Dems pass bill to hasten defeat

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Bush will veto it for sure, but if this bill becomes law we're going to lose the war for sure. Then the attacks will be on our homes themselves, and we'll know who to point the finger at when the time comes full.

Bush?

For refusing to secure the borders because it will impact Republican financial donors and influential hedge-fund managers?

For refusal to actually build nuclear power plants, alleviating the need for crude oil from hostile and malicious nations?

For refusal to jeopardise the $20 trillion business model of Halliburton, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, DuPont, Boeing, British Petroleum, Shell, who all tend to lobby the Republican party more than the Democratic Party?

For refusal to let the moslems kill each other, driving up the price of oil, allowing the "free market" to develop energy alternatives to the oil industry's $20 trillion infrastructure investment?


Why, yes. I know where to "point the finger". (NESFW, not entirely safe for work)

[dean_acheson]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/27/83651/6231


Thank God there are folks out there helping us simpletons understand the news....

Pentagon Psyops? Sometimes it is hard to tell the parody from the real anymore.....

[Enigma]

Dude.

Yesterday, it was:

I guess it doesn't matter, the Dems will pull funding, the whole region will fall further into despotism and bloodshed, and the left will blame Bush.

...and today, this.

Yeah, yeah yeah. The left hates America. Wants to lose the war. zzzzzz *snore*.

I havent read the whole link you posted. Why? Because as a guy that leans and tends to vote to the left, i find Kos to be a huge pile of paranoid noise making foil hat wearing maniacs that give liberalism a bad name. I criticize the Joe Klein's and Ann Coulters of the world daily for their lunacy and downright stupidity. But I dont assume they are like the rest of the right wingers I know. I guess its easy to sit there and assume that because I voted for Democrats, think the current administration is a joke, and because your sources for left leaning view point comes from trash heaps like Kos, that somehow we are all America hating traitors. Well, thats really too bad for you. Too bad.

It would be too bad if I were to begin to assume that Coulter, Klein, and the like speak for you.

...or...do they?

[Enigma]

Oh, and by the way....the left will blame bush when Iraq becomes a disaster after the funding is pulled?
Who, then, is to blame for the last 4 years of consecutive disasters, not only in Iraq, but here at home, too?

Dont bother answering.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

No. My President did not orchastrate 9/11. No, my President did not lie about the intentions and capabilites of Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi invasion. Yes, Hussein was a destablizing threat in a region declared vital to American security interests by Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine). And yes, the work that the allies are doing to bring these 'inalienable' rights to common Iraqis is not only important and right, but is an example of the best western ideals of acting for the good of others.

Interesting. So whenever a Democrat makes a strategic decision to love the bad guy we can slam him but when Ronald Reagon funds the Contras its a different story. Yea thats some nice selective history.

But the war in Iraq has little to do with the 'inalienable rights' of its people. From day one its been a business trip to secure economic wealth. If it was all about the Iraqi's then why was that only an afterthought? Why wasn't Colin Powell at the UN showing pictures of dead Iraqis at the hands of Saddam? If it was about the freedom of that country why was the first thing that the army occupied the oil fields while it left all the government buildings to be ransacked, including the banks?

The Iraqi Freedom tag line was an afterthought. And no matter how noble it might seem, just because Democracy is good doesn't mean that you can force it when it won't go.

The McVote isn't a universal solution for ethnic hatred. You can't EXPORT western ideology. And who gives us that right anyway? Is this like giving the naked indians clothes? They'll thank us for civilizing them?

[Tchocky]

It's a no-win situation, I think. Rather similiar to the one that existed in the weeks before the war..

[fredbass]

Well I haven't stuck my nose into this subject for a while, so why not.

Prediction: America will leave Iraq with their tasks unfinished.

Iraq will fail to do the job on it's own and will have an all out civil war, ending with horrible amounts of bloodshed, dwarfing what we hear about now, leaving the country divided into multiple zones of dictated control for a number of years until a new dictatorship evolves that probably won't be much better than when Saddam was there.

Somewhere in the middle of all this disaster, America gets attacked again and our new Commander and Chief will start a new round of retaliatory measures that may or may not end up any better than this one did.

There: Everybody feel better now?

[Enigma]

America will leave Iraq with their tasks unfinished

Depends which task we are flogging this week. Is it WMD's? Yeah, they wont complete that mission.

Getting rid of Saddam? We did that!

Instilling "Freedom"? Hmm. That ones tougher than we (they?) thought, eh?

Setting up a government? Somewhat completed...

It all depends how you define these tasks. The stroy of why we are there, if you listen to the President, has changed every 6 months or so. We got rid of Saddam, theres a government in place, and it's time for Iraq to handle Iraq.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by tycho102

Bush?

For refusing to secure the borders because it will impact Republican financial donors and influential hedge-fund managers?

For refusal to actually build nuclear power plants, alleviating the need for crude oil from hostile and malicious nations?

For refusal to jeopardise the $20 trillion business model of Halliburton, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, DuPont, Boeing, British Petroleum, Shell, who all tend to lobby the Republican party more than the Democratic Party?

For refusal to let the moslems kill each other, driving up the price of oil, allowing the "free market" to develop energy alternatives to the oil industry's $20 trillion infrastructure investment?


Why, yes. I know where to "point the finger". (NESFW, not entirely safe for work)

Both Republicans and Democrats have refused to defend our southern border, both sides are guilty on this issue.

Both sides have propogated their side of donors in return for "campaign donations." And letting the Moslems have at eachother over there doesn't necessarily mean that Texaco is immediatly going to go out and invent a renewable energy source. They're gonna want to empty our wallets before that happens.

As for nuclear power; who complains the loudest over environmental issues but decries the building of hydroelectric dams and other attempts made toward discovering renewable energy? It certainly isn't the right that is doing so.

Along the same lines of Left Vs. Right: Why is it that the left criticizes the United States for inaction on Darfur when European nations are perfectly capable of doing something about it themselves? Or that the massacres against civilians is so horrid, yet push for "womens' choice" in killing their unborn child? How do you justify that?

How do you rationalize leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered by the Islamofascists while the Left ties the hands of our soldiers in this war?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

And yes, the work that the allies are doing to bring these 'inalienable' rights to common Iraqis is not only important and right, but is an example of the best western ideals of acting for the good of others.

The White Man's Burden, eh?. But the fact of the matter is, these inalienable rights are about as foreign to the Middle East as space invaders, and frankly aren't worth a single American soldier's life to try to bring them. Especially when they WILL use these inalienable rights to institute shariah rule eventually (most likely with some 'help' from Iran). And there isn't anything we can do about that, no matter how many Iraqis watch American Idol knockoffs. The Arab/Islamic mindset has always been not only unaccomodating to western political philisophy, but outright hostile to it. Iran is the real threat to stability in the region, and with the turbulence in Iraq we are making it all to easy for them to work their evil. I mean, even SoDamn Insane eventually realized you should only antagonize the West to a certain point before you get the cr*p bombed out of your $hithole homeland. And you damned sure shouldn't openly proclaim to have a nuclear program.

We need to get out of the Iraqi cities. Our troops seem to only accomplish two things there: 1) drive around and wait to get shot at/IED'd and 2) pull random people out of their homes and interrogate them, 95% of which have NOTHING to do with the insurgency. If the Iraqis truely want democracy, fine. But they NEED to be able to do it themselves, because anything REQUIRING our assistance will be patently unworkable down the line when we DO pull out come next (in all likelihood, Democratic) administration. The most valuable thing in Iraq now is the remote airbases, because we WILL need these in at most a decade. We will be able to entice/force the Iraqis to let us keep a few of them through ample reconstruction funding. And House of Saud will not let us use our airbases there for any offensive action against Iranian territory. While the Gulf principalities might, they are far too close to aero ballistic/cruise threats/popup Iranian threats to prove useful and safe.

Face it, our lofty (foolish) ambitions for Iraq are over, and should have been years ago. Shoving democracy down MEastern country's throat is not going to overcome millenia of culture and history. AL's signature sums it up quite well: "Hope is not a strategy."

PD

[Enigma]

Along the same lines of Left Vs. Right: Why is it that the left criticizes the United States for inaction on Darfur when European nations are perfectly capable of doing something about it themselves?

My biggest problem with out inaction in Darfur is because it exposes the deception and propaganda of this administration. If they were truly interested in ridding the world of "brutal dictators", spreading "freedom", and being the saviours of those who cant defend themselves, as so often has been pushed by Bush as one of the many revolving reasons we are in Iraq, then we would have been there a while ago.

having said that, Bush has made some financial moves in the interest of Darfur and other areas that have been highly benificial to that problem, and for those acts, I applaud him.