Taking it Out on the Troops

[lukeiamyourdad]

Speaking as a dedicated, angry-as-hell, bonna fide member of the Anti-War Movement: only a marginal faction of the movement would do something as dumb as spitting on the guys who didn't have much of a choice. It's like the jerks who smashed windows during the 1999 WTO demonstration and effectively smeared 50,000 of their brethren portesting peacefully. They give the movement a black eye.

 

I think this is an important element to point out; how only a few trouble makers and more extremist members of a group actually do such violent acts. Unfortunately for every social movement, it's those who cause violence that get on the evening news. With the state the American "media" is in (I say American, but Canada is starting to sink into this whirlpool too), they only report what makes the biggest headlines. "Violent protest" is always "cooler" sounding then "Peaceful protest".

[GarfieldJL]

My question is why the heck was Al Sadr in the then tightest police state in the world, if Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Al Queda.

 

I'd also like to know where several tons of Anthrax went. Seriously, even though I know I can't prove it, I personally feel a lot of Iraq's WMDs were moved to Syria while we were tied up trying to get support from the UN.

 

Then there is the Oil for Food Scandal that involved: China, France, Russia, and several other countries as well as senior members of the UN.

 

Then there was the French military equipment we found in Iraq that was made AFTER the first Gulf War.

 

Sure the war could have been handled better, but pulling out is the absolute worse thing we could do.

[SilentScope001]

Sure the war could have been handled better, but pulling out is the absolute worse thing we could do.

 

What if that is the best thing we can do? From a Machviellian standpoint, of course...and I'm not advocating a pull-out, I am only going to tell what is going on, and any good effects that comes out of a pull-out.

 

Sure, the Middle East will suffer from tension, but...we already have that. Al-Qadiah and Batahists will battle over Anbar, SCIRI and Al-Sadr will battle in the streets of Baghdad, and Kurdish terrorists and Turkish military forces do military strikes. There will be violence in Iraq...and?

 

That's it. Violence. Sooner or later, Iraq may permenatly break up...or it may reform under a more effective tyranny. If the latter, it might be allied towards one of the nearby nations (Iran if Shia, Saudi Arabia/Syria is Sunni), and will play a role in Middle Eastern politics. If the earlier, then the entire area might stablize itself into three different nations, and everything will be fine, somewhat. Tensions will be between the many different powers...and Iraq will remain in a percaious balance.

 

Hey, if you think USA is in a quamire, what about Al-Qadiah, SCIRI, Al-Sadr, and the PKK? They too could also be sent in a quamire, and may be forced to waste lots of resources in killing each other...resources that could be used for other purposes that would undermine more important American interest. Like American lives.

 

All that will really be shot up is the idea of "regime change" to establish pro-American democracies and America's credbility in fighting a war against another enemy.

[GarfieldJL]

If we manage to succeed in Iraq we will have dealt a crippling blow to Al Queda and possibly set off things in Iran and Syria, best case a revolution.

[Jae Onasi]

Revolution is never a best-case scenario....

[Ambrose]

Revolution is never a best-case scenario....

 

The best case is obviously that all terrorists and radical regimes renounce their ways, instate peaceful democracies, and lay down arms and differences. That's a given. That said, I think he meant "the best realistic scenario." Personally, I wouldn't mind if it was the people themselves fighting a revolution as opposed to us fighting a foreign war for them.

 

I don't know about you but that appealing to the support the troops was maddening. True I had never liked Bush for dragging us into a war that was never in the first place authorized by Congress. Congress is the only body of power that can wage and levy war. Apparently Bush used the Gulf of Tonken incident to plow ahead when in fact it was overturned. In fact it is like he is trying to uphold Wilson's policy of making the world safe for democracy.

 

Are you in high school by chance?

 

Anyways. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that President Bush is quite right. Withdrawing from Iraq is a recipe for disaster. As it stands, we don't have many options. The nutjobs who want us to pull out right-now-this-very-instant are, in my opinion, doing so out of a desire to crowd-please more than to actually help the world's situation.

 

Whether or not going into Iraq was appropriate, smart, or even legal is not the issue (and in this thread I will claim no stance on any of those issues). That's done, nothing anyone can do about it. Fact of the matter is, leaving Iraq to fall (as we let South Vietnam fall, though in my opinion the parallel stops there, will get to that) is a terrible idea.

 

Why? Suffice to say the Mid-east is not a stable region. Not to mention it is a region generally not friendly to America, and it's volatile enough to be dangerous. There are few who would debate that matter. It's simply not geopolitically intelligent to walk in, destroy a country's government, try to instate a new one, and then give up. The troops aside, Leaving Iraq puts America at risk. Who wouldn't want an allied regime on the border of a potential enemy (Iran)?

 

Secondly, about the troops: I have yet to hear of any drastic morale issues among the troops. Let's remember that we have an all-volunteer force. Now more than ever, enlistees know exactly what they're getting into. It's basically a given that if you enlist in the Marine Corps or the Army, you've got yourself a ticket to Iraq. If you have a problem with that, you don't join. That's simply a fact. So in my opinion, belly-aching for a withdrawal from Iraq on behalf of the troops is pointless. It was their decision, and I don't think they'd appreciate our questioning it.

 

My few cents.

[JediAthos]

Without rehashing things that others have already said, and being former military myself (I got out two months ago) there are many valid points on both sides of this argument.

 

My biggest problem with the recent attempt to set a timetable for bringing our guys home is that it was attached to a bill that was meant to finance those very same troops. It angers me greatly that the Congress decided to push their political agenda and make a statement on a bill that was meant to provide money for bullets, body armor, food, uniforms, tanks, parts etc... It angers me that the military may have to cut back on programs that benefit our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines because the politicians are too busy arguing with one another over a timetable.

 

They want to hash out a timetable, fine, but do it at a damn conference table. Don't use it to deprive the people over there getting shot at of the things they need.

[GarfieldJL]

Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.

 

Since Clinton practically gutted the CIA, it is rather probable that Bush was being completely honest with the American People, however he was given bad intelligence.

 

George Tenat was a Clinton appointee, and he also scrubbed a mission that would have blown Bin Laden's head off.

[mimartin]

George Tenet was a Clinton appointee, and he also scrubbed a mission that would have blown Bin Laden's head off.

 

 

Was George Tenet a Supreme Court Justice? No, then Mr. Bush could of replaced him the moment he took office. After that he became a Bush appointee. One that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 6 months after Tenet resigned from the CIA.

 

As for his or anyone else’s reluctance in assassinating Bin Laden before 911 I don’t have a problem with it. After all it was against our own law at the time (see Executive Order 12333). Even after 911, I believe assassination should be used only as a last resort. What good is it to protect our way of life if we lose our morals and everything we stand for in the process.

[JediMaster12]

Are you in high school by chance?

If you thought that then you must have not been reading the posts. I am in college and the errors I made I apologized for after Mama Jae corrected me. I actually saw Sept. 11 in high school and the war in Afghanistan.

 

Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.

That pretty much struck my mind from day one which is why I support neither party and perfectly content to watch the Gladiator duels unless I want to march on Washington

 

The best case is obviously that all terrorists and radical regimes renounce their ways, instate peaceful democracies, and lay down arms and differences. That's a given.

And I've said that you cannot enforce democracy in a society where the imams have tremendous influence and the radicals of Islam claim it is the devil's own invention. The radicals see us as the devil incarnate. True we may be friendly at times when pushing our own means but for the most part, us Amerkia are hellspawn of the devil.

 

Note: Oh that word is American in Arabic.

[JediAthos]

Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly why it annoys me so much. They would rather push their political agenda than ensure the those that protect their right to do so have the supplies they require.

[Web Rider]

Ever occur to you that the dems are more concerned about trying to undermine our President, then they are concerned about the troops.

 

Ever occur to you that the repubs+Bush are more concerned about pushing their agenda than they are about the troops?

 

Please, they're politicians, that's what they do. The president is attempting to prove that he holds the world of 'god', that he can tell the Congress and the country what they're gonna do, when they're gonna do it, and where they can stick it if they don't agree. The democrats are attempting to prove that they hold the final say, that they control what's gonna happen, when it's gonna happen, and where we can stick it if we don't agree.

 

That's just what politicians do, it's what they've always done. We can't fund Bush forever, aside from growing dissent against the War in Iraq, we simply DONT have that kind of money, unless we want China to own the US outright, we have to cut the funds at some point. What point? I'm not really sure, but at least the Dems are trying to say "this point." it's far better than the alternative of "the point...down the road, some time, ya know, when we're ready".

 

 

Alot of misconception and propganda comes from the fact that IF the military does not get it's monstrous budget approved, they're not out of funds. And if they were, you can expect to see the troops home. Aside from the soldiers stopping fighting when no longer being paid, companies will stop making equiptment without contract money, and the people as a whole will simply not allow the government to say "oh, we control the military, they're gonna keep fighting till they die, fully loaded or not." Additionaly, their current weapons are not on lease, they're not going to vanish when the budget runs out, aircraft carriers arent going to dissapear, armored trucks arent gonna be airlifted away by the chinese company that made them.

 

yeah, they may run out of money, but thats not going to magically make the soldiers naked in the sand.

[SilentScope001]

Money Issue: Remember, this is the US we're talking about here.

 

We have the ability to run up a huge national debt without any problem. We got infinite money, since this is the government we're talking about here! Why dig us out of the hole now? Just go and spend all the money we can on the troops? We throw trillions of dollars at the problem, and then let see if this would do the trick.

 

Problem is that we're just going to increase inflation, and we're risking an economic collaspe just like what happened after the Vietnam War. Still, this option is there. I don't see the reason why the "funding the troops" issue is so important, since this is the USA who can easily fund anything for that matter.

[JediMaster12]

We have the ability to run up a huge national debt without any problem. We got infinite money, since this is the government we're talking about here! Why dig us out of the hole now? Just go and spend all the money we can on the troops? We throw trillions of dollars at the problem, and then let see if this would do the trick.

Well the damned Rep. in office is a spendthrift which totally goes against the pennypinching credo of the Rep. party. I don't think he cares as long as he has some sort of funding to wage his little wargames with Iraq. Personally I think we would be better off if wars were fought by the same morons that started them.

 

Problem is that we're just going to increase inflation, and we're risking an economic collaspe just like what happened after the Vietnam War. Still, this option is there. I don't see the reason why the "funding the troops" issue is so important, since this is the USA who can easily fund anything for that matter.

I don't know about you but I would rather be somewhere else than to be in a country that could eventually be ownd by China if our debt keeps rising and rising. I miss the days when Clinton was in office. He actually brought down our national debt. I remember when the dollar was worth more and when gas at one time was 99 cents/gallon. I do agree that inflation will get worse if we keep spending the way we are on this campaign that has got us nowhere.

[Jae Onasi]

Congress isn't taking it out on just the soldiers. When Jimbo was on active duty, we had to use military health care (which is not bad, just slow) and other services. If funding got cut off, that could affect not just soldiers but families as well.

[Web Rider]

Money Issue: Remember, this is the US we're talking about here.

 

We have the ability to run up a huge national debt without any problem. We got infinite money, since this is the government we're talking about here! Why dig us out of the hole now? Just go and spend all the money we can on the troops? We throw trillions of dollars at the problem, and then let see if this would do the trick.

 

Problem is that we're just going to increase inflation, and we're risking an economic collaspe just like what happened after the Vietnam War. Still, this option is there. I don't see the reason why the "funding the troops" issue is so important, since this is the USA who can easily fund anything for that matter.

 

we may have a faux money system here in the states, where money is simply valuable because the government says it is, but the funding the troops issue is not really a matter of funding. Everybody knows that we have the money to fund the troops, or at the very least, we can invent the money to fund the troops. The issue is who's waving the bigger stick. The president is attempting to say that Congress needs to just give him the money to do as he pleases and shove their dissent. And Congress is trying to say that they, as representatives of the people, can't in good concioncince just keep forking over the money to him for his war.

[SilentScope001]

I don't know about you but I would rather be somewhere else than to be in a country that could eventually be ownd by China if our debt keeps rising and rising. I miss the days when Clinton was in office. He actually brought down our national debt. I remember when the dollar was worth more and when gas at one time was 99 cents/gallon. I do agree that inflation will get worse if we keep spending the way we are on this campaign that has got us nowhere.

 

Clinton brought it down, but we still had it, and Clinton would have probraly risen the National Debt again, thanks to the Democrats wanting to spend the surplus on government programs. A recession can quite easily reverse a surplus, meaning that the Democrats' goal of getting rid of the national debt becomes quite hard.

 

I am a deficit hawk, and I think something has to be done. But, we dug ourselves into this hole, and I see no way out. Why stop the train wreck now?

 

The president is attempting to say that Congress needs to just give him the money to do as he pleases and shove their dissent. And Congress is trying to say that they, as representatives of the people, can't in good concioncince just keep forking over the money to him for his war.

 

Thing is, you can fund the troops while still retreating from Iraq and rebuking Bush. Why cut off funds now? Just state: "We're going to continue funding, but here's a timetable. Violate it, and then we'll cut." Some of the more extreme verisons call for a reduction in troops levels, and also a reduction in funding for the War (since those troops are not going to be in Iraq), and these reduced troops would deal with Al-Qadaih.

[Windu Chi]

If funding got cut off, that could affect not just soldiers but families as well.

I would say the death of there love ones will have a greater impact; the funding they was geting before the delay was disgraceful, they had to upgrade their armor themselves because of that pitiful so called funding.

The funding for the people who still support this war, is funding to pay the big business who have been siphoning off resources from the troops.

They are the big supporters of continuing the war in Iraq, for they can continue to get their paper.

 

That damn war is a stalemate !

[GarfieldJL]

To be honest, congress has absolutely no business giving the Generals on the ground time tables. The Generals have more knowledge of the situation than congress.

[mimartin]

To be honest, congress has absolutely no business giving the Generals on the ground time tables. The Generals have more knowledge of the situation than congress.

 

 

This is not a military dictatorship. Our elected officials have every right to tell the Military leaders what to do. Our elected officials would be smart to listen and take the advise of the experts in Military Warfare (namely the soldiers themselves), but our legally elected officials make the final decision. That is why the President is called the Commander and Chief, he and not any General or Admiral has the final say. The President is usually not an expert in warfare and should listen to his advisories and military before making decisions.

 

Congress also has a say in this too. They are the ones that declare war. They also control the money. Our founding father felt it important to have checks and balances between the three branches of government. They did not want any one to become all powerful. While this system has been frustrating at times, it has worked for over 200 years. The American people also must have felt the need for checks and balances or we would still have a Republican controlled Congress.

 

You are right Congress should not have a say on the operational activity of day to day operations of the military. However, they do have a say on funding a war.

 

I don’t want the military to pull out of Iraq; however I do want some accountability for the price our country, our allies and the Iraqi people have paid in blood for this war.

 

In the end funding will not be cut off. The bill will pass and be signed into law. Eventually both sides will set down and find some middle ground. A place where most American already are.

[Web Rider]

Thing is, you can fund the troops while still retreating from Iraq and rebuking Bush. Why cut off funds now? Just state: "We're going to continue funding, but here's a timetable. Violate it, and then we'll cut." Some of the more extreme verisons call for a reduction in troops levels, and also a reduction in funding for the War (since those troops are not going to be in Iraq), and these reduced troops would deal with Al-Qadaih.

 

but thats what they're trying to do. Saying: here's the money....BUT...you have to be out of there by X. Or you have to have X soldiers in there by X or no money.

 

But Bush has repeatedly said the only legislation he WONT veto, is one that says "here's your money, no strings, have fun."

[SilentScope001]

but thats what they're trying to do. Saying: here's the money....BUT...you have to be out of there by X. Or you have to have X soldiers in there by X or no money.

 

But Bush has repeatedly said the only legislation he WONT veto, is one that says "here's your money, no strings, have fun."

 

/shrugs. I heard that he is attempting a discussion to come up with some objectives to measure progress, I don't know how long that is going.

 

As for vetoing...It's his right, inscrined in the Consitution. The one thing the Founding Fathers hated was rule by the Mob, and the President has to power to overrule the Legalstive Branch if he feels it is necessary for a greater goal in mind. Besides, if the Democrat held the Presidency and the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Republicans wanted to cut something terrible, and most people are for the Republicans, the Democrat would veto it too, because he believes in something greater than poll numbers.

 

Balance of power seems very strange in this era, no? Still, best to protect it, lest you be on the receiving end.

[GarfieldJL]

but thats what they're trying to do. Saying: here's the money....BUT...you have to be out of there by X. Or you have to have X soldiers in there by X or no money.

 

But Bush has repeatedly said the only legislation he WONT veto, is one that says "here's your money, no strings, have fun."

 

 

Well Congress has no business telling the commander and chief how to run a war. Seriously, running a war by committee is just plain stupid.

[Nancy Allen``]

If you want to run a war, all you need to do is unlock the cages of those who fight the wars for you, those who know more about fighting and how to wage and win war than you ever will.

[Windu Chi]

Well Congress has no business telling the commander and chief how to run a war. Seriously, running a war by committee is just plain stupid.

Well, the President is incompetent failure, GarfieldJL he has fail his job as commander in chief; he is not a dictator or a warlord so the committee do have say so in a democracy.

He is accountable for his actions, so far respect to the Iraq War his commanding have been scandalous and pathetic, he is a terriable commander, which should be obvious to the sane people in this country, only the insane and his pathetic worshipers would believe he is doing a superb job in Iraq.

 

Unless there is no democracy in the U.S. no more, he don't have the last word on the decisions for runing a war.

As far as I know he don't rule the United States (unless I'm missing something), so Congress still have a say so on how to run that war, GarfieldJL.