Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 10, 2007, 05:10:44 PM
-
I've highlighted the portions of this article (bold) that reminds me of alot of posters on this board. I think this was a thoughtful, well written OP-ED and I agree 100% with the author. I hope Bush veto's again if congress gives him a piece of garbage to sign, again.
Veto It Again
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Congress: Having gone back to the drawing board, the best the Democrats can offer is to fund the war in Iraq for two months. If President Bush is presented with such a bill, he should veto it like he did the last one.
It's possible that Democrats in the House are so blinded by their hatred of the president that they don't realize the deep damage they're doing to the country. If they get their way, America will lose a war. This is simply unconscionable.
The Senate's own sorry counterpart to the House's bill of surrender would force the U.S. military and Iraqi government to meet certain "benchmarks" to get funding.
This is no way to run a war. Wars are won by soldiers on the ground, not by government accountants doling out money in dribs and drabs and checking the books every 10 minutes to make sure they're getting their money's worth.
And make no mistake: Our military is trying to win this war.
The Pentagon this week said it's calling up 35,000 troops to help maintain the surge that will defeat the terrorists in Iraq. As the Washington Post reported Wednesday, ground commanders in Iraq believe the "surge" must last at least into spring of 2008.
Which is why playing with funding right now is disastrous. We're at a crucial point in this war. We're trying to bring a level of security and control to Iraq's major cities that has heretofore been lacking. And believe it or not, we've got al-Qaida on the run.
But the 35,000 troops bound for Iraq need equipment. They need to be fed and quartered. They need weapons. More importantly, they need to know they won't be stabbed in the back by Congress.
Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate panel that any attempt to fund the war for just 60 days would have a "huge impact" on our ability to fight. Yet that's just what the House may try to do. And the Senate, sadly, may follow suit.
Maybe lawmakers are looking at recent polls showing President Bush's approval rating at record lows. Or at a recent poll showing that, among Democrats, a shocking 35 percent believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, while just 26% are "not sure."
Such insane notions are easily disproved. But the fact that so many believe them anyway is a sad commentary on both the state of our democracy and the quality of our media.
Regrettably, the mainstream media can't be stirred from their Bush-hating torpor to note such simple facts as there was no government conspiracy behind 9/11 or that tying the hands of the military and telling your enemy in advance what you plan to do leads inevitably to defeat.
We give the Democrats in Congress, and their small number of GOP allies, this much: Their recent proposals are at least a bit closer to what they actually want to do, if they had the guts ***8212; that is, defund the war entirely and bring the troops home.
Instead, they want to leave our military hanging, while they dishonestly repeat the mantra of "we support our troops."
Time was, Americans came together in time of war. That was almost always the case in Congress. Those days are gone. Today, one party votes for a war and, as soon as it becomes unpopular, refuses to take responsibility for it; or to fight to win.
Bush has said he'll veto these bad bills. Good. If he does that enough, Democrats at some point will have to get serious. We only hope that comes before the war is lost.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263601842234172
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I've highlighted the portions of this article (bold) that reminds me of alot of posters on this board. I think this was a thoughtful, well written OP-ED and I agree 100% with the author. I hope Bush veto's again if congress gives him a piece of garbage to sign, again.
I guess the only real question is, did you managed to post enough "original content" for your thread not to be counted as a rip-and-paste-hate-spew troll?
-
Seems to me that the Congress is expressing the will of the people.
From what I've seen in the news these past few days, the draw down is inevitable. From what I gather, the army is preparing to be out of Iraq in 36 months.
-
he said..whats he see's on the "news"...
lololo
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
he said..whats he see's on the "news"...
lololo
Well... FWIW, it was on Joe Scarborough's show. You know... the former Republican Congressman from Florida. :)
-
run forrest run,
fools, running away from iraq will not "end the war" it will escalate the war with unknown results.
but running away will let the democrats claim a "victory".
run pelosie run.
-
Originally posted by john9001
run forrest run,
fools, running away from iraq will not "end the war" it will escalate the war with unknown results.
I'm thinking this particular fear card is played out. Time to learn a new tune.
-
the USA was once called a paper tiger, it is true, it has a strong military but a weak government.
and a weak people, go watch your fake news shows like daily show and shop at the mall.
-
I think this is a legitimate question, since there are two sides to this issue lets hear what you guys think. What happens if we leave Iraq in say 18 to 24 months? I've got my opinion, what do you guys think?
-
I've got another question...
Why should I care?
Really, I'm quite beyond caring what the Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Turks or Persians do to each other.
-
Originally posted by -CodyC
I think this is a legitimate question, since there are two sides to this issue lets hear what you guys think. What happens if we leave Iraq in say 18 to 24 months? I've got my opinion, what do you guys think?
Within months Iran will take over Iraq, put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and basicly control over half of the worlds oil supply. Iran will continue on it's course to develop nuclear weapons unchecked and once it has them will drop several nukes on Israel. Iran will also continue to sponsor terrorism with the goal of mounting a large scale attack here in the United States, possibly with a nuke and most likely the target will be Washington DC with the goal of decapitating the government. Radical Islamic extreamists will continue unhindered on their quest to bring the entire world under the banner of Islam with continued terror attacks that will become more dangerous, deadly, and higher and higher body counts.
In the mean time US credibility around the world will plummit along with our economy as the Democratic Party led government continues to rape the American people with higher taxes, and guts the military leaving our national defense in tatters. This they will do all in the name of spending money for all their feel good programs for the "less fortunate" around the world while continuing to ignore Americans that need help unless they are illegal imagrants, gays, or belong to some minority that they can exploit at a later time.
Within ten years the ACLU will be in power with the total support of the Democrats and Isalm will be the most prolific religion in this country and those in power will tout this as a good thing for America's "New way Forward" into the world. Your right to own a firearm will be stripped away from you, and by mearly speaking anything hatefull will land you in jail, hence stripping you of your right to speak freely.
Call me crazy if you want but I believe it can and will happen with the nutjobs that were just elected if we, the American people, don't stand up and kick them in the ass.
-
Yeah... =/ Congress didn't learn a thing from how they missmanaged the Viet Nam war. They want to do it all over again to see if they can possibly screw the pooch any worse...
Originally posted by Sandman
Seems to me that the Congress is expressing the will of the people.
From what I've seen in the news these past few days, the draw down is inevitable. From what I gather, the army is preparing to be out of Iraq in 36 months.
Keep in mind that it was only 25% of the people that voted. God forbid we get an actual majority turn out like France did recently.
-
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Seems to me that the Congress is expressing the will of the people.
From what I've seen in the news these past few days, the draw down is inevitable. From what I gather, the army is preparing to be out of Iraq in 36 months.
Sandy I don't think a 36 month plan is a "draw down" it's an actual operation.
Seriously from all the news I've gotten from the people that are actually there now it seems that we've reached a point in the Iraq war were the people there are tired of it. Most of our raids and intell we get from the locals that are tired of people blowing crap up in the name of their god. Recent looks at places like Ramandi and such are perfect indicators of recent successes on our parts and of that of the Iraqis themselves. Streets that were once bare are now filled with markets. Shops have re-opened and bombings/attacks have reached an all time low.
Iraq has to succeed. The stakes there are too high. As Hornet pointed out there is a good chance that a country like Iran would control half the worlds oil supply. And while some may chant "no blood for oil" like it or not oil is what fuels our economy as we know it. With out it we are basically back in the stone ages.
While I agree to some point that the democrats are fulfilling the "will of the people" I don't agree with the fact that they this country doesn't go by "mob rule" An opinion poll should not dictate a decision, we didn't elect the current congress to legislate from polls, and we never should.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.
That's just it. The Democrats think you can manage a war. Well you don't manage a war, you FIGHT a war, and when your fighting a war stuff happens and you can't predict what the enemy will do next. You just have to react, but to the Democrats way of thinking, anything the enemy does that we didn't plan for is mismanagement.
Not to mention the "stellar" job they've done so far by trying to hamstring our troops every chance they get. If those airbags want to run the war, then maybe they should put on a uniform and go over there and run it, otherwise provide the money so our guys have what they need to do their jobs properly.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.
there you go again Moriarty, always with the negative.
-
Hornet and gunslinger im not disagreeing with you guys, but take a look at this page and tell me what it would matter to us if Iran did control Iraq.
Imports (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)
By those numbers, if Iran cut off our oil supply from Iraq that would equate to 5% of our daily consumption, which is by no means small. So now iran has control of iraq, what happens next? You say they bully Saudi Arabia. Well take a look at this link.
Demographic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muslim_distribution.jpg)
If that map correctly distributes the muslim religion through the middle east then do you expect all of those countries that are almost completely Sunni to sit by and let the Shi'as do as they please?
I personally don't think we should leave Iraq anytime soon, because I agree that Iran would move into Iraq. Im not there, nor will i quote any statistics about how much better it is getting there, because i don't know. However if we leave the only thing that will change is that there will be no Americans for them to kill. Eventually the people will grow tired of the death and distruction with or without our presense. If we're gone iraq becomes a breeding ground for state sponsored terrorism and we go through it all over again.
On the other hand say we leave and Iran invades Iraq. What if the Sunnis actually do something about this? What if neighboring Sunni nations react negatively towards Iran? So now it is Sunni on Shi'a and they are sorting out their own problems. Sunnis largely outnumber the Shi'a, is there a chance for resolution? Do you think Iran will see that they are largely outnumbered and back down from an impending threat? I dunno the answers to this, it's all hypothetical. But if we leave we are gambling on the Sunnis standing up to the Shi'a in Iraq. If it goes down as you say hornet and Iran takes over Iraq and then is able to bully Saudi Arabia, well that would risk some 20% of our daily oil imports.
This is all a game of "What ifs?" and makes for good debate.
-
good post cody but consider this. There is more demand for oil then there is supply. If we can't get that 5% from there then we have to get it from somwhere else. Where?????
Not to mention every time there's a fart in the region the prices get jacked with.
It's not just about supply though, there's alot of income be made for a country like Iran. Do you want a country like that be "rich" as well?
-
2 month appropriations can't work. Iraq and Afghanistan operations have been borrowing from the U.S. Air Force and Navy budgets for months now to fund Army and Marine operations. Many non-combat operation expenditures have been getting deferred to support operation expenses world wide.
A 2 month "allowance" only creates more problems, and will probably effect programs to improve and up armor vehicles in the war zone next. TUSK kits for Abrams tanks for urban environments, Falcon III AN/VRC-110's to replace older SINCGARS radios in theater. They will have to fund food, fuel, payroll, bonuses, and bullets as the priority --- which means equipment cuts.
Larger issue about the "Will of the People" to pull out.
So, will America's new motto be "When the going gets tough, the U.S. gets going?" Is Rome falling? Are we as a nation a paper tiger now?
Will of the people? Please! Going INTO this war after a quick victory in Afghanistan and still seething over 9/11 was POPULAR with the American John Q. Public. Look at what happened to the Dixie chicks as an example of how the Will of the People reacted to anti-war talk back then.
Since we were the one's who went in and broke the country, we have no obligation to fix it? "Sorry 'bout the mess and all the dead Iraqis. Good luck to you. Don't forget to write." ??
Now, the War was won, but the Peace and Nation Building was screwed up by the numbers from the Administration, the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, and last, but not least CONGRESS. Plenty of blame to go around Disneyland on the Potomac.
* Not enough boots on the ground. No where near enough.
* Firing 400,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen who were courted to sit on the sidelines during the invasion - who were led to believe they'd work for the new management - who knew where much of the ordnance and equipment was stashed around the country - many who were little more than thugs.
Many of which military planners had originally counted on to secure the country (and thus allow us to invade with lower numbers).
All cut loose to instead join the insurgency, the militias, raid ord sites, make IED's and VBIED's, or turn to organized crime in hijacking convoys and kidnapping people for ransom. (May be the single biggest blunder of whole fiasco).
* The Jiffy Pop Constitution and weak central Iraqi government.
Congress most of all, but everyone pressuring a new Iraq to come up with a microwave constitution and quick elections. Took the U.S.ofA. THIRTEEN YEARS to come up with a Constitution, and we weren't ready to kill each other in age old blood feuds. To think that a divided Iraqi people in a middle east culture could come up with a good constitution and government in less than a year was foolish.
So, we got a government of compromise and with no central power or authority. We'd have been better off with a constitutional monarchy with the old King or a interim dictatorship-- but American prejudices toward "democracy" and "freedom" would not allow any thought of a regionally traditional government that had a chance at providing a strong central government.
* Thinking Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else in the neighborhood has ANY interest in a stable Iraq with western ties.
They have their own sectarian differences, they don't want American bases next door, they don't want Iraqi oil on the market, they don't want to close their borders to allowing the more fanatic of their citizens from going to Iraq to get killed fighting Americans, and they earn money in American contracts in support of the war in some cases (Kuwait, UAE, Qatar).
People looking to Iraq's neighbors to help the situation are fools.
* Wrong equipment for wrong kind of war, and not enough on hand since the draw down from the 1990's.
There are others, many others, but those are some of the big ones.
Yes: Over 3,350 American troops KIA. Another 800+ contractors killed. Another 25,000+ wounded. All since March 2003.
Some figures put it at 3,000 to 4,000 Iraqis are killed every month. The United States created that situation. I can already hear responses with shades of "their lives are not worth nearly as much". (How Christian of those that feel that way. I'll stay agnostic.) Guess I have a different perspective by actually spending a tour in Iraq trying to help and interacting with Iraqis nearly every day, and seeing them as people.
5,000 American service veterans commit suicide every year. Where's the public concern for them?
"Will of the People". I might buy into that if a higher percentage of the people actually got out and voted, and if they were not so much a mass, uninformed, reactionary mob most of the time. They were "for" the war in the beginning. Now it's en vogue to be "against" the war. Oh lookit!, we're with the popular kids! Maybe it's time to go all Starship Troopers and only give citizenship and the vote to those that serve?
Going in was a mistake. The conduct of the war from the government leadership was abysmal. Mistakes were legion. But to do a 180 turn and pull out leaving the mess we've created is probably the worst of many bad choices we could make.
There is no longer a "Win" situation. There will be no "victory" in Iraq. Too many mistakes have been made along the way. We've come now to a point at choosing among various "bad" solutions. Leaving them to their own devices is one of the more bad choices in the long term from a geopolitical and regionally strategic perspective. If the region implodes after we pull out: can western economies survive $150 per barrel sweet crude?
My fear: To save some lives now (and political expediency) will cost many more American servicemen and women their lives later.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.
True, true... But until now, not at the levels it was during 'Nam
Tedrbr sez: Maybe it's time to go all Starship Troopers and only give citizenship and the vote to those that serve?
I've always thought that should be the case, and for the same reason Heinlein said.
-
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070510-120705-6975r.htm
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday told Congress that al Qaeda will establish a stronghold in Iraq's Anbar province if U.S. troops pull out prematurely and that the group is reacting to the war debate in Washington by stepping up attacks.
Furthermore, the entire war effort will be disrupted unless Congress quickly passes an emergency funding bill acceptable to President Bush, he said.
Mr. Gates' testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee preceded today's scheduled House vote on a bill that the White House promises to veto because it rations war spending and sets up a July vote to cut off funds if progress in Iraq is inadequate.
"If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda almost certainly would use Anbar province as another base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against the United States," Mr. Gates told the committee.
The hearing was on the $481 billion Pentagon budget request for the next fiscal year, which is separate from the nearly $100 billion that Mr. Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.
Mr. Gates said delays in approving emergency funds -- which the president asked for more than three months ago -- have hampered the war effort.
He said al Qaeda is a "thinking enemy" that has adapted its strategies as the United States changes its own. The group also is expanding both its organization and terrorist capabilities, Mr. Gates said.
"We know that al Qaeda has re-established itself ... on the western border of Pakistan where they are training new recruits," he said. "They have established linkages now in North Africa. Al Qaeda has actually expanded, I would say, its organization and its capabilities."
The Army has slowed spending at bases in the United States and plucked $1.6 billion from Air Force and Navy accounts to fill funding gaps at the battlefront, Mr. Gates said, adding that more raids of military accounts are likely.
"If we pulled out all the stops, used everything possible available to us, we could probably fund the war into July," he said. "But I would tell you the impact on the Department of Defense, in terms of disruption and canceled contracts and programs, would be huge if we had to do that.".
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070510a.html
Democrats hoping to win control of the White House in 2008 must seize the "golden opportunity" presented by failures in the war in Iraq and rethink their approach to national security, according to a security analyst and former staffer for Vice President Al Gore.
"Iraq continues to deteriorate, with the triumph of 2003 becoming the tragedy of 2007 and beyond," Lawrence Haas writes in the latest issue of the Journal of International Security Affairs. "Americans are increasingly angry at this turn of events and are laying the blame squarely at President Bush's doorstep."
"For Democrats, who desperately want to regain the White House, the political opportunity is obvious," writes Haas, a former communications director for Gore and a former communications director for the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton.
Haas speculates that the war in Iraq "has given Democrats an opening - but only an opening, not a guarantee of future political success," and outlines steps Democrats must take to regain the American people's trust on national security issues.
If the Dems WANTED us to lose how would their actions/words be any different?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
good post cody but consider this. There is more demand for oil then there is supply. If we can't get that 5% from there then we have to get it from somwhere else. Where?????
Not to mention every time there's a fart in the region the prices get jacked with.
It's not just about supply though, there's alot of income be made for a country like Iran. Do you want a country like that be "rich" as well?
Ok. Then i direct you to this site, which is more useful than just a quote on our oil reserves.
Oil Reserves (http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=1)
My calculations based on the numbers from this site put our oil reserves at a little more than 3 years. Also we would only be losing 5% of the oil we bring in and in the past Saudi Arabia has been very good about increasing the amound of oil it exports to us. Even if saudi arabia didn't do this, we're losing 493,000 barrels per day by a hypothetical situation in which iran takes over iraq and cuts our supply. Well if we took this amount out of our oil reserves then we would deplete our reserve in a little more than 124 years. This is all quick calculation on my part, so feel free to criticize them if you come up with something different. This of course is all a hypothetical that i don't agree with, but i pose the question because i think about it as an argument for why we should leave.
I agree with everything tedrbr has said, hard not to.
bj229r, democrats in this situation are like people who think that everything will work out in the end no matter what we do. Well it's not as simple as that because there are more factors that play significant parts in the situation.
-
You Bushbois keep throwing the tattered fear card "we'll lose the war!!!". What you don't understand is we already won the war 4 years ago. But your CIC lost the occupation for us. Don't try to deflect the blame on the democrats stand up and take credit for poor planning and it's result. Today we are referees in a civil war. How the **** are you going to win that?
You want referees in the middle of a civil war? Send in the UN.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You want referees in the middle of a civil war? Send in the UN.
the UN was there remember? they left when the going got tough just as the dems want us to now
Explosion Rocks U.N. Mission in Baghdad (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95100,00.html)
-
what a mess.
-
Originally posted by Bushboi Eagler
the UN was there remember? they left when the going got tough just as the dems want us to now.
Nice spin Bushboi. Only Bush is tough enough to fix Iraq, right? How come his kids are partying in the states instead of enlisting? Guess they are librul dems.
-
-CodyC
I have to point out to you that when it comes to the oil industry, actual hard numbers mean very little in the overall price of crude. Nothing wrong with your numbers that I could see, but in the oil industry, numbers don't mean much.
Over the past decade, the estimated reserves of the oil fields in the Middle East have gone up. No new big oil fields were found, and actual test data in those countries are a state secret, but the end numbers for total "proven" reserves have gone way up, with nothing to back those numbers. The numbers mean nothing: they are fantasy.
As to percentages of who provides the western countries with how much oil. It does not matter in regards to the Stock Market. With oil and the Stock Market, it is ALL perception, and has very little to do with math.
15 British sailors get taken by Iran = oil prices spike.
Hurricane enters the Gulf = oil prices spike.
Summer approaches in the northern hemisphere -> oil refineries taken off line for "needed maintenance and upgrades" = oil prices spike.
If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and leaves them to their own devices, and if it all blows up (which is quite possible, on several fronts) and spills over into the neighboring countries, or just general retaliation against western interests by any factor (including OPEC) in the region = oil prices spike. As the Middle East is so contentious, I'd expect a very significant, economy busting, recession driving oil price spike in that event.
All on the perception of oil shortages. The trouble in South America and African oil fields certainly does not help matters now either. An even bigger bottle neck to oil prices than oil production is refinery capacity; but you tend to hear much more about oil production, and much less about refinery capacity.
I also have to agree to some degree with bj229r; there are many in political circles who are looking to turn the failure in Iraq into short term political gain at the expense of national long term interests. They will wave the bloody shirt to gain votes. Never mind the costs later, it's all about the next election.
We are supposedly the leader of the free world. We enter a country that was no direct threat, break said country, depose that country's government, show the world how to screw up nation building by the numbers, then wish to pull out and leave things a mess since things did not go like we convinced ourselves they would. It got hard, and we want to take our toys and go home now. That describes an impatient, petulant child more than a country proposing to be a world leader.
I know many would-be isolationists don't care at all, but for those that live in the real world of global trade, international terrorism, strategic resources, and other non-isolationists issues confronting America: how does the above scenario effect America's security and interests around the world in the future?
-
Originally posted by rpm
You Bushbois keep throwing the tattered fear card "we'll lose the war!!!". What you don't understand is we already won the war 4 years ago. But your CIC lost the occupation for us. Don't try to deflect the blame on the democrats stand up and take credit for poor planning and it's result. Today we are referees in a civil war. How the **** are you going to win that?
You want referees in the middle of a civil war? Send in the UN.
All the idiots in Disneyland on the Potomac have contributed to the mess in Iraq. Administration, State Department, BOTH Sides of CONGRESS, the Intelligence Community, and the Pentagon Brass. Doesn't come down to any 1 person.
Congress, IIRC, on a whole, was the biggest PITA pushing the Transitional Authority for a series of quickie elections and the Jiffy-Pop Constitution in Iraq. That headlong rush into unknown territory led us to a highly divisive, weak Iraqi central government. The same government that is corrupt, influenced by Iranian factions, in some circles support death squads, is led by a highly compromised and weak leadership. The same government that we in America are puzzled over why they can't stand on their own feet and gain control of their country.
As to the United Nations or NATO as peace keepers or referees. Pass. Neither is very good at it:
In Afghanistan, the U.S. retains military command of half it's forces in country to conduct operations, while the other half are part of the overall NATO contingent. The NATO contingent have placed many restrictions on their use of combat power in Afghanistan, which has greatly reduced their ability to patrol and control the sectors they (sort of) operate in.
In the case of the U.N. I would ask you read up on the United Nations, Executive Outcomes (an early PMC), and a little country called Sierra Leone.
Between 1991 and 1995 Sierra Leone descended into a state of violent anarchy with both rebels and renegade government soldiers waging a war of terror against civilians—torching villages, hacking people to death, or chopping off their hands, feet, and genitals. .......So the young Sierra Leonian military president turned to the international market and hired Executive Outcomes. They agreed to destroy the rebels and restore law and order in return for 15 million dollars and diamond mining concessions. Within a year EO stabilized the country enough for the population to line up for its first presidential elections in twenty-eight years.
EO did this with several hundred mercs and two helicopters, all in less than 1 years time from getting the contract.
The U.N. was appalled by EO success and forced the government of Sierra Leone to cancel their contract with EO. the UN sent in the the UN Security Council established United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) in 1999, with an initial force of 6,000 (took them 4 years to put this together), which failed to control a resurgence in the violence, and in fact had several hundred of it's UNAMSIL troops held hostage by the rebel RUF forces in early 2000 and the UN troop's arms, munitions, and equipment confiscated by the rebels.
Over 6,000 UN troops failed to hold the rebels at bay, where a couple hundred mercs had driven them to the peace table a few years before.
Bosnian Serb Army also took United Nations peacekeepers hostage, and Rwandan genocidaires killed Belgian blue helmets as well. UN does not have a good record.
Neither the UN nor NATO have the ability to really be Peacekeepers. Their political masters see to that every time. They are ineffectual.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Nice spin Bushboi. Only Bush is tough enough to fix Iraq, right? How come his kids are partying in the states instead of enlisting? Guess they are librul dems.
nice name calling - did you think that up yourself?
Is that your response to the answer to your statement the UN should to be handling it?
weak .. just like the dems yellow streaked retreat plan
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nice name calling - did you think that up yourself?
Is that your response to the answer to your statement the UN should to be handling it?
weak .. just like the dems yellow streaked retreat plan
and nice come back... I was trying to come up with something equally snappy in reply to RPM's dimwitted name calling, and less than halfwit skewed view of the way the world works...
RPM; find someplace else to troll your Goreboi kaka... like maybe a Kindergarten class?
*there I lowered my self standards... feel soiled, but relieved as well*
-
This has to be a mistake/typo in our papers..
42,8 BILLION for 3 MONTHS of warfare?... jeez you guys most have alot of extra money to spare :O
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
This has to be a mistake/typo in our papers..
42,8 BILLION for 3 MONTHS of warfare?... jeez you guys most have alot of extra money to spare :O
It really isn't all that much.... considering we print it too. Special interest needs around the world? Why the USA will just write y'all a blank check for it.
Sometimes I think the Government uses money like a g'damned bandaid.
-
Originally posted by Odee
It really isn't all that much.... considering we print it too. Special interest needs around the world? Why the USA will just write y'all a blank check for it.
Sometimes I think the Government uses money like a g'damned bandaid.
Yep...we're overspending like no democrat admin has ever before. I do believe the Republicans are really screwed up with all the spending.
-
If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and leaves them to their own devices, and if it all blows up (which is quite possible, on several fronts) and spills over into the neighboring countries, or just general retaliation against western interests by any factor (including OPEC) in the region = oil prices spike. As the Middle East is so contentious, I'd expect a very significant, economy busting, recession driving oil price spike in that event.
After which, you could expect a downturn in the economies of exporter China and insourcing India, leading to a reduction in demand among developing nations, perhaps a world-wide recession, and much lower oil prices. Hell of a way to get there though.
Charon
-
Originally posted by john9001
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.
there you go again Moriarty, always with the negative.
Negatives are abundant WRT Iraq. ;)
-
Originally posted by Charon
After which, you could expect a downturn in the economies of exporter China and insourcing India, leading to a reduction in demand among developing nations, perhaps a world-wide recession, and much lower oil prices. Hell of a way to get there though.
Charon
Don't hold your breath. By this time next year, gasoline will be over $4.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
This has to be a mistake/typo in our papers..
42,8 BILLION for 3 MONTHS of warfare?... jeez you guys most have alot of extra money to spare :O
Every good capitalist society has money to burn!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070510/federal_budget.html?.v=10
Revenue Collections Hit Record High in April, Improve Budget Deficit
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.
Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.
So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.
Tax collections swell in April every year as individuals file their tax returns by the deadline.
For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.
However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year.
The difference in the growth of tax collections and spending is the reason for the narrowing deficit.
The Congressional Budget Office said that it now expects the deficit for all of 2007 to total between $150 billion and $200 billion. That would be a significant improvement from last year's deficit of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest imbalance in four years.
The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush's tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.
Notice the twit who wrote the article doesn't/won't make the connection between easing the tax burden and the economy picking up, which is the REASON we have more revenues
White House Budget Director Rob Portman said the surge in tax revenues over the past two years was directly related to the economic rebound spurred by the Bush tax cuts. He said Congress should reject efforts to roll back the tax relief.
"With strong economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to reduce budget deficits and balance the budget as the president has proposed," Portman said in a statement.
For April, revenue receipts totaled $383.64 billion while spending totaled $205.97 billion, leaving a surplus for the month of $177.7 billion.
-
OMG! CUT & RUN! CUT & RUN!
both sides are full of it.
We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so.
Those have been the constant GOP themes in the congressional debate over the Iraq war. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats who want to mandate withdrawal by a certain date of proposing "a timetable for American surrender." They were cheering for "defeat," charged Arizona Sen. John McCain. President Bush vowed that unlike his partisan opponents, he would not "cut and run."
During last week's Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Rudy Giuliani cited the 40th president as a model of fortitude in dealing with enemies. Among "the things that Ronald Reagan taught us," he declared, is that "we should never retreat in the face of terrorism."
No one present was impolite enough to mention that far from spurning retreat in the face of terrorism, the Gipper embraced it. After the 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American military personnel, he recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon and pulled out.
Boehner portrays himself and his colleagues as brave patriots who would never accept anything less than victory in war. But in 1993, when things got tough in Somalia, he voted for withdrawal. John McCain likewise favored "defeat" in that conflict. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal not because he wanted U.S. forces to stay but because it would take too long. Our soldiers, he insisted, should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible." Or, you could say, cut and run.
At the same time, Democrats were warning of the dangers of retreat. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kerry.
Both times, the Republicans favoring withdrawal had the right idea. In neither case was our intervention justified, and nothing at stake in Lebanon or Somalia was worth the cost in American lives.
They also favored an outcome short of victory in the Kosovo war of 1999, when the GOP-controlled House voted down a resolution supporting the president's air campaign. Most House Republicans also supported a measure calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans.
Back then, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay said, "The bombing was a mistake," and urged Clinton to "admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." Can you guess the title of DeLay's new book? No Retreat, No Surrender.
The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did -- on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final, humiliating American evacuation.
In those instances, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes, you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long. In their view, weighing the costs against the benefits, or acknowledging that we don't have a formula for success, is tantamount to appeasement.
What Republicans stood for in the past was a sober realism about the limits of our power and our good intentions. That spirit is absent today. They act as though slogans are a substitute for strategy. What they claim as steadfast resolve looks more like blind obstinacy.
It's silly to say victory is the only option unless you actually have a way to achieve it and are willing to commit the necessary resources. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill insist that this time, they know what they're doing. But they said the same thing at every point along the way, and if they had been right, the phrase "Mission Accomplished" wouldn't be a national joke.
Maybe at last they have found the key to success. More likely, though, they are just wasting lives and money postponing the inevitable. It's terrible to lose a war. But as several Republican presidents could attest, it's even worse to persist in one you can't win.
-
Don't hold your breath. By this time next year, gasoline will be over $4.
I've been surprised before, but unless there is something really significant happening on the international stage I would doubt it as much as I would doubt gasoline prices dropping below $2 per gallon.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Seems to me that the Congress is expressing the will of the people.
From what I've seen in the news these past few days, the draw down is inevitable. From what I gather, the army is preparing to be out of Iraq in 36 months.
No it seems to me that congress is expressing the will of themselves and not the will of the public.
I fully support our troops and the war in Iraq. Let our troops kick bellybutton and take names. This is exactly the same kind of crap that happened in the Viet Nam war. Politicians are always putting their 2 cents in when they should be concentrating on other matters. Politics and Military are like oil and water.... THEY DONT MIX!
I say let our congressmen and women as well as those in the house and senate go to the front lines in Iraq and let them fight the war and see what goes on first hand. It might cause them to have a drastic change of mind.
This is what happens when you get a bunch of numbskull demoCRAPS in office.
-
Who do you think put the Democrats in control of the House and Senate?
You're in the minority.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
-
Where's the AP poll though?
The new one that shows congress's approval rating @ 35%?
You think it would take effort to suck as bad as Bush, but I guess not. All you have to do is make promises, get elected, watch some football, work 3 days a week, and do a whole lot of nothing.
-
The AP poll is not much of a surprise. The Democratic Congress has been in office for months and they have done NOTHING about Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The AP poll is not much of a surprise. The Democratic Congress has been in office for months and they have done NOTHING about Iraq.
I do not think they have done anything but witch hunt for their latest agenda - to be determined of course as soon as one of their witch hunts turns up something that sticks for more than one newscast against a member of this admin (does not matter who)
oh wait they raise wages - LOL
-
Only the Republicans can run a proper witch hunt.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
oh wait they raise wages - LOL
They did? Last I heard that was still stuck in committee between the House and Senate versions.
-
They're just catching up on all of the investigations that should have happened over the past 6 years.
-
I FOUND SANDMAN!!!!
(http://www.trdparts.com/AH/asdf/IMG_2043.JPG)
Okay just kidding.
The will of the people (or at least the pink ones), in front of Nancy P's house, protesting her ineffectiveness. I guess it was too hot in Texas and they finally packed up & went home. Cindy doesn't even come down here anymore.
I hope one day my party has enough power to be a source for forum comedy. :(
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... Iraq has already been mismanaged.
"Mismanagement accomplished" although our troops did win the war vs Saddam.
Pick a flavor of failure that tastes better; the dumbs "lets go home" which will lead to chaos, but hey at least our troops wont be getting blown up.
Or the repukes continued mismanaged chaos that's supposed to accomplish the impossible, while our troops are being blown up.
The majority of people in the mid east will violently reject any US puppet govt in their neighborhood, period. Our troops could be playing "whack-a-mole' over there forever.
There's nothing left to win, our so called leaders are way too ignorant about the mid east to ever fix the mess they've created. Its a pity our military is paying for political incompetence.
-
Has there been any Iraq-vet come back and run for political office as a Republican? Just wondering because I cant find any...they are all Democrats.
Link please if you know of one. thanks.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You Bushbois keep throwing the tattered fear card "we'll lose the war!!!". What you don't understand is we already won the war 4 years ago. But your CIC lost the occupation for us. Don't try to deflect the blame on the democrats stand up and take credit for poor planning and it's result. Today we are referees in a civil war. How the **** are you going to win that?
You want referees in the middle of a civil war? Send in the UN.
simple but true,
but i doubt this kind of personals like the UN at all ;p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
They're just catching up on all of the investigations that should have happened over the past 6 years.
bah hah hah ha lol lol
funny though - I do not remember that pledge in their election speeches prior to nov 06
they just seem to be wasting time looking for the skeleton in the republican closet that will give them the lock in 08.
majority in both now - guess that's the best they can do eh? just a huge waste of their time and our money
-
Originally posted by Karash
Has there been any Iraq-vet come back and run for political office as a Republican? Just wondering because I cant find any...they are all Democrats.
Link please if you know of one. thanks.
Dems were actively recruiting since 2004 political novices who were Vets---gives them more credibility (good plan)---what got them the majority wasn't the far lefties--they would have voted Dem anyhow--people like James Webb--MODerates--won them the majority, and guys like him haven't much in common with the George Soros crowd, other than opposition to the Iraq war. Eventually this issue will have to rear its head