What is Digg?70 Comments
- Jrr6415sun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7VW14sM3E
- kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@ryanr313
The Iraqis will be too busy fighting each other to "follow us home."
You 27%ers really need to wake up and face reality. Our Troops are dying today to try to keep Iraqis from killing each other.
Osama still isn't in Iraq, and Francisco Franco is still dead! - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@thcobbs (#6375316)
Said this before, I'll say it again. And again.
No way can Congress cut funding. They (congressional Democrats) will get painted as "not supporting the troops" at best and "friendly to terrorists" at worst. - rawkenshtocken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15since when is knowing a bit about the constitution and how our govn't works makes you a fascist?
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@98psuae (#6375414)
I do have to say that it's quite interesting that Bush - who won two elections by the slimmest of margins - seems to think he's got a mandate from the American people to do whatever the hell he wants. He's the President of the United States of America, not of the Republican Party States of America.
He's everybody's president. I wish he'd act like that. I am certain that more people on all sides would give him more support if he had, for the last six years, behaved as though he was the leader of all those who voted *at all,* not just those who voted *for him.* - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22Do you really expect the president to SIGN a bill into law that tells him how to do his job?
Directing the military is the PRESIDENT'S job....
Funding the military is the CONGRESS' job....
If they don't like the war.... CUT FUNDING.... but don't try to legislate military strategy and tactics. - McLaneM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Just an FYI Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto US Constitution - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"follow us home"
They are already home. They attacked us 1st. They launch attacks everywhere. Where is this logic that they are concerned about Iraq, why is it no possible they are just buying time,looking over the improvements done after 9-11 and exploit the weakness. Iraq boggs us down and keeps us from striking Al Queda(sp) in thier home. Why havent we followed them home??? Osama is not nor has ever been based in Iraq, why is that the battle ground. We are doing him a HUGE favor by funnelling millions and lives into this quagmire. His infrastructure is maintained, his trainig grounds are secure, we are just giving him the chance to practice making IEDs, how long till one is used on our land.
Iraq isn't fighting the enemy, its fighting a group of ppl that have been warring against each other for centuries who w/o the biggest prick keeping the a part are back at it.
"surrender" bill, people who say this are idiots and are the type who can't give up something and move on. Its not surrender to realize its not in your best interest, but no can't be seen "weak" *****. Osama isn't afraid of us, we aren't going to win this by showing how big our dick errr guns are, they arent afriad, they kill themselves. You wanna stop terrorism, you gotta be surgical with your strikes and generous with your aid, kill the head then when over the heart and the body - wcasey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's a supplemental funding bill that's supposed to provide emergency services in all areas of the country's needs. Iraq just happens to be the need that the majority of the bill focuses on. It's really a cost overrun bill from the initial funding that Congress provided for this year.
It's not a surrender because we're not fighting for one side or the other... We're fighting for and against all 3 sides of a civil war. Yes violence might get worse if we left, but it wouldn't "follow us home". - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Veto the Surrender Bill. "
Like he surrendered to the Katrina? - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Crimsoneer (#6375793)
Okay, so let's run with your premise.
We made the mess
It's our job to fix it.
Fix it:
Add more troops - won't work
Take troops away - won't work
Same amount of troops - I'm saying that on the basis of the previous two, this also won't work.
By your own logic, what the US should do then, since no troop level will "work," is to remove all the troops immediately in order to prevent them being killed.
Or did you have something else in mind?
I personally think there should be more focus on rebuilding and securing *infrastructure.* Give people stable electricity, even in a small area, and they will love you. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ryanr313 (#6375656)
Comparatively speaking, they have a small mandate. Besides which, Congress is made up of 535 people, each representing a home state or district. Each Senator is responsible to represent the interests of their state, representatives their district. The president is one person, who is the executive leader of the whole nation, and should represent the interests of the whole nation - not just those of the party he's affiliated with.
Bush acts like the Republican Party was elected to be in charge of everything. This is just not so. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"If you didn't like the war then you should have gotten him voted out. "
Once again, this whole "vote him out" attitude. Hey, numb-nuts, you do realize that the American people don't have any laws that guarantee them the right to vote for President - it's why we have the Electoral College. It's obvious that if you can't grasp that, I fail to see why you're trying to make any argument about the war, not being able to understand certain concepts about government doesn't help your comment about this country as a whole. - offwithyourtv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bamont, I'm not sure how you assumed masterofNone didn't understand the meaning of impeachment based on a comment as simple as "veto?impeach."
Veto or not, Mr. Prez should still be held accountable for his misconduct. Some would argue he should be removed from office in addition to impeachment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9veto?impeach.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3duh.
with a 29 percent approval rating and an impeachment on his record... the GOP would make sure he was gone. - ryanr313, on 10/12/2007, -1/+498psuae They wont cut funding because they would lose the house and senate again.
- rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
- hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Historically speaking the losses in Iraq, while they are terrible, it is remarkably very small amount."
I entirely agree. Heck, I've been arguing the whole time that the losses experienced on 9/11 were not that big of a deal in comparison to the loss of our liberties.
However, that doesn't mean we need to be sticking it out in Iraq. In fact, I think the biggest lost so far is the money we've spent on the war. Imagine if we put all that money into science and medicine. We probably would have saved more lives than were lost in 9/11 and Iraq combined. - eggo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...and just what are the criteria for "winning" this war?
- EriktheBard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The majority opinion has often been wrong" is in fact true with regard to certain social causes. The majority of people did not want desegregation or whites to be able to marry blacks. In the end, the courts reviewed these issues and the majority was proven wrong.
But the war is quite different. The majority of Americans approved of fighting terrorism, and, based on the information they were given (which was incorrect) thought it was wise to go into Iraq. But we have learned that the intelligence was wrong. There were no WMD's there were no ties to Al Qaida. The American public realizes this now. But more than that, most generals realize this. These are the people who know what they are talking about. We all agree that the war was a mistake now. So why leave before 'the job is done'? because the job can't be done by us.
'We broke it, so we should fix it' is a lofty goal, but the fact is that our very presence there is one of the major sources of unrest.
We can leave sooner, or later. No occupying army can remain in a country who's populace is hostile to them. America learned this in the US, We learned this in Vietnam, the Russians learned this in Afghanistan. etc etc.
In we leave sooner, we have fewer combat casualties and fewer innocent Iraqi deaths as a result of our combat operations. Leaving later only piles up more bodies.
There are only two possible outcomes once we withdraw. Either the current government will succeed or it will fail. It is likely to fail as it is not viewed favorably by the populace. In the aftermath there will be tens of thousands of deaths and a civil war.This will only end when either a strong secular military leader brings the country to heal with violence (Saddam v2.0) or a charismatic religious leader takes control (Sadr and the jihadists). This is the inescapable truth that very few people want to think or talk about, but it is coming and it will be a great tragedy. - ryanr313, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the Dems have a slim margin in the house and senate does that mean that they do not have a mandate?
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@thcobbs (#6375710)
So are you agreeing then, that congressional Democrats, if Congress were to cut funding for the Iraq situation, would be painted as "not supporting the troops?"
Moreover, do you think that is an accurate charge? Ay, there's the rub. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ryanr313 (#6375840)
I understand that. It's one thing to lead the nation in a way fashioned by your beliefs, which more or less align with your party affiliation. It's another to continually and actively ignore, demean or undermine the values of a group of people who you are not yourself aligned with, but who make up (by election results) just about half the nation's electorate, *when you are the president.* - nottidredd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Call that number at the end of the video. That's the President's comment line. Tell the person that answers the phone that you want Bush to sign the bill.
- ijustfloat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kinda hard to say you've won a war when you weren't sure what that meant going into it.
Mr. Bush needs a swift ass kicking more than anything else. - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"That takes courage and conviction. Both of which we desperately need in Washington..."
So what you're saying is, it won't happen. :( - cyphin6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess the vision of World Peace through Democracy isn't popular among American's it's like Evolution, if people can't see a definitive point to something thats not within a small time frames no one thinks it's possible. Go ahead Digg me down, god know whoever supports bush couldn't possibly have a valid point.....
- 98psuAE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ryanr313 - Do you really think that because we are in Iraq they will only attack us in Iraq? There have been attacks outside of Iraq since this war has been going on.
But most of the violence currently going on in Iraq right now is between the different religious sects in the country. These people have hated each other for 1000's of years, there isn't going to be a quick and easy solution to this situation. - Adamande, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This of course begs the question: What the HELL is going on in Iraq now? Are we fighting a new war? A civil war? Are we just serving as a peace keeping force? AND, more importantly, should we still be over there?
The answer, unfortunately, is complicated. "
No it isn't. You should get out of Iraq today. You never had any business being there. You are an illegal occupation force, and this whole war has been nothing but horrible PR for the US. And while you're at it, you should get out of every other place you're trying to dominate militarily. You should try to concentrate on rebuilding your economy and more important, your democracy! And then you should try to win the world back over by being the leading nation in business, technology and diplomacy. Not weapons.
Your president and his band of neocon hawks lied to the Republican party and to the American public and made you responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent people based on nothing but bs. Your country is currently in a situation where you are aggravating the entire planet, and that is far more dangerous to you than any half-wit suicide bomber. The war in the middle east, pissing of the muslims, and the rocket shield in Europe, pissing off both Europe and Russia, is not good foreign policy. The growing opinion about the US is that the US should start defending itself on its own soil. The US has no business fighting every other place than at home. And quite a few people in Europe actually welcome Russian weapons-increase cause they want to see someone power-balance the US.
I'm not sure what America stands for anymore. I used to see it as a country of freedom and tolerance. Today, it mostly seems to be a failing empire, kneeling under the weight of senseless military spending. Waging desperate wars to instill some belief in people that it still has a role to play in the world. And all this controlled by political crooks and liars trying to become rich while not at all caring about neither the opinion nor the safety of the American people. It's a sad sight. - delugestudios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This entire debate is flawed, and I am amazed that intelligent people on both sides of the issue cannot see that. The "Iraq War" is all about framing. It is framed for the American people by politicians, the media, and a countless array of polls that draw conclusions from empty questions.
For instance, I recently saw a poll stating a majority of Americans DO NOT believe that victory is possible in Iraq. well, great! Democrats laud this statistic as further evidence that we should withdraw our troops. Republicans argue that leaders such as Harry Reid are tainting the public's opinion & emboldening our enemies with constant statements of assumed defeat. However, the REAL ISSUE is no one has defined what victory in Iraq IS. Do any of the people questioned in that poll actually agree on what victory looks like? IF NOT, the poll is pointless. Any conclusions drawn from it are merely political positioning. And once again we the people buy into the political and media propaganda, whichever flavor we particularly enjoy.
If victory, is the total absence of violence & terrorism in Iraq, I would agree with Democrats - victory is impossible. In which case, we still haven't achieved victory in our own country.(and never will)
If victory is establishing a democratic government in place of a brutal dictatorship, I would agree with Republicans, victory will be difficult, but is still possible.
But isn't this the whole point, who gets to decide WHAT VICTORY IS.
As long as it's up for debate, it will never be achieved in the eyes of Democrats (Dems will say the new democracy must be sustainable... but for how long? If democracy in Iraq falls in 2025, and a new dictator takes over, will we have failed? 2030? 2050?... as long as victory is subjective, we can always claim it has yet to be achieved)
SO, having shown how framing can affect the debate, let's remove the framing and look at things objectively:
The "original" Iraq War was won from a military standpoint: (don't believe me? read on...)
a) The (stated) Enemy: Saddam Hussein & his government, the Iraqi Army.
b) The (stated) Goal: Disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people for his brutal regime.
c) The (stated) Region: the country of Iraq
Now regardless of whether people agree on the "actual" reasons for the war or whether we should have started the war or not in the first place, the facts are simply this:
The U.S. has defeated the Iraqi Army, taken occupation of the major territorial regions of the country of Iraq, and captured or killed Saddam, his cabinet, & all of the important political/military officials that were targeted. (Remember the deck of cards given to the military with the 52 most wanted terrorists in Iraq - the U.S. military is 52 for 52... admittedly, that's pretty impressive)
Now, no matter what your political leanings, these facts are clear. They demonstrate a military victory according to historical precedent. (You might remember that V-days in WW2 occurred when the armies of Germany & Japan surrendered, not when peace, democracy, or the absence of violence was guaranteed in those regions) Based on these facts, the Iraq War ended in April of 2003.
This of course begs the question: What the HELL is going on in Iraq now? Are we fighting a new war? A civil war? Are we just serving as a peace keeping force? AND, more importantly, should we still be over there?
The answer, unfortunately, is complicated. And it greatly depends on your political leaning and personal beliefs. American troops have almost always stayed and helped ensure peace in countries where we have participated in wars, after victory is first achieved. (WW2 for example) But for 4 more years?
The FINAL question is this. Is it worth more American lives, to fight the forces of terrorism in Iraq and to try and secure a "lasting" freedom for the Iraqi people? That is what we must decide. It is a hard question to answer, but it shouldn't be made by the polls, or the whim of the masses. The U.S. is a representative democracy. We elect leaders to govern based on their character and convictions, not their ability to sway with the fluctuating whim of public opinion that is constantly being framed by pundits & politicians.
Obviously, this situation is difficult and serious, but whatever you want to call it.... but please don't call it the Iraq War. Call it a new war for all I care. But let's stop accepting political framing, and start talking about things as they actually are. Can we win in Iraq today? I honestly don't know... But what I do know, is that we already did win once before. - BoogerRed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6WOW!!! Heartless fascist? thecobbs broke it down so plainly and simply that my kid could understand and he's now a heartless fascist. I wan't the country bumpkin out as much as the next average digger but the extreme left wing "slinging" here on digg sometimes goes way over the top. Remember, impeach Bush, get Chenney. (sp)
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Achalemoipas (#6376031)
A withdrawal date requested by Congress is Congress telling the commander in chief: "This is how long you have to develop and execute an exit strategy."
Bush will not, *WILL NOT,* put any effort towards developing an exit strategy without being strongly encouraged to do so. And that's just to *have* an exit strategy, not necessarily even to *execute* an exit strategy. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4And for reference... I'd have respect for the Dems if they actually said, "We're going to cut funding for this war. We don't believe in it and we want to get our boys home now. This is the only way we can make it happen."
That takes courage and conviction. Both of which we desperately need in Washington... - EriktheBard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The President is the Commander in Chief. True. But since he has no real military experience, he must listen to the advice of his military experts. ALL of them agree that we cannot keep any peace. We cannot create stability. We are part of the problem. We are creating terrorists. We are breaking the Armed Forces.
We are spending Billions every month to do this.
Since the President does not like this answer he continues down a path of madness. Normally the Congress wouldn't interfere with the running of the War, but since the President is not listaning to the will of the people and does not want to listen to the House or Senate, they are forced into trying to defund the war. It ain't pretty, but politics, like sausage making, making, ain't pretty. - xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1seriously man, just gtfo if you are just going to troll and flame.
- LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what if he vetos it? Congress can still overturn the veto by getting a 2/3's vote....this congress needs to show this guy that they can and will keep him and his power hungry administration in check.
- eggo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well said. I wish I could digg you twice--Hell I wish I could elect you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Bamont, I'm not sure how you assumed masterofNone didn't understand the meaning of impeachment based on a comment as simple as "veto?impeach."
Veto or not, Mr. Prez should still be held accountable for his misconduct. Some would argue he should be removed from office in addition to impeachment."
Anytime you're discussing charges of any kind, you don't hear people say, "Indict him/her!".. You hear people say.. "They should go to Jail." .. People who know what impeachment is wouldn't logically use it as a phrase describing what they intended if they knew precisely what it meant. - 98psuAE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But don't you think that when close to 70% of the population doesn't agree with your current plan of action you need to reconsider your actions because 70% of the population includes a large number of people from their own party. Bush is being stubborn, he isn't even listening to people who his father trusted (James Baker is one) and when someone disagrees with his policy he just throws them aside and replaces them with someone who does.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ryanr313: Yes, others will see a weakness that Americans won't support a prolonged war where service members are constantly being killed for four years, in the middle of someone else's civil war. Solution: don't get stuck in the middle of protracted civil wars! Others know that America can and will win militarily within the first week or two of fighting, even when we attack under false pretenses. If that's the sort of weakness that we'll be seen as having, then I'm all for it.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ryanr313 (#6376267)
No, an exit strategy is what responsible militaries do. They should have multiple exit strategies - one for winning, one for losing, one for "oh *****, we're stuck here," and more. Having an exit strategy only says, "We do not intend to remain an occupying force forever."
I'm less upset about the fact that we're not executing an exit strategy right now, and more upset about the fact that we don't have one now and never did. I'm more interested in ending the war sooner rather than later, because I don't have faith in a commander in chief who rolled in without an exit strategy four years ago, insisting that we'd be greeted as liberators (like the French did in WW2).
Fast forward four years. Things have been going downhill for some time, we were not greeted as liberators, and it's starting to look like another VietNam. And we *still* have no exit strategy - not even one for when we win - and there's no indication that we ever will, win or lose.
That tells me, the Iraqis and the world that the US has no intention of leaving country. Ever. That the US will remain as an occupying force in Iraq indefinitely. This notion in itself threatens any tenuous peace between Middle Eastern nations which are hostile to the US in some degree (read: Iran and Syria).
I thought this war on terror was supposed to make me safer? I don't feel safer, especially when my son will be 18 in 2021 and have to register for Selective Service.
You think I'm crazy for thinking that far ahead, and thinking that the war in Iraq might still be going on then? US troops began deployment in VietNam in 1954. The last US troops were deployed in 1973, and the last came home in 1975. Nineteen years of US troop deployments to VietNam, twenty-one of service. I'm not the crazy one. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iraq is fuxored bush should be happy now just bring those inbread overly violent gulf war syndrome having rednecks home so they can start a revolution for us!
- donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ok.. so what happens when the anarchy in Iraq become total hell on earth, and the Moderate Majority in Iraq get slaughtered by the radical factions?
Wouldn't it be the US's responsibility for destabilizing the region by invading in the first place? The United States should remove forces, but not so suddenly that it allows the genocide and total annihilation of a country that was "relatively" stable only 6 years ago. Bush made the mistake of invading Iraq in the first place. He's just trying to make sure he doesn't make another one by pulling out before Iraq can support itself.
How does one reason that Iraq could possibly revert to stability by removing the only thing holding it together? - ryanr313, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nougat can you name a president that has not acted like this? This is what they do. The president acts in a manner consistent with his beliefs and they are generally in line with his party. If we look at the 2 parties they ultimately claim to have the best interest of all citizens in mind. The differences are not necessarily the goals of the parties, the differences are in the best way to achieve that goal. Obviously you disagree with the way the president is choosing to achieve that goal.
- shadygrove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0remember people, he's a uniter, not a divider. so ya gotta ask yourself, is this the compassionate side of the president speaking? (the one that spoke most loudly in new orleans as the city was warned of impending levy breaches and he did nothing to help the emergency evacuation and preparations for catastrophic results) or is it the conservative side? (the one who chides democrats as tax and spend liberals but took a clinton era budget surplus and turned it into the worst budget deficit in the history of the nation)...
either way, we have no business in iraq, except to solidify that the oil is sold on the dollar not the euro and to grant a metric ***** of no bid contracts to halliburton and the like.
if it weren't so devious, i'd call it idiotic, but what do these guys care about the standing of the rest of the nation so long as they loot the treasury before the debt ridden dollar plunders? - herbshangout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The US has spent over 500 billion US$ on the war. Imagine having used that money sensibly and "bought" the country instead of ruining it. I am sure there would have been protests against taking US money but it's sure better than killing tons of people. And it would have been possible!
- ryanr313, on 10/12/2007, -1/+170% of the people can still be wrong. being in the majority does not make it right.
- hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1While you folks are debating whether we should be in Iraq, you're missing the bigger picture. This bill is completely unconstitutional. The conduct of war is entirely up to the President of the United States. If Congress doesn't like what is going on, they can deny funding. They cannot dictate the terms on which the war is conducted as a precondition to funding the war.
The Democrats are... as usual... trashing the constitution in order to score political points with their far-left base. They're doing it at the expense of American security and American reputation. Their attitude is that it's either their America, or no America at all. The drive by media and the brain-dead consumers of their product have no idea.
And hell yes we need to be in Iraq. I'm amazed by the attention span of some people; clearly it's just enough to manage to not burn a bag of popcorn in the microwave. Saddam Hussein was providing material support for terrorists. Even if it wasn't directly to al Qaeda, only a fool believes that terrorist groups each operate in a vacuum; it's a billion dollar global business that goes from the south pacific to the middle east up through europe, down through central and south america, and into the heart of America. This is a global war on TERROR, not a global war on the personality cult of bin ladin. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The sane people in the country are laughing their asses off at the liberal democrats.
Do you jackasses know what "commander in chief" means?
I'm serious. Are you all really THAT ***** STUPID?
LOL. Go spend your money on your ad. In fact, donate thousands to make sure it runs 24/7. The more it runs, the more I'll laugh. -
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is