Senate Rejects Regulating Iraq Combat Tours
- Thread starter Wags
- Start date
chinaco
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 5,072
I do not think the congress should try to micro manage the war via legislation. I think it is a bad idea. If they did regulate tours, they might have to create a draft... think unintended consequences.
Plus, this wrangling is mainly politics and posturing right now leading up to the election.
As far as the Iraq War is concerned. We are in it. We will be in it for years Dem or Repub. Just watch. Once someone takes the helm and is presented with the sobering mess, they will find out there is not easy way out at this point.
We might try to do is get the UN involved and transition the responsibility. We would still be involved and the transition will take a few years. Otherwise, Iraq will be worse than it was before we invaded. It will be controlled by radicals with close religious ties to Iran. Sadaam was a nut, but a secular nut. And he was a counter-balance.
Plus, this wrangling is mainly politics and posturing right now leading up to the election.
As far as the Iraq War is concerned. We are in it. We will be in it for years Dem or Repub. Just watch. Once someone takes the helm and is presented with the sobering mess, they will find out there is not easy way out at this point.
We might try to do is get the UN involved and transition the responsibility. We would still be involved and the transition will take a few years. Otherwise, Iraq will be worse than it was before we invaded. It will be controlled by radicals with close religious ties to Iran. Sadaam was a nut, but a secular nut. And he was a counter-balance.
Managing the Iraq War via legislation may not be the answer. But the fact remains that OUR TROOPS are being sent on multiple combat tours without the proper down time or rest, without the proper training and without the proper equipment (body armor, chemical masks/suits, MRAPS, etc..,etc..). As for a draft, there is already a BACK DRAFT in which some military members are not being allowed to leave and in which ex-military members are being called back to active service if they fall under the 10 year window after they left service.
From all reports OUR ARMED FORCES are on the brink of breaking down and the Iraq War does not appear to be ending. From all the posturing by Old George W, it appears that he will continue with the Iraq War until the end of his term and than will hand it over for the next President whether he or she is Republican or Democrat. It is truly a sad state of affairs because OUR TROOPS and the IRAQI PEOPLE are subjected to and being held hostage to Old George W's failed Iraq War policies, in which they are being KILLED, WOUNDED AND MAIMED. OUR MILITARY FAMILIES are also suffering.
My only hope is that Old George W and Cheney decide not to attack Syria, Pakistan, Iran or any other country that does not agree with their way of thinking. If this were to happen there would/will be H E L L to pay - IF WE THINK IRAQ IS A FISACO AND IN CHAOS WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET. Then, I do beleive that there would be a DRAFT and then we would see if the sacrfice would be shared equally among the American people or would we see the repeat of deferments for the rich and privileged (like during the Vietnam War) and the pulling of strings by some to keep thier loved ones out of the line of fire (like Daddy did for Old George W to keep him out of the Vietnam War).
GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR TROOPS, OUR FALLEN TROOPS, OUR VETERANS, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
From all reports OUR ARMED FORCES are on the brink of breaking down and the Iraq War does not appear to be ending. From all the posturing by Old George W, it appears that he will continue with the Iraq War until the end of his term and than will hand it over for the next President whether he or she is Republican or Democrat. It is truly a sad state of affairs because OUR TROOPS and the IRAQI PEOPLE are subjected to and being held hostage to Old George W's failed Iraq War policies, in which they are being KILLED, WOUNDED AND MAIMED. OUR MILITARY FAMILIES are also suffering.
My only hope is that Old George W and Cheney decide not to attack Syria, Pakistan, Iran or any other country that does not agree with their way of thinking. If this were to happen there would/will be H E L L to pay - IF WE THINK IRAQ IS A FISACO AND IN CHAOS WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET. Then, I do beleive that there would be a DRAFT and then we would see if the sacrfice would be shared equally among the American people or would we see the repeat of deferments for the rich and privileged (like during the Vietnam War) and the pulling of strings by some to keep thier loved ones out of the line of fire (like Daddy did for Old George W to keep him out of the Vietnam War).
GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR TROOPS, OUR FALLEN TROOPS, OUR VETERANS, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
Last edited:
ladelfina
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,713
Wags, we know these facts are not important. The admin. is driven by ideology and alternate versions of reality, propped up by people who claim to be sacrificing:
- riding around in a campaign bus (Romney's kids)
- having to watch 'violent images' on TV (Americans, according to GWB in an interview with Jim Lehrer)
- "no one suffers more than [George] and I do" (Laura on the Today Show)
General Anthony Zinni, head of CENTCOM 1997-2000, October 2002:
It's an excellent assessment (to my mind, as a layperson). Maybe Wags has a more informed opinion.
More Zinni:
Eye on Iraq - A GENERAL SPEAKS ON WAR WITH IRAQ
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC,*(Ret.)*Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004*
Really worth reading (sadly kinda too late in the game) and so refreshingly straightforward, transcending any hint of partisan back-biting...
Zinni for President!
Wags, we must now slink away before the curmudgeons complain about spam..
- riding around in a campaign bus (Romney's kids)
- having to watch 'violent images' on TV (Americans, according to GWB in an interview with Jim Lehrer)
- "no one suffers more than [George] and I do" (Laura on the Today Show)
General Anthony Zinni, head of CENTCOM 1997-2000, October 2002:
The 33rd IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy
It's an excellent assessment (to my mind, as a layperson). Maybe Wags has a more informed opinion.
More Zinni:
Eye on Iraq - A GENERAL SPEAKS ON WAR WITH IRAQ
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC,*(Ret.)*Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004*
Really worth reading (sadly kinda too late in the game) and so refreshingly straightforward, transcending any hint of partisan back-biting...
Zinni for President!
Wags, we must now slink away before the curmudgeons complain about spam..
Wags, we know these facts are not important. The admin. is driven by ideology and alternate versions of reality, propped up by people who claim to be sacrificing:
- riding around in a campaign bus (Romney's kids)
- having to watch 'violent images' on TV (Americans, according to GWB in an interview with Jim Lehrer)
- "no one suffers more than [George] and I do" (Laura on the Today Show)
General Anthony Zinni, head of CENTCOM 1997-2000, October 2002:
The 33rd IFPA-Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy and Policy
It's an excellent assessment (to my mind, as a layperson). Maybe Wags has a more informed opinion.
More Zinni:
Eye on Iraq - A GENERAL SPEAKS ON WAR WITH IRAQ
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC,*(Ret.)*Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004*
Really worth reading (sadly kinda too late in the game) and so refreshingly straightforward, transcending any hint of partisan back-biting...
Zinni for President!
Wags, we must now slink away before the curmudgeons complain about spam..
From my interpretation of the first two articles/pieces it is evident that General Zinni had his finger on the pulse. The third article/piece makes a lot of sense. Maybe if Old George W, Cheney or someone in the adminstration would have listen to this man just maybe we would not have invaded Iraq and the counrty of Iraq would not be a FISACO and in CHAOS. It is hard to understand how NOBODY listen to this man and how NOBODY is listening to him now.
Based on these readings I agree with you "Zinni for President".
Yes, Old George W and Laura are suffering quite a bit as it pertains to the Iraq War - you can actually see it in their faces when they are vacationing in Crawford Texas, riding around on Air Force One, and posing for photo ops. But just like Cheney, Rove, Rudy G and the rest of the NEACONS they are quick to advocate WAR but when it comes to sharing the sacrfice they perfer to sent others to fight their WARS. None of these varmints will send their children to share in the sacrfice. Let's see Old George W had daddy pull some strings so that he would not have to fight in Vietnam, and Cheney, Rove and Rudy G wined and cried for and recieved multiple deferments so that they too did not have to fight in Vietnam.
FOLKS this is what we call SUFFERING and sharing in the SACRFICE.
In July 2007 the GREAT KEITH OLBERNMAN gave Old George W some advice
"Then take it into your hands, Mr. Bush. Go to Baghdad now and fullfill, finally, your military service obligations. Go there and fight, your war. Yourself."
I do not beleive that this will ever happen because Old George W is not the type to MAN UP and in fact he reminds me a lot of a CAPON.
You guys have hitched your wagon to a real winner. I lost respect for Gen Zinni when I found out he was on the board of "First Command" (aka "USPA-IRA"). Those here familiar with the organization know what a scam it is and how they have cost servicemembers many millions of dollars. (There's your link to ER, likely the only one this thread will have
) Oh, and at least as of Nov 2006, Gen Zinni (the guy you want to be President) was in favor of introducing more US troops to Iraq.
The New York Times > Log In. Hey, if you want more troops, I'm hoping you are supporting the President we have today!
Thank you for your time.
dumpster56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,146
If we are serious about taking care of the troops bring back a draft. If we are truly in a war to defend freedom and whatever else the President is saying then we need a 5 million man army to show the world we mean business. Having Petraus go to congress was a sham. The president is his boss. He is ordered to follow the administrations policy. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO CONGRESS!
That said congress is full of you know what repubs and dems. Waste time on a newspaper ad! Geesh, its a free country ain't it? We really are starting to look like the people we don't like.
That said congress is full of you know what repubs and dems. Waste time on a newspaper ad! Geesh, its a free country ain't it? We really are starting to look like the people we don't like.
You guys have hitched your wagon to a real winner. I lost respect for Gen Zinni when I found out he was on the board of "First Command" (aka "USPA-IRA"). Those here familiar with the organization know what a scam it is and how they have cost servicemembers many millions of dollars. (There's your link to ER, likely the only one this thread will have
Oh, and at least as of Nov 2006, Gen Zinni (the guy you want to be President) was in favor of introducing more US troops to Iraq.
The New York Times > Log In. Hey, if you want more troops, I'm hoping you are supporting the President we have today!
Thank you for your time.
I was expressing my opinion based on the 3 articles/pieces.
In America one is free to change his mind and just maybe Zinni has changed his opinion on what might be the best course of action to follow in order to find a solution to the CHAOS in Iraq.
Besides Zinni can not do any worse then what Old George W, Cheney and the NEACONS have not accomplished up to this point in time.
I am an advocate for PEACE. I support the use of our ARMERD FORCES only when we have been attacked. Sadamm did not have anything to do with 9/11 and Osama who did is still running around FREE and making VIDEOS.
I do not believe that OUR ARMED FORCES should be used to force democracy on other nations and for Old George W to built his LEGACY on the blood and sacrfice of OUR TROOPS.
What happened to we are going to bring those who were responsible for 9/11 to justice? What happened to the WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE POSTERS that Old George W did his PHOTO OPS in front of?
Osama Bin Laden has made a JACKA$$ of Old George W and continues to mock America and the WORLD.
It is time for the Republicans and Democrats to get on the same page so that the Iraq War can come to an end. Old George W's failed policies are not cutting the mustard and by the looks of it he or his adminstration have no idea of how to make it work. His only solution is to hand it off to the NEXT PRESIDENT so that they can take ownership of the IRAQ WAR.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS, OUR FALLEN TROOPS, OUR VETERANS, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
dumpster56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,146
Whoa, you sure sound like me and boboobear. I wonder if you are on Nords ignore setting?
dumpster56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,146
You guys have hitched your wagon to a real winner. I lost respect for Gen Zinni when I found out he was on the board of "First Command" (aka "USPA-IRA"). Those here familiar with the organization know what a scam it is and how they have cost servicemembers many millions of dollars. (There's your link to ER, likely the only one this thread will have
Oh, and at least as of Nov 2006, Gen Zinni (the guy you want to be President) was in favor of introducing more US troops to Iraq.
The New York Times > Log In. Hey, if you want more troops, I'm hoping you are supporting the President we have today!
Thank you for your time.
Sam Are you not the least bit annoyed that bin laden and al zwahiri are still alive mocking the president and quite frankly every american?
I for one am angry that our president has not done all in his power to bring them to justice.
USK Coastie
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2006
- Messages
- 347
How large a "regional war" do you want? Going after Osama in Pakistan with U.S. forces will untie the Islamic world against us. As it is we have only 100 million or so Islamic radicals to contend with instead of a Billion plus.
In war plans work only until first contact with the enemy. Its hard to get the enemy to go along with your plans for their defeat/capture.
We are in a 40-50 year struggle with elements of a religion that want the western way of life and those who live it dead..... To think that where we are now, and that this conflict will be over were we to waive a wand and win in Iraq or do as the democrats want and cede the field of battle to the insurgents is unrealistic by anyones measure of the realities of the Middle East or of fumendalist teachings of Islamic religion.
In the long run its us or them , choose freedom or death, your choice.
In war plans work only until first contact with the enemy. Its hard to get the enemy to go along with your plans for their defeat/capture.
We are in a 40-50 year struggle with elements of a religion that want the western way of life and those who live it dead..... To think that where we are now, and that this conflict will be over were we to waive a wand and win in Iraq or do as the democrats want and cede the field of battle to the insurgents is unrealistic by anyones measure of the realities of the Middle East or of fumendalist teachings of Islamic religion.
In the long run its us or them , choose freedom or death, your choice.
Newguy,
I've answered you several times on this identical issue. If you're suggesting that we invade Pakistan or take other steps that will destabilize Musharraff, then I think you need to take a deep breath and think about what you are advocating. It's not a simple problem. And, to save you a post, bringing back the draft is relevant to absolutely nothing about this issue.
Rustic23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Once more a totally meaningless thread with vitriolic statements based on half truths and hatred.
I am waiting for those that preach 'put and end to the Iraq War' to come forth with a plan and defend it's consequences.
I am waiting for those that preach 'put and end to the Iraq War' to come forth with a plan and defend it's consequences.
ladelfina
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,713
I hope to have not been vitriolic towards anyone. The "plan" would have been "no war unless materially attacked" by Iraq. Why does the complete responsibility for getting us OUT of the situation rest on those who never wanted to go there in the first place? I don't hear good solutions from the right, either.. just continuation.
Meth-head friend/relative: Hey I'm gonna spend all my money and go into debt to get me some o' that meth.
You: Not a good idea.
Meth-head friend: Hey now I'm destitute. Lend me some money to get outta this hole!
You: Don't think so.
Meth-head friend: Ok, now you're FORCING me to go rob that dealer's house!!
You: No good is gonna come of that.
Meth-head friend [in jail, in the hospital]: Hey.. why don't you get me out of this!? You're just not a team player.. you're a bad friend, a traitor!
---
Yes, too bad "you" and "meth-head friend" are the split personalities of the USofA.
Meth-head friend/relative: Hey I'm gonna spend all my money and go into debt to get me some o' that meth.
You: Not a good idea.
Meth-head friend: Hey now I'm destitute. Lend me some money to get outta this hole!
You: Don't think so.
Meth-head friend: Ok, now you're FORCING me to go rob that dealer's house!!
You: No good is gonna come of that.
Meth-head friend [in jail, in the hospital]: Hey.. why don't you get me out of this!? You're just not a team player.. you're a bad friend, a traitor!
---
Yes, too bad "you" and "meth-head friend" are the split personalities of the USofA.
Interesting. I'm still waiting for those that preach 'continue the war because we're winning' to come forth with any good reasons that we're winning and defend those reasons. Mission Accomplished, after all.
We are in Iraq now. An examination of the decisions which led to that circumstance should definitely be part of our national dialogue as we approach our elections. But, how we got into Iraq has almost nothing to do with choosing the proper way ahead now that we are there. We need to choose a course of action that is most likely to lead to a situation that advances our national interests (which will likely also be in the best interests of Iraqis). The selection of an appropriate course of action for the future has almost nothing to do the circumstances and decisions that led to our involvement there.
The "meth-head" example fails to an enlighten because it is a "me and him" scenario. Lets talk about "us."
For clarity, when you say "good reasons that we are winning" do you mean "evidence that the present approach is being successful" or do you mean "factors that are contributing to our success"?
If it is the former, then the primary things that come to mind are the decreasing US and Iraqi casualty counts, the (virtually undisputed) reduction in Al Qaeda's influence in Iraq, and the growing stability in Baghdad, al Anbar, and Diyala provinces
If it is the later, then things that come to mind are the continued demonstrated consistency of US national will in Iraq, killing/capturing a lot of folks who need to be off the streets for a long time, increased number of US troops present, our enhanced understanding of the mechanics of tribal power structures in Iraq ,and our effective use of this knowledge.
Obviously there are many major challenges to go: Development of an effective internal Iraqi political structure, sharing of oil revenues, heading off Iranian and Syrian efforts to create a surrogate state/sub-entity. Recognizing that the road ahead is long does not mean that we're on the wrong road.
Last edited:
If I recall correctly a recent report stated that August 2007 was the 2nd DEADIEST since the start of the Iraq War. And if I recall correctly the violence has lessen some in Baghdad, but it is because the Iraqi's themselves have already cleaned the city of the Sunnis and because the violence has just moved to other parts of Iraq.
As for the SURGE working the recent GAO report states otherwise.
To bad Old George W did not listen to or take some wisdom from the OLD MAN when in the 1st GULF WAR he (41) successfully formed a collation of nations and then he (41) was SMART enough to listen to his advisors and not go into Baghdad and overthrow Sadamm. Old George W did not listen to the Iraq Study, the GAO report and he will not listen to anyone who does not agree with his failed policies in Iraq. The man does not have enough sense to get out of the rain.
Yes, Old George W's failed Iraq War policies are working just fine for those who advocate WAR but yet are not willing to step up to the plate to go fight in Iraq. Just like Old George W, Rove, Cheney and Rudy G they prefer to stay on the sidelines and they send others to fight, to be killed, to be wounded and to be maimed.
The fact is that Iraq is failed a democracy with a puppet government, it is a FISACO and is in CHAOS. It is time for both the Democrats and Republicans to get together to end the IRAQ War. While both parties are bickering and afraid to make a decision - OUR TROOPS, and the IRAQI PEOPLE are caught in the middle of a WAR in which they are being KILLED, WOUNDED, AND MAIMED.
Osama Bin Laden has made a BIG JACKA$$
of Old George W (your commander in chief) and continues to mock America and the world.GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR TROOPS, OUR FALLEN TROOPS, OUR VETERANS, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
Of course he didn't listen to any of those folks...GOD himself spoke with George W and told him to invade Iraq...if GOD spoke to you, wouldn't you do what he says?
If God spoke to me of course I would listen and do what he said. But in Old George W's case I believe that he is using GOD as the fall guy(SOMEONE TO BLAME).
But then again that might have been Cheney talking to him and he thought it was GOD. Let's get real if GOD is a loving GOD, then why would he tell Old George W to attack and invade Iraq in which thousands if not millions of people would be killed, wounded and maimed. It just does not make any sense.What happened to the compassionate conservative Republican that Old George W portrayed himself to be? I forgot he is using his compassion by allowing Osama Bin Laden to run around FREE and make videos which mock America and the world.
Out of the billions of people in this world, why would GOD choose such an incompetent person to fullfill this prophecy? Surely there must have been somebody else in this world that could have done a better job for God? Again I do not think that GOD would tell anyone to kill, wound and maim the innocent.
Old George W is a CAPON. Being a farmer I hope that you know what a CAPON is.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, OUR TROOPS, OUR FALLEN TROOPS, OUR VETERANS, THEIR FAMILIES AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
Last edited:
This is classic conservative act when dodging fault. When wrong - put off the discussion for another day (remember after Katrina how we shouldn't play the "blame game" - even though Bush, Brownie, and Chertoff were clearly flat on their asses). Unfortunately it worked - and the only scapegoat for the incompetance was Brownie.
Why is it still important to remember HOW we got into Iraq? Because the same brainiacs that charted our course into Iraq are the ones predicting the apocolyptic future if we leave Iraq. They lost their credibility 3800 US lives ago. The conservative fear mongering is a bunch of BS. The war companies and oil companies have made enough money on our kids' blood - it's time for it to end. Now.
By the way - these things you cite are not evidence we are winning ("increased number of US troops present" - as a sign of success
I hope you're joking...). To provide evidence of winning, you must first define what constitutes a "win". There has never been any definition of what a "win" in Iraq would be.
In the absence of such a definition, let's take a little more fact based look at how things are going, like the non-partisan GAO review of progress made by the Iraqi gov't to the agreed upon benchmarks when the surge was started:
David Walker -comptroller of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)-said the Iraqi government has achieved three of the 18 benchmarks that its own leaders established, partially met four and has not met 11. Asked if he would give the Iraqi government a failing grade, Walker replied, "It's obviously not acceptable progress as of this point."
He also questioned administration reports that sectarian violence in Iraq has declined. Walker told committee members that there are internal disagreements within the Bush administration about the figures.
He said a classified version of the GAO report details some of the reasons for his agency's skepticism. In his public testimony, he said: "Let's just say there are several different sources within the administration on violence. They do not all agree."
Walker acknowledged that this year's military build-up has quelled violence in some areas of Iraq. Yet, he questioned how long those gains can be maintained. "I think there's a significant question as to whether or not the Iraqi security forces will be able to maintain safety and security absent the direct involvement of U.S. troops," he said.
The GAO chief acknowledged that his agency's assessment is considerably more negative than one produced by the Bush administration in July; the White House rated the Iraqi government as having made "satisfactory progress" on eight benchmarks and "mixed results" on two others.
Walker said his auditors used tougher standards, checking to see if the goals were met rather than whether progress was made. He also attributed the difference between the two reports to the fact that the first report was produced by administration officials.
"They're not independent, and we are," he said.
From the USA Today 9-04-07 Critical GAO review starts series of reports on Iraq - USATODAY.com
By the way - these things you cite are not evidence we are winning ("increased number of US troops present" - as a sign of success
Please re-read my post. I did not cite the increase in the number of troops as evidence of success there. I cited it as one factor that may be responsible for that success.
Obviously, the Iraqi government is not making progress at a pace that is satisfying. This could be due to several factors--incompetence on their part, a fundamental flaw in the way the government is structured, unrealistic expectations on our part or their part, etc, etc. This is a problem that is fundamental and clearly needs to be addressed. Is it more likely to be fixed in an environment of enhanced security that only the US can provide, or is the best course of action to withdraw support and let the radicals in Iraq and their supporters in Iran and Syria seek the solutions that best fit their needs?
No, don't put it off. If you believe it is that important, make retrospection your life's work. Wallow in it. Have inquiries, commission studies, march in the streets to highlight the mistakes that were made, and help everyone factor it into their decision at election time.
All this may be productive in some ways. Just don't make the mistake of believing that it will shed light on the best way forward in Iraq. If you want to make progress there, it will be most productive to look at the situation as it is now, the capabilities and interests of all the players (including the US), and then craft a productive course.
Similar threads
