn't supposed to be our future anyway...
If we cut funding without actually changing the mission, we force American troops to withdraw to their bases and watch the country tear itself apart. We will run missions with one iota the strength and get torn apart. Like we were doing before "the surge".
you sound like john mccain. ten years from now, or even 100 years from now, i'm sure you could make the same argument. the country already is tearing itself apart.
if we had never gone in there to begin with, and there was a humanitarian plea to go help out the innocent iraqis who are getting caught up in this - would we go over? well, considering what is going on in Chad, Darfur, Sudan, etc., i'd say our track record points to NO. moreover, in those countries, the weapons being used by the "rebels" are far less sophisticated then f*cking roadside bombs, as strange as that sounds. Kids are getting macheted to death. If our resources only allow us to be in one place , my vote is for Africa, where our presence alone will deter killings.
i dont understand people who are torn about Iraq. would you want your brother/son to go over there right now and "fight"????? how do you think the vets of the Iraq war feel when they get home, as opposed to the vets of WWII?
I'm not torn about it at all - I believe that *just* pulling funding is some limp bullshit that will not help anyone involved.
the issue over pulling the funding is dead. bush is only in office another 11 months. he's already got what he needs and if he comes back looking for more and congress says no, he could always pull it from other places.
the real issue is whether we should get out right away when he leaves. the answer is HELL YES. i don't know what you think we are accomplishing by hanging around spending a billion dollars an hour!!!!! again, if you think this is about being a humanitarian, africa would be a much better use of that money.
Dan, you won't have to worry about me talking anymore. I look for honest and intelligent discourse, this site has very little of it.
I'm not mad, at either of you. It was just that after 20 hours 3 pages of you and he were added to this thread and I didn't want to read every word.
I've been suckered into arguing with him too.
Read KVH's argument again. Cutting off funds for Iraq could mean abandoning our troops in Iraq without supplies. It could mean a hasty and messy withdrawal. This administration is capable of both. But it should mean redeployment. The Pentagon could easily come back with a plan that turned the Bagram AB and Green Zone over to Iraqis with a small US presence. We would still be in the Gulf, Mediterranean, Quat and Afghanistan.
The troops are being exposed to the depleted uranium just like the Iraqis are. They are our family members, our friends, our neighbors. Bring them home and put them to work helping our own democracy and economy.
You seem pretty concerned about these EVIL people all of a sudden.
Broker for someone else to pick up the pieces. Put much of the US money now going towards mlitary spending in the area to recovery relief as the Soviets, the British, the UN even...whoever takes the reigns on stabilizing Iraq.
I can't believe that I am agreeing with you after some of the nonsense I have seen you write, but you are right on this one Mr. Canal. We are hopelessly compromised as a "peacekeeping" force in Iraq because (a) we are really an occupying invading army and (b) we are held in such low esteem in the Arab world. If we are serious about making a peaceful Iraq we desperately need help, because we can never succeed with our current strategy.
Iraq Speech by Barack Obama Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don???t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton???s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don???t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration???s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don???t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ??? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That???s what I???m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear ??? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He???s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I???m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn???t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not ??? we will not ??? travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
[Harvey] payback from the global banking elite. Chicago style[/harvey]
The London School of Economics (LSE) has launched an investigation into claims that Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif, plagiarised his PhD thesis.
The 38-year-old graduated from LSE with a Master's degree in philosophy, policy and social value in 2003 and gained a PhD in philosophy in 2008. It is alleged that he used a ghost writer and copied sections of his thesis, The Role of Civil Society in the Democratisation of Global Governance Institutions, which was examined by Lord Desai, the Labour peer.
Howard Davies, the LSE director, has already admitted that he felt "embarrassed" about the university's ties to Saif Gaddafi. The LSE accepted his offer of a ??1.5m gift from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation in 2009. The LSE received ??300,000, half of which has already been spent on research related to North Africa and the development of civil society.
Comments
Cutting funding does not mean the troops are left sitting there with no support. It means the Pentagon has no choice but to redeploy them.
Some people here need to quit parroting GW.
It's like people have adopted what they've come to know as the way of politicians as their own. But there is no need for a private citizen to hem and haw and compromise themselves in order to merely state their opinions clearly. It's like giving up half the battle before it even begins.
I am all ears to hear some good, thoughtful solutions to ending this war. Do we just pack up and go home, and say "sorry bout that"? I believe that merely cutting the funding - without strategic withdrawal and a shift in priorities - to an army that has been TRAGICALLY, LETHALLY underfunded since day one is not going to help stabilize Iraq or get our troops home safe. It will not force the pentagon to redeploy (anyone with an actual military background or experience, feel free to step in and correct me. I am just a civilian).
If we cut funding without actually changing the mission, we force American troops to withdraw to their bases and watch the country tear itself apart. We will run missions with one iota the strength and get torn apart. Like we were doing before "the surge".
I never once wanted to go into this war, I never lent a single word of support to it. But we've broken Iraq. I'm frankly surprised that Robert is advocating a position of leaving the country run through and tattered... seems like politics/business as usual for the USA. I would have imagined a more caring position from someone who bases his on what the other 75% of the world thinks.
I frankly don't know *what* to do. My gut feeling is that we should withdraw a significant portion of our troops and run a high-level anti-terrorism campaign to ensure that we do not allow Al Qaeda In Iraq (a demon of our own manufacture) to get a hold in the country. But I'm no military strategist.
How would you guys feel if we withdrew all of our forces and Iraq turned into Rwanda? Would you turn away?
These would just be added to the list of things he can get on his soapbox about. Just like the rest of us.
Seems like it's the Vietnam discussion all over again. The Iraq situation, just like the Vietnam siuation, presents an endless war. The US has been steady pulverizing Iraq for 17 years now...bombed the hell out of it, gutted its army, destroyed its oil fields, siezed its assets, starved its children, killed its leader, tortured its soldiers, made the people adopt our way of democracy, spread cancerous depleted uranium, etc.
What more is there for the US to do? And in order to achieve what exactly?
It's been long past time to
Broker for someone else to pick up the pieces. Put much of the US money now going towards mlitary spending in the area to recovery relief as the Soviets, the British, the UN even...whoever takes the reigns on stabilizing Iraq.
Of course the US would never do that, since the goal is securing the area for its own economic interests rather than this total farce of an idea that the US is genuinely interested in helping the Iraqi people.
So instead of letting hawk-ass Lyndon Johnson, I mean George Bush talk you into thinking that if we pull funding from this catostrophe-from-day-one that it's some moral issue and ultimately blood on your hands for not wanting the US to completely follow through on their most conniving and disasterous mission, shout that shit down from the rafters.
Especially since our voices are so miniscule, we always need to make them ring loud and clear. Again, there is no need for a private citizen who claims to not support the war to concede so much to the point of becoming complicit to the wrongdoing of their government.
The troops are being exposed to the depleted uranium just like the Iraqis are. They are our family members, our friends, our neighbors. Bring them home and put them to work helping our own democracy and economy. Our schools over here suck. Our health care over here sucks. It's such a waste of resources to be so overextended in Iraq when we are so clearly lacking right here at home. And oil isn't supposed to be our future anyway...
End the war, end the war, end the war.
That's all there is to it.
you sound like john mccain. ten years from now, or even 100 years from now, i'm sure you could make the same argument. the country already is tearing itself apart.
if we had never gone in there to begin with, and there was a humanitarian plea to go help out the innocent iraqis who are getting caught up in this - would we go over? well, considering what is going on in Chad, Darfur, Sudan, etc., i'd say our track record points to NO. moreover, in those countries, the weapons being used by the "rebels" are far less sophisticated then f*cking roadside bombs, as strange as that sounds. Kids are getting macheted to death. If our resources only allow us to be in one place , my vote is for Africa, where our presence alone will deter killings.
i dont understand people who are torn about Iraq. would you want your brother/son to go over there right now and "fight"????? how do you think the vets of the Iraq war feel when they get home, as opposed to the vets of WWII?
We need to turn the ship around, not just take our foot off of the gas.
Dan, you won't have to worry about me talking anymore. I look for honest and intelligent discourse, this site has very little of it.
the issue over pulling the funding is dead. bush is only in office another 11 months. he's already got what he needs and if he comes back looking for more and congress says no, he could always pull it from other places.
the real issue is whether we should get out right away when he leaves. the answer is HELL YES. i don't know what you think we are accomplishing by hanging around spending a billion dollars an hour!!!!! again, if you think this is about being a humanitarian, africa would be a much better use of that money.
This is such a bad look for you.
I'm not mad, at either of you. It was just that after 20 hours 3 pages of you and he were added to this thread and I didn't want to read every word.
I've been suckered into arguing with him too.
Read KVH's argument again. Cutting off funds for Iraq could mean abandoning our troops in Iraq without supplies. It could mean a hasty and messy withdrawal. This administration is capable of both. But it should mean redeployment. The Pentagon could easily come back with a plan that turned the Bagram AB and Green Zone over to Iraqis with a small US presence. We would still be in the Gulf, Mediterranean, Quat and Afghanistan.
You seem pretty concerned about these EVIL people all of a sudden.
I can't believe that I am agreeing with you after some of the nonsense I have seen you write, but you are right on this one Mr. Canal. We are hopelessly compromised as a "peacekeeping" force in Iraq because (a) we are really an occupying invading army and (b) we are held in such low esteem in the Arab world. If we are serious about making a peaceful Iraq we desperately need help, because we can never succeed with our current strategy.
Monty!
R.I.P.
Ha ha. Good stuff in here.
yup