Will the Dems live to their words? Iraq funds/troops

hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
Will Bush get his 25,000 troops and $7 billion...or will a Democrat controlled Congress back up the rhetoric they've been shouting for the past few years by blocking this?

I bet Georgie gets some troops and funds.
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • I hope he does.
    www.myspace.com/olafvonmastadon
  • It's a joke if they don't do something about it. The typical democrats (kennedy, rangel, etc.) are coming out strong about it, but the leadership is riding the fence, and unolees I missed it, the new democrats that were elected partly because of the war (like Webb) are silent about it.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • i don't see how they can give him the funds without going against what the majority of them ran on. i hope they keep to their word and begin with the accountability they have been talking so much about. that starts by witholding funds. maybe that will be the first step to getting our soldiers the hell out of there instead of giving the insurgents another 25,000 targets.

    i find it funny that the majority of citizens and members of congress want us out of iraq, but the president is escalating and is not paying attention to the baker hamilton group.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • DPrival78DPrival78 Posts: 2,263
    i'd be shocked if the phony dems deny funding.

    people will say anything to get elected.

    i'm sure there will be a few of them that get in front of a camera and act mad and talk tough, but like i said, i'd be shocked if they do anything to thwart the escalation.

    who's putting the pressure on them to do so? until there's a few million people screaming on the steps of capital hill, i doubt we're going to see any drastic changes in the course we're on.
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    I hope he doesn't. I want the troops that are there to be adequetly funded, but no new troops and no new funds. Us generals and the Iraq Study Group have both stated that more troops is not the answer to the problems in Iraq. The problems in Iraq are the Iraqies themselves. When your own government is unwilling to set aside sectarian loyalities in the name of national unity no amount of troops in the world will make a difference. I'm also sick and fucking tired of this President and his administration referring to the War in Iraq as part of the war on terror. Iraq was never a base of jihadist activity prior to our invasion and even now jihadist violence is at a minimum in Iraq. Most of the violence is perputrated by Iraqies on Iraqies. Sunni insurgents against Shia militias and vice versa. In my opinion it's time to tell the Iraqi government to put up or we pull out. It's time our soldiers stop dying to help a country that doesn't want to help itself.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    mammasan wrote:
    In my opinion it's time to tell the Iraqi government to put up or we pull out. It's time our soldiers stop dying to help a country that doesn't want to help itself.
    I agree 100%!

    I think what tonight's speech really addresses is aimed at the inevitable failure of the Bush-American war campaign, and future debates on Iraq. In other words, while this escalation may be thwarted by Congress, the Bush faithful Republicans in years to come will point to this President's proposal tonight and say "what if?" They are still in denial, and will be in denial of the civil war that is the root of the disunity.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    gue_barium wrote:
    I agree 100%!

    I think what tonight's speech really addresses is aimed at the inevitable failure of the Bush-American war campaign, and future debates on Iraq. In other words, while this escalation may be thwarted by Congress, the Bush faithful Republicans in years to come will point to this President's proposal tonight and say "what if?" They are still in denial, and will be in denial of the civil war that is the root of the disunity.

    what's amazing is that people like you are in denial of the state of the world as it actually exists. you look at everything through a prism filtered by opinions of george w. bush instead of looking objectively at the real world, where we are, and how to deal with it. take the ideological blinders off, step back, and see where we are.
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    what's amazing is that people like you are in denial of the state of the world as it actually exists. you look at everything through a prism filtered by opinions of george w. bush instead of looking objectively at the real world, where we are, and how to deal with it. take the ideological blinders off, step back, and see where we are.

    People like me. Hmmm. I made a realistic determination on Bush's speech, so it's apt to be about...Bush's speech.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • EbizzieEbizzie Posts: 240
    Incidentally, one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates had mentioned a dramatic increase in troop numbers as a desirable strategy. Hillary Clinton was talking about this a year or two ago. This is not a party issue, imo, although some will make it out to be one. We've got human life on the line, we've got a nation on the line, we've got our own sanity on the line. If there's ever been a time to put the stupid bullshit politics aside and work to find a solution, this is it.

    Also, I'm willing to bet that anything contained in Bush's speech tonight has already been discussed with Dem leadership prior to making the speech public. In other words, this was a pre-approved message.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    hailhailkc, where have you been?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    what's amazing is that people like you are in denial of the state of the world as it actually exists. you look at everything through a prism filtered by opinions of george w. bush instead of looking objectively at the real world, where we are, and how to deal with it. take the ideological blinders off, step back, and see where we are.
    I.e., take the ideological blinders off, step back, and put these ideological blinders on.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Ebizzie wrote:
    Incidentally, one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates had mentioned a dramatic increase in troop numbers as a desirable strategy. Hillary Clinton was talking about this a year or two ago. This is not a party issue, imo, although some will make it out to be one. We've got human life on the line, we've got a nation on the line, we've got our own sanity on the line. If there's ever been a time to put the stupid bullshit politics aside and work to find a solution, this is it.

    Also, I'm willing to bet that anything contained in Bush's speech tonight has already been discussed with Dem leadership prior to making the speech public. In other words, this was a pre-approved message.
    One or two years ago isn't today. While more troops may have made a difference earlier, particularly if they were there from the begining, now I don't think it will help.

    The Democrats may have to cut off funding. I don't think they'll do it right now, but in a few months time, if nothing's changed, people will demand it. My bet is, people will demand it.
  • RainDog wrote:
    One or two years ago isn't today. While more troops may have made a difference earlier, particularly if they were there from the begining, now I don't think it will help.

    The Democrats may have to cut off funding. I don't think they'll do it right now, but in a few months time, if nothing's changed, people will demand it. My bet is, people will demand it.

    this is ridiculous...it's not about the number of troops...it's the mission...the objective...that matters...if the troops there aren't sent to do the right thing then it doesn't matter many troops are there. this "war" has been sissy-fought (i don't want to offend anyone here, but that's what it has been) for TOO LONG. i've talked with too many people that talked about the stuff that doesn't happen there. it's disgusting. if they're not going to do this RIGHT then they shouldn't have done it at all. so, i say, get able-bodied troops in there and have the plan administered intelligently, and this will work.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Ebizzie wrote:
    Also, I'm willing to bet that anything contained in Bush's speech tonight has already been discussed with Dem leadership prior to making the speech public. In other words, this was a pre-approved message.

    It was. The only Dems that countered Bush (Ted Kennedy, maybe a couple others) were outnumbered by the Dems who consider upcoming possible votes more important than issues. Pretty sickening when it's obvious that the people who voted them in are the ones who want OUT of Iraq!! Talk about not listening to the people!
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Jeanwah wrote:
    It was. The only Dems that countered Bush (Ted Kennedy, maybe a couple others) were outnumbered by the Dems who consider upcoming possible votes more important than issues. Pretty sickening when it's obvious that the people who voted them in are the ones who want OUT of Iraq!! Talk about not listening to the people!

    It's tough to watch. They could convene a vote on the matter, I believe. They are playing their political cards, of course, in order to keep their hands clean of the election-time rhetoric to come with the Iraq blame game that is sure to be a part of it.
    In a way, now, it's all on George.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • this is ridiculous...it's not about the number of troops...it's the mission...the objective...that matters...if the troops there aren't sent to do the right thing then it doesn't matter many troops are there. this "war" has been sissy-fought (i don't want to offend anyone here, but that's what it has been) for TOO LONG. i've talked with too many people that talked about the stuff that doesn't happen there. it's disgusting. if they're not going to do this RIGHT then they shouldn't have done it at all. so, i say, get able-bodied troops in there and have the plan administered intelligently, and this will work.


    But how do you intelligently administer a plan that was a terrible idea in the first place? The sides in this sectarian violence have been at each other since the 14th century. Short of bombing the entire bahgdad area to rubble and killing everyone (which would create more people pissed off at us and not completely stop the sectarian violence anyway), there is no way that we can end this centuries old battle in a few years. Anyone who still thinks that at this point is in fantasy land.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
Sign In or Register to comment.