House Approves $70 Billion For War

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
We need a Democrat in the White House to end this war. Otherwise the executive is holding the troops hostage in Iraq and extorting money from Congress.

I hope you realize that the leading Democrat candidates do NOT plan to "end this war" anytime soon...

Mark my words: we WILL have a substantial number of troops in Iraq for at least another 10 years, regardless of who wins the White House.

bet?

Ron Paul would withdraw immediately.

Actually, no, he wouldn't. He talks a big game, and what he says may sound swell; but the reality is that we cannot, and will not, pull all of our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. The repercussions of doing so would be catastrophic. The JCOS and NSC would set Mr. Paul straight day one.

bet?

Maybe I also should have caveated my statement with the words "who has a realistic shot at winning the WH"... RP is a nothing more than an interesting sideshow who makes the Repub debates more exciting to watch. He's essentially the Ross Perot of '08 - who, like you, I was suckered into supporting back in the day...

You know what the problem with that argument is? Saying that we can't pull out "anytime soon" seems to be a passive aggressive way of arguing against pulling out AT ALL. I agree that we can't just have everybody get on a plane tomorrow, but that is not a good argument against having a long term plan to withdraw. Yet so far even a long term plan has yet to materialize, justified by the argument that a SHORT TERM plan for withdraw is a bad idea.

I bet Ron Paul WOULD listen to the JCOS and the NSC...and he would then modify his desire to get out RIGHT NOW into a desire to get out as soon as practical, which would still put him head and shoulders above the rest of the schmoes running for President.

Edit: By the way, I still think Ron Paul is all hat and no cattle with his policies, but on this particular topic, my dislike of him is eclipsed for my dislike of the rest of the gutless people running for the Presidency. Iraq is a problem, and while Ron Paul might not have the best solution...at least he's trying. Everyone else seems to be hoping that the war fairy shows up and makes everything OK.

that's all fine and dandy, and I even agree with you. however, RP has managed to brainwash his flock into actually believing that he will order an immediate withdrawal. They seem to have this crazy fantasy that our troops would be brought home in 2009.

The reality is that we will have a substantial presence in Iraq for decades, regardless of who takes office... so how does RP convince people that it's even remotely possible to do so all at once, and immediately!? Are his followers just that simple minded? Does their fanatic opposition to the war have them latching on to anything and anyone who mumbles those magic words?

It's pretty crazy...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...the reality is that we cannot, and will not, pull all of our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. The repercussions of doing so would be catastrophic.

Explain.

no. plenty of others have done so already. you either dont understand the repercussions, you disbelieve the vast number of experts, or you simply don't care what happens over there after we leave.

Which is it? My guess is that you just don't care what would happen... you just want the big ugliness off of your 6:00 news.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

just like pulling out of vietnam was catostrophic. If the situation is so dire where is the rest of the western world? shouldn't other countries recognize the stakes and start their own "surge" ? or is it just in your heads?

 

[BoberFett]

Bullshit. As the commander-in-chief, the president can order troops out just as fast as they can be ordered in. There's no strategic reason not to begin pulling out immediately.

Why on earth should the US be footing the bill for your self-admitted decades worth of military presence in Iraq, which will continue to do nothing but fuel the hatred for the US that jihadists already use to recruit? Billions, nay trillions of dollars and even less safe than before. Great plan. :roll:

Edited for tiepo.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
just like pulling out of vietnam was catostrophic. If the situation is so dire where is the rest of the western world? shouldn't other countries recognize the stakes and start their own "surge" ? or is it just in your heads?

The situation in Vietnam was vastly different than the current situation in the Middle East. Drawing a comparison is futile.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
just like pulling out of vietnam was catostrophic. If the situation is so dire where is the rest of the western world? shouldn't other countries recognize the stakes and start their own "surge" ? or is it just in your heads?

The situation in Vietnam was vastly different than the current situation in the Middle East. Drawing a comparison is futile.

Only in your head.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Bullshit. As the commander-in-chief, the president can order troops out just as fast as they can be ordered in.

Yes, he "can." That said, the JSOC and NSC will quickly show him the repercussions, in full color, and he'll have no choice but to remain in place. The most that he can hope to accomplish, as Rainsford pointed out, is the creation of a longterm plan for withdrawal.

Mark my words: no President will be able to live with the repercussions of an immediate withdrawal in Iraq.

There's no strategic reason not to being pulling out immediately.

What do you know about "strategic reasons"? Stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Please kind sir, do explain "strategery" to us!

Why on earth should the US be footing the bill for your self-admitted decades worth of military presence in Iraq, which will continue to do nothing but fuel the hatred for the US that jihadists already use to recruit? Billions, nay trillions of dollars and even less safe than before. Great plan. :roll:

You can brainstorm new plans all day, and there are plenty of people who woud love to hear them; but remember this: every last one of them must begin, and end, with the goal of a stable Iraq.

Good luck! I'll now leave you to your advanced strategery...

 

[ChunkiMunki]

the situations may not be the same, but the "experts" coining "catastrophic consequences" if the US leaves is the same. still no other western countries joining in the "surge" though. Stakes high? apparently only to bush and company.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
just like pulling out of vietnam was catostrophic. If the situation is so dire where is the rest of the western world? shouldn't other countries recognize the stakes and start their own "surge" ? or is it just in your heads?

The situation in Vietnam was vastly different than the current situation in the Middle East. Drawing a comparison is futile.

Only in your head.

Ok, General BoberFett, please explain to use minions how the two situations are identical.

Try going beyond "Well, the rhetoric sounds the same..."

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...the reality is that we cannot, and will not, pull all of our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. The repercussions of doing so would be catastrophic.

Explain.

no. plenty of others have done so already. you either dont understand the repercussions, you disbelieve the vast number of experts, or you simply don't care what happens over there after we leave.

Which is it? My guess is that you just don't care what would happen... you just want the big ugliness off of your 6:00 news.

Can't answer, or won't?

 

[BoberFett]

Again, bullshit! There will be NO stable Iraq as long as we're there. In fact our presence will increase instability. If the goal is stability, the best thing we can do is leave immediately.

Holiday Inn Express, that's funny. So my strategies are make believe, but apparently you have an inside track to high level intelligence and you know for certain that there are dire "repercussions" if we withdraw. I don't give a damn if you're in the military, I'm ex-Army too. What makes you think your opinion is worth squat?

Obviously you're much more strategery-minded than me, you must be the manager of the Holiday Inn Express. So tell me smarty guy, what are these repercussions that you're so concerned about? What will happen if the US leaves the way it came in? What's one good reason we shouldn't begin complete withdrawal on Jan 2, 2009?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
the situations may not be the same, but the "experts" coining "catastrophic consequences" if the US leaves is the same. still no other western countries joining in the "surge" though. Stakes high? apparently only to bush and company.

First, like I said to General BoberFett above, please go beyond "Well gee, the rhetoric sounds the same..."

Second, the lack of global support has nothing to do with the stakes. Countries make decisions in spite of the stakes all the time. In this case, the longer it takes, and the more it costs for us, the stronger many of them become.

Many others simply cannot afford to support us, even if they wanted to.

In other words, the concept of "doing what's right for the world" is not very common. Most countries only care about themselves.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...the reality is that we cannot, and will not, pull all of our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. The repercussions of doing so would be catastrophic.

Explain.

no. plenty of others have done so already. you either dont understand the repercussions, you disbelieve the vast number of experts, or you simply don't care what happens over there after we leave.

Which is it? My guess is that you just don't care what would happen... you just want the big ugliness off of your 6:00 news.

Can't answer, or won't?

Is your Google broken today? I refuse to regurgitate what I know you've already read a hundred times.

Given what you've read on the repercussions, which of the three reasons I listed is the one that fits?

Here they are again: you either dont understand the repercussions, you disbelieve the analysis of a vast number of experts, or you simply don't care what happens over there after we leave.

which is it?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What will happen if the US leaves the way it came in? What's one good reason we shouldn't begin complete withdrawal on Jan 2, 2009?

Well, for one, the images on your TV, of Iraq, will get much, much uglier.

Do you even care? Or should we become as selfish as the rest of the world?

 

[GrGr]

What exactly are the repercussions?

The Iraqi people itself agrees the US occupation is the major obstacle to Iraqi progress.




All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S Occupation for Discord

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

etc

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GrGr
What exactly are the repercussions?

The Iraqi people itself agrees the US occupation is the major obstacle to Iraqi progress.




All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S Occupation for Discord

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

etc

For every Iraqi you read about who feels that way, I can introduce you to one who feels the exact opposite.

Care to join me over there to ask them yourself? I'll be there again next summer, so just look me up when your plan lands at BIAP! We'll do lunch!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What will happen if the US leaves the way it came in? What's one good reason we shouldn't begin complete withdrawal on Jan 2, 2009?

Well, for one, the images on your TV, of Iraq, will get much, much uglier.

Do you even care? Or should we become as selfish as the rest of the world?

Uglier? That's an objective response. :roll:

Let's hear an actual repercussion, not your fearmongering "ugly pictures in the news" crap. There's ugly pictures in the news right now. How much worse could it get?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
...the reality is that we cannot, and will not, pull all of our troops out of Iraq anytime soon. The repercussions of doing so would be catastrophic.

Explain.

no. plenty of others have done so already. you either dont understand the repercussions, you disbelieve the vast number of experts, or you simply don't care what happens over there after we leave.

Which is it? My guess is that you just don't care what would happen... you just want the big ugliness off of your 6:00 news.

Can't answer, or won't?

Is your Google broken today? I refuse to regurgitate what I know you've already read a hundred times.

Given what you've read on the repercussions, which of the three reasons I listed is the one that fits?

Here they are again: you either dont understand the repercussions, you disbelieve the analysis of a vast number of experts, or you simply don't care what happens over there after we leave.

which is it?

Honestly, I haven't read any detailed writings on what would happen if we left today. And further, I am hesitant to even read what "experts" have to say considering "experts" said there were large amounts of WMD in Iraq, and "experts" said Iraq would be a cake-walk. Did "expert" opinion lead to Cheney's use of the phrase, "last throes?" It seems that "experts" designed this vacuum cleaner attached to my wallet. And I'm a little unhappy with what they came up with.

I am not an "expert" but there is one thing I do know for sure, Palehorse. Ok, a few things, but one very relevant to the issue at hand. The scarier your scenario for us leaving Iraq today, the more reason we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. And that, Palehorse, is something the "experts" can shove up their "expert" asses.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BoberFett
What will happen if the US leaves the way it came in? What's one good reason we shouldn't begin complete withdrawal on Jan 2, 2009?

Well, for one, the images on your TV, of Iraq, will get much, much uglier.

Do you even care? Or should we become as selfish as the rest of the world?

Uglier? That's an objective response. :roll:

Let's hear an actual repercussion, not your fearmongering "ugly pictures in the news" crap. There's ugly pictures in the news right now. How much worse could it get?

oh, it would get much worse than anything you're capable of imagining...

Again, assuming I'm correct (along with hundreds of other ME experts), would you even care?

 

[theeedude]

For GOP, the Iraq war is like the Star wars of the 80s, it's a matter of dogma now, they have to keep troops in Iraq, no matter what. To withdraw now is to admit that the whole plan to democratize the middle east was a pipe dream.
Democrats will look at it objectively and make the appropriate decisions on troop levels, maybe keep a small number of troops for counter terrorism special ops, but not have us funding an occupation indefinitely.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Honestly, I haven't read any detailed writings on what would happen if we left today. And further, I am hesitant to even read what "experts" have to say considering "experts" said there were large amounts of WMD in Iraq, and "experts" said Iraq would be a cake-walk. Did "expert" opinion lead to Cheney's use of the phrase, "last throes?" It seems that "experts" designed this vacuum cleaner attached to my wallet. And I'm a little unhappy with what they came up with.

Those same experts you love to insult so often are the ones who essentially just put the brakes on Bush's apparent plans for Iran. (Latest NIE...blah blah).

oh ya...

I am not an "expert" but there is one thing I do know for sure, Palehorse. Ok, a few things, but one very relevant to the issue at hand. The scarier your scenario for us leaving Iraq today, the more reason we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

OK. We can agree on that. But where does that leave us? Will driving our DeLorean at 88mph allow us to fix that? How does agreeing on that help us solve the problem?

And that, Palehorse, is something the "experts" can shove up their "expert" asses.

so be it... but, again, where does that leave us, and what does it have to do with solving the problems we're facing today?!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
For GOP, the Iraq war is like the Star wars of the 80s, it's a matter of dogma now, they have to keep troops in Iraq, no matter what. To withdraw now is to admit that the whole plan to democratize the middle east was a pipe dream.
Democrats will look at it objectively and make the appropriate decisions on troop levels, maybe keep a small number of troops for counter terrorism special ops, but not have us funding an occupation indefinitely.

That's all very interesting, but it's certainly not what most of the Democrat candidates are saying... Even Obama, my current pick!

DOH!

Reality has a way of altering the plans of most politicians, and most of them adapt to that reality by selling their souls...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
I am not an "expert" but there is one thing I do know for sure, Palehorse. Ok, a few things, but one very relevant to the issue at hand. The scarier your scenario for us leaving Iraq today, the more reason we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

OK. We can agree on that. But where does that leave us? Will driving our DeLorean at 88mph allow us to fix that? How does agreeing on that help us solve the problem?

maybe that's what Iran is developing nuclear fuel for :shocked:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
I am not an "expert" but there is one thing I do know for sure, Palehorse. Ok, a few things, but one very relevant to the issue at hand. The scarier your scenario for us leaving Iraq today, the more reason we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

OK. We can agree on that. But where does that leave us? Will driving our DeLorean at 88mph allow us to fix that? How does agreeing on that help us solve the problem?

maybe that's what Iran is developing nuclear fuel for :shocked:

LOL... I wish! Then again, I prefer the model that ran on bio fuels...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
For GOP, the Iraq war is like the Star wars of the 80s, it's a matter of dogma now, they have to keep troops in Iraq, no matter what. To withdraw now is to admit that the whole plan to democratize the middle east was a pipe dream.
Democrats will look at it objectively and make the appropriate decisions on troop levels, maybe keep a small number of troops for counter terrorism special ops, but not have us funding an occupation indefinitely.

That's all very interesting, but it's certainly not what most of the Democrat candidates are saying...

DOH!

As an "Obama supporter" you should know 😀
The point is if GOP wanted to end the Iraq war or change the mission from occupation to counter terrorism, they could do it today. Their guy is running the country.
So it's either status quo with the GOP or getting a Democrat elected to take a fresh look.