French as the new language?

J

JimNv

Active Member
Messages
599
Looks like Pelosi and the girls of congress have decided to do the French thing and wave the flag of surrender. Damn, am I proud to be an American today.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070217/D8NB7K380.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, and within minutes, Democrats said their next move would be to challenge Bush's request for $93 billion in new funds for the Pentagon.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed after the vote, in which 17 Republicans joined 229 Democrats in a wartime rebuke to the president.
 
As I've stated before, I predict that there will be another major attack on U.S. soil in 2007. I stated this right after the elections.

God Help Us All.



Jake H. MM Member since 1999.
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
Oh for hell's sake, just because they won't support a troop surge is no reason to cry Doomsday. It is NOT going to be the end of the world. It's not like terrorists aren't planning to attack if we put more guys in Iraq. They are planning it anyway and have been for years. Just because we won't send more troops to Iraq does not make this country more vulnerable.

I'm just glad we have a nation that actually has a system of checks and balances. We can't let the Commander In Chief just do whatever the hell he wants. The American voters spoke during the last election. They want troop withdrawl and I'm glad we have leaders in there who are listening to their constituents and who are listening to the Iraq study group that Dubbya formed and didn't listen to. That's the beauty of the system.

So, is denying a troop surge the right decision? Maybe...maybe not. But alot of legislators felt duped into giving their approval in the first place with the WMD claims. That whole deal shot Dubbya's credibility with alot of them right out of the water. He's had 4 years to sell people on his Iraq war and he just ain't getting it done. It is time for a new direction there. Whether it be toop surges or withdrawl remains to be seen but one or the other has got to be done.
 
So you want congress to go against the people who voted them in? the 2/3 majority of Americans who want them to cut funding and end the war? what part of democracy don't you understand? I'm not sure if what they're doing is the right thing but get used to it, majority rules. think about this, if it were up to the American people this war would already be over and the troops would be on their way home. I'm not saying that would be the best idea but don't act shell shocked and scream at the dems when Bush doesn't get the rubber stamp anymore, the " decider" needs permission from here on out. better to be like France than North Korea as some of you'ld prefer.
 
I remember when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam. Saddam said that Americans don't have the guts to fight a war with Iraq. It looks like he was right. Bush totally underestimated the enemy.

Ted Kennedy said all along it's another Viet Nam. Now we are going to make damned sure it is. A proud time in American history.
 
Your right about one thing, Bush did underestimate the enemy, he didn't know the difference between a Sunni and Shiite. that'a unreal, that's ignorant, that's what happens when you make emotional dumb decisions. if the Iraqis didn't hate each other as bad as they hate us this thing could have gone down much better in spite of the fact we had no reason to attack them. our system is in the process of correcting a mistake, this is a better time in American history than when we were making the mistake.
 
i don't necessarily think it is Bush's job to sell Congress or the American people on the war in Iraq after we all committed ourselves to it in 2003. The Congress all agreed to do it - it is not an illegal war and whether they feel now that they were "duped" or not - I think we have a resposibility to see it through until Iraq is stable enough to care for itself. We can't just go in, tear the country apart and then leave before we put it all back together. Despite what the American populace wants, we now have just as much responsibility to the Iraqi people as we do to our own people to stabilize their country. This is purely a political move aimed at strengthening the Democratic Party for a run at the Presidency in 2008. They don't care about the Iraqi people and the horrors that are going on over there on a daily basis that, if given the proper support, our troops can and will eradicate. To me, the Democrats are running from their convictions and the commitment they made when they voted and supported the President when he started the war. It was the popular thing to do at the time so they voted for it, now it's not so popular and they act as if they never voted for it to begin with. They lack commitment, backbone and character if this is the case and it makes me sick.

I want the war to be over, I want our troops to come home, but I also want peace. Not just peace here in the good old USA, but peace all over, in every country, in every part of the world. We are a long way from that, but we have to power to make it happen in Iraq, and it looks like the Congress has traded this possibility for their chance at re-election and power.

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)
 
Excellent perspective Roy. But I think a lot of Americans question the goal of peace in Iraq. Is it truly attainable? It seems to me that Muslims will always kill each other. And it also seems to me that they will always ban together to kill Christian infidels. At least in the long run. Something that Bush should have known.

But we should stay there until the Iraqi government that is now in place at least has a fair shot at getting it right. We owe it to our troops who have sacrificed so much.
 
Very simply the war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Terrorists from countries other than Iraq are responsible, in large part, for the continued resistance and escalation of the opposition. If we give up in Iraq , the war will be fought somewhere else. Most likely in a much larger respect on our soil! This is not a statement based on fear or paranoia, but based on reality. Yes the terrorists hate us and want to kill us. Yes they have and will continue to target U.S. soil. But much of their current effort is focused on Iraq. If and when we pull out, without securing the nation, they will be able to focus more of their effort on the U.S. targets. I do not think just because the majority of the people believe the war is tough, difficult, or even question the basis for it, should dictate. These people do not have all the information to make these kinds of decisions. Unfortunately the information that is out in the public is politically motivated, and thus the people's belief are based on incomplete and distorted information. I hate the fact that lives of Americans are being lost in this war. But that is what happens in war, people die. If we give up in Iraq the killing will not stop. The terrorists will take over Iraq and then be more focussed on the U.S. The 2 party political sysem is failing in the U.S. There is no longer an effective debate on the true merits of the issues. Instead the debate is on tearing down your political opposition, spewing negative spin on any given issue. There is and can't be any agreement because to do so might be interpreted as alloowing the majroity party to take credit for somethinng done right. We need to get away from the political b.s. and come together to defeat the terrorists in this war.
 
Found it pretty interesting that there was a recent poll that showed that 63% of the Nation wanted the Iraq war to end, yet the same percentage doesn't want to cut off funds ala democrats.

Glad to see the Senate Republicans step up with some courage with the exception of 17 of them and stop the Pelosi/Murtha BS train.

Got a bunch a fence ridin' pansies out there it seems.

Like I said. Pick a side. Either get out or get it on.
 
We could win this war if we were aloud to fight to win. We are trying to fight a politically correct war and that does not work. Either fight a real war to win or come home.
 
Just saw an interesting segment on 60 Minutes. Seems like the Kurds (Northern Iraq) are flourishing. They have Chevrolet dealerships and McDonalds. Malls and a thriving free-market system. They view the Americans as their liberators and heros. Apparantly over 90% of the 30 million kurds that live there.

The democrats probably hated to see that segment...LOL. They don't win unless the body count stays up.
 
I doubt the dems want the body count to stay up, that's just a biased way to deny the failure of the current administration. the dems already won big time and the republicans don't have a Chinaman's chance at the whitehouse in '08. they don't need anymore bodys, Bush is rolling out the red carpet for them right into the whitehouse. I'm not excited about the two front runner dems myself but until you quit blaming everything on the dems and admit the mistakes the republicans have made and fix them the dems will win, big time.
 
JimNv, I'll try and watch that (7PM west coast time.) I saw on some news cast the other day that electricity is only on for an average of four hours a day in Baghdad. And that only 4 million Iraqis have safe drinking water. Don't know what they mean by "safe" though.

If things are looking good over there the press better start showing more of it.

Eel
 
Eelgrass, hope you caught it. It was a segment on the Kurds (the people that Hussien thought it prudent to gas).

It was on CBS, dude. Called 60 Minutes. Been around for 40 years or so probably. Maybe you've heard of it? They spent a good deal of their energy reporting on forged documents accusing Bush of AWOL at one time? Kinda blew up in their faces as I remember.

I don't blame the dems for getting us into this war, though I blame the Clinton Admin for the several times they had a shot Bin Laden and didn't take it. Thats common knowledge. But I digress. There was a good deal of the dems that signed onto this war. That is before they were against it. So they share the blame.

I can only believe that our enemies are taking strength from the antics of the democrats. They truly do believe that they have won this, and of course will ramp up the attacks because they know that politically, they have us on the ropes. Hell, if my enemies were thinking of throwing in the towel, I'd start putting the boots to them to expedite capitulation. Thats just me, though. Always had a hard time "laying down." It may be your thing to go fetal when your getting beaten, and thats ok. We have a two-party system and like the always astute 3K put it, the Americans have voted to surrender. It doesn't mean that it can't and doesn't stick in some veterans' craw. But in my mind, our troops need support, not white flags.
 
I saw it, what you're leaving out is the Kurds don't consider themselves Iraqis anyway and they want to take thier land and oil and leave. this mess is between the Sunni and Shiite, what do you want to bet they aren't done yet? you worry about the message the dems are sending our enemies, isn't not beating our enemies for 6 years a bad message in it's self? after Bush took office and before 9/11 Bush had a few chances at Bin Laden I'll bet and he didn't take them either. and tell me who has been after Bin Laden for 6 years now and failed and who was president when 9/11 happened? and who started a war in Iraq for no reason? you don't blame the dems , now that's a good one. it's no wonder the republicans are going down in flames these days when after full power for 6 years all they can do is blame the dems for what they did 7+ years ago and what they might do in the future.
 
Dude's latest response is a perfect illustration of the point I made above. To say that Bush or the Reblicans went to war for no good reason is just pilitical rhetoric spinning at its worst! Yes we might, applying 20/20 hindsight, view the decision differently today. But there was good reason. Iraq had failed to comply with numerous U.N. resolutions for many years, all the while proclaiming that he had weapons of mass destruction. Moreover there was proof that he had such weapons because of the mass killings of the Kurds with mustard gass etc. in previous years. Moreover before Bush ever took office, politicians agreed, from both sides of the isle, that Iraq had or was capable of producing weapons of mass destruction.

Of course with the political machine at work, the opposition rewrites history, all with the purpose of destroying the political foe. The false and distorted spin is proclaimed repeatedly in the media and election campaigns until people like Dude believe it.

It is a said day in America when we as a people can not come together and honestly and openly discuss the merits of such important issues. When I say honest I mean with intellectual honesty. The war on terror is real. The Islamic extremist want to kill all American, women, children...no discrimination. This war will not end with an early withdraw from Iraq. So what are the ramications from an early and incompleted mission withdraw. Well the terrorists take over Iraq. Iran becomes embolden. Iran continues with its effort to produce nuclear weapons. Terrorists continue with their effort to target U.S. sites, and next time maybe with nuclear weapons they purchsed or take from others.

So what do we do here. We sit back and spew more political gibberish and prove to the world that we are not to be trusted in the future when we ask or attempt to persuade other countires to stand up against terrorists efforts. We prove to the world that we as a nation can not stomach a long difficult conflict. We prove to the world that THE UNITED STATES is willing to admit defeat to a group of terrorists.

My stand, I am disgusted with the notion that the majority of Americans appear to be willing to withdraw without securing the contry. Regardless of how difficult it may be WE MUST WIN. I have no problem with the notion that we debate the methods we may pursue TO WIN. But withdrawing in defeat is not an option! Lets debate how to win but lets not interpret the last election as an agreement to concede defeat.

Yes it is not easy, but war seldom is. Yes it may be difficult, but dammit when the going gets tough we as Americans used to come together to get going to victory.
 
I'll tell you why there are so many fence sitters. It's impossible to formulate an opinion when the media portrays nothing but the negative coming from the war and there is not one politician that can agree on whats right for this country.
 
Here, here Triple K.

Jim, if Bush did not send the troops already deployed without proper funding, then why would it affect the already deployed troops if the 90+ billion in potential FUTURE funding is denied? Show me one direct quote of a ranking Democrat saying they want to cut funding for already deployed troops? If you don't like the fact that the Dems want to stabilize future military spending, then state it, just don't spin it as they are trying to do the troops harm, that's just a load. If there was some kind of timeline and a lot more structure to this action that is already one of the longest in history, then you would see less opposition to more funding. I for one would support any funding increase if I really felt it would be A) a quicker end to the war, B) less lives lost and C) productive to the big picture of war on terror. If we were to take that funding request and put it towards, more homeland security measures and special forces type ops that can conduct covert missions against the forces in hiding which we are fighting, I would be all for it. The money requested is for more of the same we have been using all along, just standard equipment, nothing new, nothing better.
 
caelk you say hind sight but for those of us who didn't think we had enough facts or reasons to bomb Iraq that's called foresight. could we have been wrong? sure, but we weren't. we had to wait for the weapons inspectors who were pleading with us to let them finish thier job to get out of Iraq before we could drop the bombs, you think it was an emergency and we had no choice? that's weak. this is all behind us so now what? all we see is more of the same ahead of us if Bush keeps the reins. short of a miracle in Iraq this dog and pony show is coming to an end and congress will take firm action, like it or not. this war has been dividing Americans since it started, no good has or will come of it no matter what we do in my opinion.
 
DMAN "Show me one direct quote of a ranking Democrat saying they want to cut funding for already deployed troops?" Ok Your obvious attempt to spin the surge aside, The resolution wants to put more controls on how monies are spent to train troops, which has to come from congress. So if Murtha gets his way, THEY can arbitrarily decide if troops are trained enough. Of course they won't be, but then again there won't be money for training. Think catch-22. You want a direct quote? LOL. You know the pols will never directly commit.

From Murtha:

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," the Pennsylvania Democrat said."

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070215/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc_1

Pretty loathsome for a decorated combat vet, eh? My people in Iraq and Afghanistan hate this a-hoes guts.
 
Dude I do not intend to engage in a debate about the events that led up to the war with you. I simply do not believe that is productive. The fact is we are clearly involved in a war on terror now. It is being fought, in large part, in Iraq not on our soil. I would hope we could all come together, put politics aside and agree this is a War that must be won and better now to fight it over there than later here. Unfortunately you may be correct and an early withdraw may be in store. Then you can gleefully shout to the world, whoever will listen, that the Dems proved the Republicans wrong. But in my opinion I could care less about the politics of the day. Whether you be Dem, Rep, greenpeace, Libertarian, etc, it was and is my hope that we all, as Americans, could understand the need to win now.
 
caelk, I agree winning would be the best out come of all but just how do you propose we get there? things are worse now than ever and support for the war is at an all time low. as Murtha said " winning is a goal not a strategy " some of you make it sound like winning is just a choice, if it's that simple why has it taken you over 4 years to decide to win?
 
It has taken more than 4 years because war IS NOT EASY! WARS ARE NOT USUALLY WON IN LESS THAN 4 YEARS. You say that you want to win, well the only proposal you make is to withdraw in defeat. That is not a strategy for winning, that is not even a good faith effort to win, that is a strategy for losing in defeat! My thought, if it takes more troops then so be it. Because I believe we should do what it takes to win. The thought that America will pull out of any conflict if it takes more than 4 years to win, at a cost of 3200 lives, is providing a blueprint to all terrorist on what it takes to defeat what is suppoise to be the strongest country in the world. What you are essentially saying is that there is now way to win. I cannot and will never accept such a ridiculous proposttion. We are the last super power and if we would stand united to defeat this terrorist war, and put aside all this political spinning, it would assist in our efforts.
 
Your still talking about future funds for future combat troops, not funding for current combat troops in the field. Yes, it's a stalemate, no war has been fought without a conclusion after four years in our history that we have won. WWII was over within four years by the time we entered and WWI was also decided within four years of our entry. The only major war undecided in our history after four years was Vietnam, did we win, no. Is there still a war to fight there now? No. Tell me honestly you think we will "win" some type of idealistic State in the mid-east? Say theoretically we pacified Iraq to our beliefs, then what, Iran, Syria, Algeria, etc.??? We will have spent billions on one country that is a needle in the haystack.

"Murtha hopes to choke off the 4-year-old war in Iraq by placing four conditions on combat funds through September 30:"

-It doesn't say "deny" and if you read the entire article, he goes on to state that if accepted, they will redirect funds towards rebuilding, another duty the military can fully participate in and would be funded for AND what we should be doing right now. Unless more positives start happening within their country the Iraqi troops have nothing to fight for but a wasteland. If Bush would plan more for transition he would see more funding opportunities open up.
 
The last super power? China might argue that. I can see your mind is made up and that's your right but I disagree. sure we could win with enough blood , time and money but is the cost worth it? you say yes , I say no. you seem to think the war on terror and the war in Iraq are the same thing, again I disagree. Iraq has taken us away from the war on terror and made more terrorist in the process. time will tell who's right.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Late Hunt Stud
UT Deer 2.jpg
E41B3364-59B5-43AA-A3B6-3A9D638C0834.jpeg
UMDS9422.JPG
90C75B2B-3ADA-4A17-83CD-4007DDEF4CA2.jpeg
3434E84B-1217-443C-A8E4-A4B1A219DE62.jpeg
12F5FBAD-B9B8-472C-95C8-F1B4E4BBC9FA.jpeg
Heavy, Palmated Buck
139860A1-471A-493A-B3DE-D600AF5547C6.jpeg
1608183892635.jpeg
870B4641-1613-44DB-9FD9-E5F61A4074C0.jpeg
image000000(5).jpg
Back
Top Bottom