Honestly, The Iraq War has been a massive success

my2hands
my2hands Posts: 17,117
edited March 2008 in A Moving Train
Just take a look at the swollen bank accounts of this administrations crony's, the bank accounts of those in the defense industry, and the bank accounts of the energy industry.

They are laughing all the way to the bank, with our fucking money. And we can only blame ourselves for letting this happen in our name.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    You can always follow the money (or motivation) trail right to the scene of the crime.

    In this case it's so damn obvious, as they stopped trying to hide long ago. They just slapped a terrorist sticker on it.

    Coincidence people in office connected to it are dropping like flies?

    hmm...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    Just take a look at the swollen bank accounts of this administrations crony's, the bank accounts of those in the defense industry, and the bank accounts of the energy industry.

    They are laughing all the way to the bank, with our fucking money. And we can only blame ourselves for letting this happen in our name.

    or we could blame the senators who continuously vote to fund it and will not pull us out of iraq if elected....or not, totally up to you, my man!
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    El_Kabong wrote:
    or we could blame the senators who continuously vote to fund it and will not pull us out of iraq if elected....or not, totally up to you, my man!


    or we could realize a certain junior senator voted to begin withdraw... the president veto'd it... and then maybe you could refocus that blame on the war monger republicans that blocked any chance of overturning that veto

    obama did his part... or perhaps you forgot there are 99 other sentaors and 565 other represenatives in congress
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    my2hands wrote:
    or we could relaize a certain junior senator voted to begin withdraw... the president veto'd it... and then maybe you could refocus that blame on the war monger republicans that blocked any chance of overturnign that veto

    obama did his part... or perhaps you forgot there are 99 other sentaors and 565 other represenatives

    Seriously. How many times have we been over this? To me, this shows the Obama haters true bias since they can't see the big picture and place blame where blame is actually due.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    JD Sal wrote:
    Seriously. How many times have we been over this? To me, this shows the Obama haters true bias since they can't see the big picture and place blame where blame is actually due.


    Obama invaded Iraq!!!!!


    ;)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    JD Sal wrote:
    Seriously. How many times have we been over this? To me, this shows the Obama haters true bias since they can't see the big picture and place blame where blame is actually due.

    And we've been over how they haven't done nearly all they could to stop this war. That's why this congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush. I noticed you didn't reply to the filibuster thread where it detailed exactly how they could have stopped the funding bill and introduced a withdrawal plan that we already have money for. Just because Obama says they couldn't do anything else, doesn't mean it's the truth. It would have to take political courage, a concern for this neverending loss of life and our ever increasing national debt over these congress person's ambition and an overall ability to stand up for what's right instead of buckling and going along. Bush had no problem vetoing their bill yet they vote his in despite it being against the will of the people. The blame does not solely rest on Bush and co...it rests on the congress who has the power of the purse and could have taken the steps it would take to stop this war and it rests on all of us for not holding our elected officials accountable and acting like they are all powerless to stop this shit when that is far from the fucking truth! They won't be getting anymore free passes from this anti-war voter. Drastic times call for drastic measures. If it was your country reduced to rubble, your life on the line, your family in danger of being killed every day then I imagine you wouldn't be so quick to excuse this politicing, excuses and be so willing to give this gov't a free pass.

    Oh and yes, Dermocrats have gotten even more funding from defense contractors this election cycle than republicans for the first time ever. Explain to me what their angle is in doing this?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    Obama invaded Iraq!!!!!


    ;)

    No, he just helped to keep the blood bath chugging along.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    This war has been such a massive success, let's vote to fund it indefinitely!
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Im still here
    Im still here Posts: 826
    No More War
    PEARL JAM~Lubbock, TX. 10~18~00
    PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
    INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
    INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
    Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
    INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
    Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    And we've been over how they haven't done nearly all they could to stop this war. That's why this congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush. I noticed you didn't reply to the filibuster thread where it detailed exactly how they could have stopped the funding bill and introduced a withdrawal plan that we already have money for. Just because Obama says they couldn't do anything else, doesn't mean it's the truth. It would have to take political courage, a concern for this neverending loss of life and our ever increasing national debt over these congress person's ambition and an overall ability to stand up for what's right instead of buckling and going along. Bush had no problem vetoing their bill yet they vote his in despite it being against the will of the people. The blame does not solely rest on Bush and co...it rests on the congress who has the power of the purse and could have taken the steps it would take to stop this war and it rests on all of us for not holding our elected officials accountable and acting like they are all powerless to stop this shit when that is far from the fucking truth! They won't be getting anymore free passes from this anti-war voter. Drastic times call for drastic measures. If it was your country reduced to rubble, your life on the line, your family in danger of being killed every day then I imagine you wouldn't be so quick to excuse this politicing, excuses and be so willing to give this gov't a free pass.

    Oh and yes, Dermocrats have gotten even more funding from defense contractors this election cycle than republicans for the first time ever. Explain to me what their angle is in doing this?

    I haven't been around much this week and I don't recall seeing the filibuster thread.

    Here's a question which you haven't answered the last couple times we discussed this - how is Obama or anyone else going to get legislation passed with a timetable for withdraw, or to cut funding, when they can't get 2/3 majority to override a veto? Please answer how this is possible.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    JD Sal wrote:
    I haven't been around much this week and I don't recall seeing the filibuster thread.

    Here's a question which you haven't answered the last couple times we discussed this - how is Obama or anyone else going to get legislation passed with a timetable for withdraw, or to cut funding, when they can't get 2/3 majority to override a veto? Please answer how this is possible.

    He can filibuster and if he gets 41 members to go along with him then the bill can not be brought back up again. Then they push for a withdrawal...if that gets vetoed then it's not their fault it's Bush's. He has a less than 20% approval rating...if he opts to leave the troops stranded to fight a war that almost 70% of the population wants to be over then he most certainly should be impeached. That would be running this country all on his own with no checks and balances and no accountability. If people couldn't get together and get his ass out of office after defiantly ignoring the demands of the people and most of the congress then we really are a powerless, spineless, sorry bunch of idiots.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    He can filibuster and if he gets 41 members to go along with him then the bill can not be brought back up again. Then they push for a withdrawal...if that gets vetoed then it's not their fault it's Bush's. He has a less than 20% approval rating...if he opts to leave the troops stranded to fight a war that almost 70% of the population wants to be over then he most certainly should be impeached. That would be running this country all on his own with no checks and balances and no accountability. If people couldn't get together and get his ass out of office after defiantly ignoring the demands of the people and most of the congress then we really are a powerless, spineless, sorry bunch of idiots.

    But listen to what you're saying...."they push for a withdrawal...if that gets vetoed then it's not their fault it's Bush's." They already did this. Many times in fact. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this logic at all. It sounds like you want Obama and the Dems to do what they've already done several times, except with a different Bushie result. Facts are facts, Bush doesn't care about approval rating.

    Sadly, I don't think your opinion will ever waiver, which makes the continuous debate over this pointless. We've been through this countless times, and each time it comes down to the Dems not getting a 2/3 majority to override a veto. And you describe this scenario where we'll cut funds and Bush will just back down! He'll cave to public pressure! Wrong. You think Bush is going to stay the course for 5 years and then back down to public pressure with only months left in his term? This is not reality, it's fantasy.

    Have you seen this clip of Cheney?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-vEb8nSzQE

    Interviewer: 2/3 of America thinks the war is wrong
    Cheney: So

    Then he goes on about how he can't worry about 'fluctuations' in the public opinion polls. Fluctuations? Seriously, we're talking about pure evil here, and Bushie and co don't care about me, you, my2hands, or anyone else's opinion. The sooner you start to realize this, the sooner we can stop looking back and start looking forward, and elect someone as President that will do everything possible to end this war. Face it, Bush ain't getting impeached and this war will not end before his term is up. And one more time, blame the republicans for not crossing party lines to support a withdraw.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    JD Sal wrote:
    But listen to what you're saying...."they push for a withdrawal...if that gets vetoed then it's not their fault it's Bush's." They already did this. Many times in fact. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this logic at all. It sounds like you want Obama and the Dems to do what they've already done several times, except with a different Bushie result. Facts are facts, Bush doesn't care about approval rating.

    Sadly, I don't think your opinion will ever waiver, which makes the continuous debate over this pointless. We've been through this countless times, and each time it comes down to the Dems not getting a 2/3 majority to override a veto. And you describe this scenario where we'll cut funds and Bush will just back down! He'll cave to public pressure! Wrong. You think Bush is going to stay the course for 5 years and then back down to public pressure with only months left in his term? This is not reality, it's fantasy.

    Have you seen this clip of Cheney?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-vEb8nSzQE

    Interviewer: 2/3 of America thinks the war is wrong
    Cheney: So

    Then he goes on about how he can't worry about 'fluctuations' in the public opinion polls. Fluctuations? Seriously, we're talking about pure evil here, and Bushie and co don't care about me, you, my2hands, or anyone else's opinion. The sooner you start to realize this, the sooner we can stop looking back and start looking forward, and elect someone as President that will do everything possible to end this war. Face it, Bush ain't getting impeached and this war will not end before his term is up. And one more time, blame the republicans for not crossing party lines to support a withdraw.

    Filibuster and impeachment are there for a VERY GOOD reason. And I can't think of a much better reason than to save the lives of thousands of people. But that would require courage, determination and a concern for the people's voice....not the congress we know and loathe. Is anytime or any scenario dire enough for you guys to think these measures would be reasonable? Fuck em, right?....filibustering and impeachment would just be silly. I'm not buying it and I'm not going along with the murder of anymore innocent people.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • JD Sal
    JD Sal Posts: 790
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Filibuster and impeachment are there for a VERY GOOD reason. And I can't think of a much better reason than to save the lives of thousands of people. But that would require courage, determination and a concern for the people's voice....not the congress we know and loathe. Is anytime or any scenario dire enough for you guys to think these measures would be reasonable? Fuck em, right?....filibustering and impeachment would just be silly. I'm not buying it and I'm not going along with the murder of anymore innocent people.

    Abook, please redirect your anger and frustration toward the republicans. Do you realize if only a handful of repubs would have crossed party lines and supported legislation for withdraw, this war would already be over.
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    JD Sal wrote:
    Abook, please redirect your anger and frustration toward the republicans. Do you realize if only a handful of repubs would have crossed party lines and supported legislation for withdraw, this war would already be over.

    I see no difference between any of those slimeballs that voted to continue this war, and you shouldn't either.

    So about the filibuster and impeachment?

    And there have been those who spoke out against voting for the funding...Kucinich and Paul for example. Those two know the constitution and they are not unreasonable, biased know-nothings. Youtube both of those guys speaking out about war funding, they know what they're talking about and you won't listen to me.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    my2hands wrote:
    or we could realize a certain junior senator voted to begin withdraw... the president veto'd it... and then maybe you could refocus that blame on the war monger republicans that blocked any chance of overturning that veto

    obama did his part... or perhaps you forgot there are 99 other sentaors and 565 other represenatives in congress


    perhaps you forgot 41 votes is all it takes to block bush's war funding? he did his part?? by voting to fund the war repeatedly?? ha!

    this is how rosa parks would've been if she were in the congress you defend so

    bus drive: you need to get out of this seat
    rosa parks: no!
    bus driver: i said you have to move
    rosa parks: ok, whatever you say!!!!


    funny, i remember a thread or 2 from you about how ineffectual our government was...guess some ppl only feel that way for 3 years, take a year off, then will resume later?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    JD Sal wrote:
    Abook, please redirect your anger and frustration toward the republicans. Do you realize if only a handful of repubs would have crossed party lines and supported legislation for withdraw, this war would already be over.


    do you realize this? :
    -the dems have what, 49 members?
    -all they need is 41 votes to block bush's war funding.

    see, all these excuses you guys keep giving are bullshit. they were voted in b/c ppl were fed up w/ iraq. they get in, offer withdrawal and bush says no...so what do they do??? they give in!!!

    why can't they filibuster bush's new war funding? then they can keep offering emergency bills to get the troops what they need so they are not cut off....then that would be bush's fault. he is faced w/ cutting the troops off or not. then if he cuts them off there would be enough support for impeachment, which should be happening anyway, we can't afford to let our elected officials think they can get away w/ all the shit this administration has, but the majority of dems don't seem to have the balls
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    El_Kabong wrote:
    do you realize this? :
    -the dems have what, 49 members?
    -all they need is 41 votes to block bush's war funding.

    see, all these excuses you guys keep giving are bullshit. they were voted in b/c ppl were fed up w/ iraq. they get in, offer withdrawal and bush says no...so what do they do??? they give in!!!

    why can't they filibuster bush's new war funding? then they can keep offering emergency bills to get the troops what they need so they are not cut off....then that would be bush's fault. he is faced w/ cutting the troops off or not. then if he cuts them off there would be enough support for impeachment, which should be happening anyway, we can't afford to let our elected officials think they can get away w/ all the shit this administration has, but the majority of dems don't seem to have the balls

    The Republicans can filibuster also.

    They want the troops to stay there and be funded with no strings attached. You don't think they'd block any bills that try to get around funding?

    Bush was threatening to cut over 200,000 civilian jobs/close bases etc. last year before the Democrats finally caved in to the funding. It was quite a standoff for much of last year. If it wasn't for the R party being 100% for continued war things would be different right now.

    At least the Dem's are trying to do something about it. I don't know why you all constantly attack Democrats, yet Republicans seem to get a free pass around here on this stuff.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    WMA wrote:
    yet Republicans seem to get a free pass around here on this stuff.

    I don't think the Republicans get a free pass. It was a Republican administration and a Republican congress that fucked things up. We all know it, and we've talked about it for years. The Democrats won congress back on promises to turn things around bring our troops home. People are just trying to hold their feet to the fire, and to point out that they really haven't done jack shit since being elected.

    If they'd put up bills to cut funding and made their case to the people, we'd understand, even if Bush vetoed the bills. If they tried, but couldn't succeed, we'd at least be able to say they tried. But instead they're doing nothing but acting complicit in this whole business.

    Face it, both parties are interested in the same thing - power. The dems never had any intention of turning things around, they simply said what the figured voters wanted to hear.

    Vote 3rd party.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    jeffbr wrote:
    ...

    If they'd put up bills to cut funding and made their case to the people, we'd understand, even if Bush vetoed the bills. If they tried, but couldn't succeed, we'd at least be able to say they tried. But instead they're doing nothing but acting complicit in this whole business.
    ...
    They did do that, multiple times. And Bush did veto them. They couldn't get the votes for overriding the veto.

Categories