Non-binding resolution? (Page 2)

Forum guidelines BT super discount
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Non-binding resolution? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2007-02-05 10:45 AM
in reply to: #679522

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 9:26 AM

drewb8 - 2007-02-05 10:17 AM
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 9:11 AM

but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics.

Oh. Um. then yes. But then again seems a little naive to not expect politics from politicians.

 

Yeah naïve, that's me….I still believe in truth, justice, integrity, morality, responsibility and a whole long list of other virtues.



So you voted Democrat in the last election, huh? ZING!

Congress wastes their time on alot of nonsense so at least they are debating an issue which has a great importance to the country.

2007-02-05 10:46 AM
in reply to: #679249

User image

Elite
2552
20005002525
Evans, GA
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?

I think it is fine for Congress to have debate on the conduct of the war in Iraq. I would also be interested in a debate on alternatives to obtain resolution (or at least progress).  This is an honest question!  Don't pounce!  So far I haven't seen many alternative views on how to deal with the Iraq situation.  

  I do agree that just pulling up the tent stakes at this point in time would be a disaster, but my thinking on the situation hasn't gone much beyond that. What are some alternative exit strategies?

  I guess I need to read "Fiasco' a bit faster. 

2007-02-05 10:47 AM
in reply to: #679525

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 10:26 AM
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 11:11 AM

... but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics.

It is politics, but I think it's meant to be a clear statement on exactly how out of touch the executive is with the legislature, and by extension the people when it comes to this war. And moreso, how befuddled congress is with the direction the President is setting.

After the elections, Bush spent a month getting opinions from apparently everyone he could regarding the war. The result? No one told him what he wanted to hear. So he canned those people that he could that disagreed with him and replaced them with yes men. Bush didn't want new ideas, he wanted people to agree with his old ideas. When he found out that no one did, he did what he had to do to ensure that his vision was implemented.

So now congress is pissed, and this is the strongest way they have in showing their displeasure.

 

Please tell me you do not really believe this! From the posting you've done, I think you are more intelligent than to believe something like this. Yeah, Bush didn't want 'new ideas'….he just wanted the Rumsfeld doctrine to continue…..so he fired Rumsfeld. Oh forget it.

Look, the whole congress has been screaming for 'change' in Iraq. There are only 3 things that can be done:

1. Stay the course - and we know this was not working

2. Begin to pull back/withdrawal

3. Step-up our opposition to the insurgency.

The politics that is coming out of congress is a joke. Either support pulling out or support the increase - you can't have it both ways but that is exactly what the resolution is trying to do. Why don't those that support the resolution support pulling out or even a time table? Because they know that would be an unmitigated and unregulated disaster! They've already gone on the record as saying change is needed. So what's a senator to do?! Well, let's just pass a non-binding resolution that says we are very unhappy! Yeah, that'll change things! We'll 'send a message' to the President that we won't cut off funding, we are not happy with staying the course and we don't support an increase. As a matter of fact, anything you do, you are f'd and we will oppose you!

2007-02-05 10:49 AM
in reply to: #679549

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?

ChineseDemocracy - 2007-02-05 11:42 AM When you speak out against the war you are deemed unpatriotic and weak. 

 





(peace.gif)



Attachments
----------------
peace.gif (17KB - 13 downloads)
2007-02-05 11:04 AM
in reply to: #679558

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Bluejack - 2007-02-05 10:46 AM

I think it is fine for Congress to have debate on the conduct of the war in Iraq. I would also be interested in a debate on alternatives to obtain resolution (or at least progress).  This is an honest question!  Don't pounce!  So far I haven't seen many alternative views on how to deal with the Iraq situation.  

  I do agree that just pulling up the tent stakes at this point in time would be a disaster, but my thinking on the situation hasn't gone much beyond that. What are some alternative exit strategies?

  I guess I need to read "Fiasco' a bit faster. 

I totally agree that congress ought to be debating exit strategy! As a matter of fact, why not hold hearings and solicit ideas on how to deal with the situation. Like you, I'd be interested in hearing options. Maybe dividing up the country into shite and sunis and kurdish area? Set up a theocracy?

2007-02-05 11:05 AM
in reply to: #679560

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 11:47 AM
run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 10:26 AM
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 11:11 AM

... but back to the OP, a non-binding resolution in an attempt to say "not MY fault, I tried to tell you" is a crock of politics.

It is politics, but I think it's meant to be a clear statement on exactly how out of touch the executive is with the legislature, and by extension the people when it comes to this war. And more so, how befuddled congress is with the direction the President is setting.

After the elections, Bush spent a month getting opinions from apparently everyone he could regarding the war. The result? No one told him what he wanted to hear. So he canned those people that he could that disagreed with him and replaced them with yes men. Bush didn't want new ideas, he wanted people to agree with his old ideas. When he found out that no one did, he did what he had to do to ensure that his vision was implemented.

So now congress is pissed, and this is the strongest way they have in showing their displeasure.

 

Please tell me you do not really believe this! From the posting you've done, I think you are more intelligent than to believe something like this. Yeah, Bush didn't want 'new ideas'….he just wanted the Rumsfeld doctrine to continue…..so he fired Rumsfeld. Oh forget it.

Look, the whole congress has been screaming for 'change' in Iraq. There are only 3 things that can be done:

1. Stay the course - and we know this was not working

2. Begin to pull back/withdrawal

3. Step-up our opposition to the insurgency.

The politics that is coming out of congress is a joke. Either support pulling out or support the increase - you can't have it both ways but that is exactly what the resolution is trying to do. Why don't those that support the resolution support pulling out or even a time table? Because they know that would be an unmitigated and unregulated disaster! They've already gone on the record as saying change is needed. So what's a senator to do?! Well, let's just pass a non-binding resolution that says we are very unhappy! Yeah, that'll change things! We'll 'send a message' to the President that we won't cut off funding, we are not happy with staying the course and we don't support an increase. As a matter of fact, anything you do, you are f'd and we will oppose you!

Replacing Rummy was the right thing to do. I don't know about Bush's motivations in doing so. It could be that he realized Rummy wasn't the right man for the job, but he had only bee carrying out W's vision. It could be that W was trying to appease critics and show that he was changing direction. I don't know.

But do you really think this escalation is a new detection or just a, um, escalation of the same policies? There are very few people that think this war is even remotely winnable. Some say it could possibly be winnable, but the only way to win is by increasing troop levels. Fair enough. The supporters of the troop increase say we have no option but to win; if we lose, the consequences will be horrendous. Those people say that by "cutting and running", we lose and face certain increases in terrorist attacks.

I take a few of issues with those theories. Firstly, they don't address the overwhelming possibility that by merely adding a few more troops we will still lose. We'll still lose, but instead of getting out before it gets truly horrible, we'll become mired and hundreds (or thousands) more Americans will die. And we'll be in the same place in the region.

There is also the possibility that our continued presence in the region will give the Iraqis no incentive to begin fixing things themselves. There is also the real possibility that our continued presence will only increase the level of violence in the region, the way the continued presence of bacteria in your body increases the immune response of your system.

And finally, how do they know that by pulling out it will embolden our enemies? That's pure speculation. In the aftermath of the Vietnam war, did we see a similar increase in violence or threats against the US? I don't think so.

And as to your Rummy example: how do you explain Bush replacing Abizaid with Fallon, if he merely wasn't trying to align his regime with his vision?

2007-02-05 11:08 AM
in reply to: #679593

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 10:04 AM

I totally agree that congress ought to be debating exit strategy! As a matter of fact, why not hold hearings and solicit ideas on how to deal with the situation. Like you, I'd be interested in hearing options. Maybe dividing up the country into shite and sunis and kurdish area? Set up a theocracy?



Actually Joe Biden has proposed (for a while now) just such a plan of a loose federation of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish areas.
2007-02-05 11:25 AM
in reply to: #679249

User image

Master
1821
1000500100100100
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
couple of things.....

as far as who is promoting violence in iraq, here's an article on saudis funneling millions of dollars to the sunni insurgency. why isn't bush rattling his saber against them? oh...right...family bizness. and it's not like there were an saudis involved in 9/11.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x....

as far as providing the military the resources and equipment they need to fight and survive, the government is already failing them on that count. not to mention all the troops having to buy their own body armor. put that on a yellow magnetic ribbon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2...

as far as public support for wars and the number dead, support for WWII remained high even as US casualties increased. want to know why people don't support this war in iraq? it's because in selling the war, this administration took the worst case scenario regarding iraq's (nonexistent) WMD and iraq's (nonexistent) ties to al Qaida and 9/11, and the best case scenario regarding how the war would go. so people believed that it was absolutely necessary to invade iraq and that it would be easy, cheap, everything would turn up roses, and all we were asked to do in return was to keep shopping. those lies have unraveled, and so has public support.

meanwhile, the taliban is resurgent in afghanistan, north korea's nuclear program has gone unchecked, iran has gained influence in the region, the number of deaths worldwide from terrorism have gone up every year, America's standing in the world has plummeted, our military is overextended, and Osama bin Laden is still alive. and whatever happened to the anthrax attacks after 9/11? people tend to forget about that, but nobody was ever caught, and it gives lie to the statement that we haven't been attacked again after 9/11.

of course, i'm just a dirty hippie who was against this war from the start, so what do i know?
.
2007-02-05 11:38 AM
in reply to: #679552

User image

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
run4yrlif - 2007-02-05 10:45 AM
hangloose - 2007-02-05 11:37 AM

There's a lot of irony in that statement.

What you really mean is that it is politcal suicide to appear to be the one advocating less support for the troops in the field.

I guess you could spin it either way, but seriously, do you really think anyone wants to take away resources from the troops?

I wrote "appear to be" meaning that yes, I think if the only way to get us out of the war was to reduce funding there would be people voting for that.  However, there is no way to vote for that without APPEARING to be advocating reducing support for the troops in the field and exposing them to more risk.

The ironic part is that many would argue that situation has existed over there for years already.

 

2007-02-05 11:40 AM
in reply to: #679249

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2007-02-05 12:18 PM
in reply to: #679657

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
spokes - 2007-02-05 11:40 AM

 

I don't get it.

Maybe that's the problem….I just don't get it…I don't get the relevance of this picture to this thread and I don't get the point of debating a non-binding resolution….which is a kind of an oxymoron anyway.

Maybe this means we should sit on a rock….Iraq?

Or maybe it symbolized that I am the lone voice in the wilderness? That's ok, I've always stood alone in a crowd.

2007-02-05 12:27 PM
in reply to: #679707

Master
1821
1000500100100100
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Rogillio - 2007-02-05 1:18 PM

spokes - 2007-02-05 11:40 AM

I don't get it.



i think it's a molehill. this thread being the mountain.

or...or...it's a massive pile of sh!t, representing the war in iraq, and the US is straddled atop.

or maybe there is no spoon.
2007-02-05 12:35 PM
in reply to: #679249

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?

I don't get it either. 

 

2007-02-05 12:37 PM
in reply to: #679744

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2007-02-05 12:51 PM
in reply to: #679249

Elite
2552
20005002525
Evans, GA
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
I just thought she was taking a big dump.
2007-02-05 12:52 PM
in reply to: #679249

Elite
2552
20005002525
Evans, GA
Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Heh heh.

2007-02-06 7:12 PM
in reply to: #679249


1

Subject: RE: Non-binding resolution?
Yep I took a big dump.. I was sooooooooooo proud of it I got my photo taken sitting on top of it! Remember folks, always eat lots of fibre! It's good to thoroughly empty your bowels each day .... politics and war both suck btw I have no time for either.

I know what you're going to say - women are so full of **** - right? lol At least I have a sense or humour.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Non-binding resolution? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2