House passes Iraq Withdrawal bill

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem with this war is it is more of a war of psychology then ever before. And, let's face it, Americans are wusses in the wars of psychology. We don't have the guts to stand up for our values anymore.

B.S. Standing up for our values is why some of us despised this war from day 1. Going across the globe to topple a loathsome but irrelevant dictator who couldn't have harmed us if he wanted to, spending trillions and losing thousands of lives while making us less safe is NOT something I consider part of our good values.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The problem with this war is it is more of a war of psychology then ever before. And, let's face it, Americans are wusses in the wars of psychology. We don't have the guts to stand up for our values anymore.

 

Maybe the real problem is more that at the top, we don't live up to our values anymore.

 

Torture, rendition, indefinite detention without charge, going to war under false pretense. . . all seem less than the American ideal.

[Texsox]

Maybe the real problem is more that at the top, we don't live up to our values anymore.

 

Torture, rendition, indefinite detention without charge, going to war under false pretense. . . all seem less than the American ideal.

 

But I would add, not just at the top, but throughout our society. We are much more tolerant of immoral, unethical acts. I see it changing, starting with corporate reforms and believe it will filter to other areas of our lives.

[Balta1701]

The problem with this war is it is more of a war of psychology then ever before. And, let's face it, Americans are wusses in the wars of psychology. We don't have the guts to stand up for our values anymore.

I think at some level, Kap does have a point, even though I disagree with him in general.

 

Let's say I accept Mr. Bush at his word. Let's say that the Iraq war is the Central Front in the War on Terror, adn we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and every other thing Mr. Bush has said to try to keep support for this thing going is correct. Let's say that the answer to the "Iraq war: Great war or Greatest War" question is "Greatest war".

 

In that case, why the Hell is the only thing I'm being asked to do to be kind to Nuke online and go shopping? If this is the most important conflict in our history, if this is World War IV, if we can't let Iraq fall apart at any cost, then why have we been there for 4+ years with only 150,000-160,000 troops max?

 

We've had more than enough time to actually train and equip multiple divisions if we really wanted to. We could have, at this point, drafted soldiers, trained them, equipped them, and rotated them in a couple of times. We could have, if we wanted to, had 250,000 or 300,000 troops in a regular rotation through that country right now. There has been time to do that.

 

So ask yourself this question; why haven't we done this? Why hasn't Mr. Bush called for a draft, made it happen, spent the hundreds of billions it would have taken to expand the army, and so forth?

 

I'll give you the 2 reasons I see. First, the American people don't believe Mr. Bush's rhetoric. This is not the most important war ever, and America will not fall apart if we leave right now. And second, Mr. Bush and the entire power structure right now, and for the last 4+ years, has been more interested in preserving their own power than actually taking the steps necessary to win. So instead of actually spending the little political capital they had to create an army to fight this war, they just denied we needed it, said it was the "last throes", and so forth. And of course, the final point is...if the people who wanted this war don't think it's important enough to risk their political power to take steps that might help...why should the American people put up with it?

[mr_genius]

Maybe the real problem is more that at the top, we don't live up to our values anymore.

 

Torture, rendition, indefinite detention without charge, going to war under false pretense. . . all seem less than the American ideal.

 

 

but FlaSoxxJIm, i thought the United States was an immoral country founded by white male oppressors? every move we have made throughout history has been evil. we are the cause of all the worlds problems.

[Texsox]

but FlaSoxxJIm, i thought the United States was an immoral country founded by white male oppressors? every move we have made throughout history has been evil. we are the cause of all the worlds problems.

 

Yep, that is how the GOP wants people to think of Liberals. You've learned the lesson well.

[mr_genius]

Yep, that is how the GOP wants people to think of Liberals. You've learned the lesson well.

 

actually, i was reciting from my Sociology courses.

[kapkomet]

I think at some level, Kap does have a point, even though I disagree with him in general.

 

Let's say I accept Mr. Bush at his word. Let's say that the Iraq war is the Central Front in the War on Terror, adn we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and every other thing Mr. Bush has said to try to keep support for this thing going is correct. Let's say that the answer to the "Iraq war: Great war or Greatest War" question is "Greatest war".

 

In that case, why the Hell is the only thing I'm being asked to do to be kind to Nuke online and go shopping? If this is the most important conflict in our history, if this is World War IV, if we can't let Iraq fall apart at any cost, then why have we been there for 4+ years with only 150,000-160,000 troops max?

 

We've had more than enough time to actually train and equip multiple divisions if we really wanted to. We could have, at this point, drafted soldiers, trained them, equipped them, and rotated them in a couple of times. We could have, if we wanted to, had 250,000 or 300,000 troops in a regular rotation through that country right now. There has been time to do that.

 

So ask yourself this question; why haven't we done this? Why hasn't Mr. Bush called for a draft, made it happen, spent the hundreds of billions it would have taken to expand the army, and so forth?

 

I'll give you the 2 reasons I see. First, the American people don't believe Mr. Bush's rhetoric. This is not the most important war ever, and America will not fall apart if we leave right now. And second, Mr. Bush and the entire power structure right now, and for the last 4+ years, has been more interested in preserving their own power than actually taking the steps necessary to win. So instead of actually spending the little political capital they had to create an army to fight this war, they just denied we needed it, said it was the "last throes", and so forth. And of course, the final point is...if the people who wanted this war don't think it's important enough to risk their political power to take steps that might help...why should the American people put up with it?

Balta, RIGHT ON. That's been my point on this for I can't tell you how long, and you finally got it.

 

I'll say more later (damn, I hate this last two weeks of this degree... )

 

Oh, and you don't need the draft.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and you don't need the draft.

If you want more than the troop levels we have right now...yes, it requires a draft. We probably can't sustain these troop levels for another year no matter what we do.

[kapkomet]

If you want more than the troop levels we have right now...yes, it requires a draft. We probably can't sustain these troop levels for another year no matter what we do.

So you're telling me that we have only 140,000 people in the military right now?

 

(I know that's an extreme number I'm throwing out there, but I want to try to make that point without doing a bunch of research that I don't have time to do).

 

At the heart of it, though, I agree with your original premise, minus the draft is needed part.

 

/faints

 

[Texsox]

What percentage if our Troops would you want to pin down indefinitely in one area of the world? I'm with Balta, we would need a draft to accomplish this and be able to respond to an attack from another country.

[kapkomet]

"indefinitely"...

 

Keep drinking the Dem koolaid... you're right up there on their talking points.

[NorthSideSox72]

"indefinitely"...

 

Keep drinking the Dem koolaid... you're right up there on their talking points.

"indefinitely" is more of a BushCo talking point than a Dem one. I mean, what's the difference between "indefinitely" and "can't set a date"? Because I'm fairly sure those are identical for all practical purposes, and Bush said one of those two things.

[Balta1701]

So you're telling me that we have only 140,000 people in the military right now?

 

(I know that's an extreme number I'm throwing out there, but I want to try to make that point without doing a bunch of research that I don't have time to do).

 

At the heart of it, though, I agree with your original premise, minus the draft is needed part.

 

/faints

 

There are about 500,000 soldiers in the U.S. army right now, and another 180,000 in the marines. But when we start counting deployments...there are about 70,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany, another 50,000 in and around Japan, another 33,000 in the Koreas, another 12,000 each in the U.K. and Italy. That's nearly 180,000 deployed without counting Iraq and AFghanistan at all.

 

When you count in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's over 1/2 of the fighting force of the U.S. army that is deployed at any given time. This leaves virtually no time for equipment repair (which is desperately needed), training (units are being sent to Iraq instead of receiving time at the NTC already) and on and on.

 

If you're talking about deploying a higher percentage of the army...we just can't do it for any length of time. A month or so. If that. It is simply not feasible to throw troops into combat when their equipment is broken down and there isn't enough equipment running around to even cover the surge, let alone anything beyond that.

 

Anyway, I want to switch topics here. I was trying to illustrate your point earlier...that there is not the will right now in this country to actually do anything you would qualify as winning this war. I naturally, place a huge chunk of the blame for this on this administration...because they act as if they don't need to do anything else to win, why should Americans do anything else.

 

But here's the other point. We can sit here all day and come up with these grandiose plans to make things work in Iraq. We can say that we could push up to 300,000 troops in for a month or whatever. But there's one key element we all neglect when we do that; George W. Bush.

 

Right now, George W. Bush is the decider. Barring specific action of Congress, George Bush sets troop levels, gives orders, tells them when to stay and when to leave. We can come up with all these great plans, but sitting there making the decisions is a man who thinks things are going just fine there, who's wife goes on TV and says everything is fine except for that bombing a day, and who seems to seriously think that the only reason people think things are going poorly in Iraq is the media.

 

Right now, this is the man running things. And nothing we can do will make him institute a draft. Nothing we can do will make him jump up to 250,000 troops in Iraq. Nothing we can do will make him adopt whatever fancy partition plan people come up with, or redeployment plan, etc. If we leave this war to George W. Bush for the next 2 years, then in January of 09, we will be EXACTLY where we are right now. Similar troop levels, no political progress, and a lot more dead people.

 

This is the classic game that quite a few political writers have played for the past 4 years. Say that "George W. Bush needs to put 150,000 more troops into Iraq within the next 6 months or all will be lost", when they know damn well George W. Bush will do no such thing. He will not attempt to spend political capital to win a war he thinks is going just fine.

 

The point I would like to make is this; if we just leave things in Mr. Bush's hands, if we do not set some sort of deadline, if the Congress does nothing to force him to do something, whatever magical plan we come up with here to win this war is not going to be adopted, because George W. Bush thinks this war is going beautifully. The only way things are going to change at all in Iraq from the status quo is for Congress to step in and force Mr. Bush to change things.

 

If people sit around and say that doing nothing different is going to lose this war entirely, and George W. Bush is unwilling to do anything different, then I feel it is simply irresponsible to let George W. Bush continue on that course. Your particular plan may not be adopted. I don't like this particular bill. But it is at least something. It is something different. Pretending that a better option may come along after 4 years of Mr. Bush insisting everything is fine is just ignoring every single thing Mr. Bush has done for the last 4 years.

 

/rant.

[Texsox]

"indefinitely"...

 

Keep drinking the Dem koolaid... you're right up there on their talking points.

 

Well what word do you prefer?

 

in·def·i·nite /ɪnˈdɛfənɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-def-uh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number. 2.not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.

[Balta1701]

The Senate just Rejected, by a 50-48 vote, an amendment which would have stripped the "timetable" language from the Senate's version of the Iraq funding supplemental. The Senate Republicans have pledged not to filibuster this bill.

 

Therefore, the language will be in the final bill that Mr. Bush vetoes because he hates the troops and is a flip-flopper on the war.

 

Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel voted with the Dems. Lieberman and Mark Pryor (D-AR) voted with the Republicans.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

The Senate just Rejected, by a 50-48 vote, an amendment which would have stripped the "timetable" language from the Senate's version of the Iraq funding supplemental.

 

obviously there weren't enough earmarks attached to that amendment for it to pass.

 

"if i can't get that $ 500 million for the bannana farmers union, which donated money to my capmaign, i will not accept this amendment"

[Balta1701]

obviously there weren't enough earmarks attached to that amendment for it to pass.

 

"if i can't get that $ 500 million for the bannana farmers union, which donated money to my capmaign, i will not accept this amendment"

Well, then let's get a fully public campaign financing system set up so that we no longer have to worry about Congressmen voting solely to appease their donors.

[whitesoxfan101]

It's pretty clear that Bush wants to move in on Iran. If you don't think we'd need a draft if we head in that direction, then basic mathematics seem to escape you. The quicker Bush gets out of office the better obviously, I'd swear he was drinking again with the decisions he's making lately, it's been even worse than the previous 5 and a half years.

[Balta1701]

It's pretty clear that Bush wants to move in on Iran. If you don't think we'd need a draft if we head in that direction, then basic mathematics seem to escape you. The quicker Bush gets out of office the better obviously, I'd swear he was drinking again with the decisions he's making lately, it's been even worse than the previous 5 and a half years.

I for one see absolutely nothing different in Mr. Bush's decision making right now compared to the last 6 years. Excessive stubbornness, overreliance on the military, insistence on designating everyone as either good or evil and treating them as designated, and so on and so on and so on. An attack on Iran would fit quite well with his pattern of behavior so far, at least to my eyes, which is why I will honestly be surprised if he leaves office without a military strike happening on Iran.

[mr_genius]

Well, then let's get a fully public campaign financing system set up so that we no longer have to worry about Congressmen voting solely to appease their donors.

 

To be honest, I don't know much about how that would work (the fine details and all) , but in principle I like it.

[Balta1701]

To be honest, I don't know much about how that would work (the fine details and all) , but in principle I like it.

Here's the Wiki Gonzalez page on the format most people who support a public financed system seem to be glomming on to.

[southsider2k5]

Well, then let's get a fully public campaign financing system set up so that we no longer have to worry about Congressmen voting solely to appease their donors.

 

Or a line item veto...

[NorthSideSox72]

Or a line item veto...

Or a truth in legislation act...

[kapkomet]

Or a truth in legislation act...

 

These assholes wouldn't know "truth" if it bit them in the ass. (This is a bipartisan comment).