There are a couple questions that I've been trying to ask board members in one way or another for some time. Usually, I introduce it in someone elses thread and we get side tracked from this question. So, I would like to ask the members straight up. If you are going to use this as an opportunity to criticize anyone, and I mean anyone for the war in Iraq. I ask you to refrain, the stand of the majority of the board membership is already very well established on that and IMO it is a matter of fact, Bush and the neocons along with the members of congress who voted to authorize the use of military force.

Assuming the Democrats take one or both houses, how far are you willing to go to support them in withdrawing our troops from Iraq? The scenario would look like this. The POTUS is determined to give the effort more time, say untill the end of his term. Would you be willing to give him untill then or do you demand an immediate withdrawal regardless of what the situation on the ground looks like? If not, what prerequistes would you set for our withdrawal?

I don't have a clear understanding and perhaps I have misinterperated some of you so if you feel you are answering this question again, I apologize. If General Casey asks for more troops in Iraq, because he beleives that we can succeed, are you willing to give him more troops?

What does the statement "support the troops" mean to you?

Thank you.

I dunno bout you guys, but very seriousely, if this happens I justr might go get falling down drunk.


Oh yeah, and I'll be able to breath again!

You may fire when ready, sir.


Bail now. As a practical matter, I'd want the Congress to cut off funding for the war, that being the only way they can force the President to pull the troops. That would give the President anywhere from a couple of months to a year to get it done, depending on where we are in the funding cycle, what the size of the current appropriation is, and how fast he spends it.


Nope.


To me it means think and speak positively of them, challenge those who speak negatively of them, and support politicians who would do what is in their best interests, i.e., get them out of that shooting gallery.


Shucks, 'twarnt nothing.

I agree with everything Jubal said, cept the last one, add things such as, fully fund the VA and prepare to fully live up to the letter AND THE INTENTION of the GI bill both sides agreed too when the soldier signed on the bottom line.

I agree right back. So there!

Realizing you think I'm an evil sadist who "gets off" on American soldier deaths, supporting the troops means to me withdrawing them from Iraq immediatly, where they never should have been in the first place. If the Democrats do take both houses, which I doubt, I would hope they would have the courage and integrity to do this, instead of playing politics with the issue. Fuck "the course". Fuck "the mission". U.S. Troops in Iraq Home. Yesterday.

Evil sadist? Paaleeeze. Ca and I are evil sadist but not you. Just a different point of view is all. You have stood by your position long and hard. While some of what you say does have an abstract angle we can't quite get....bringing them home does save lives. It aint all bad.

I always like when Republicans pose the question "so what are ya gonna do if you win both the House and Senate about Iraq?" which to me is a way of posing this question:

We really fucked up when we invaded Iraq and have no exit strategy. We can't fix anything that is happening in Iraq with our present policy and have no answers, so we just say "Stay the Course" over and over again.

Well, there is no silver bullet. And there likely is NO favorable outcome from what the neocons had in mind.

However, I dont know where 'more troops' are going to come from, nor do I think that it would do anything other than inflame the already violent situation with higher visibility of American troops and increased carnage as a result.

Not only have we failed our military by giving them an impossible mission (that was destined for failure from day one) but we have also failed them politically, in regards to using dialogue and persuasion to engage, quitely, privately, and diplomatically, two key players in the region: Syria and Iran.

We have isolated both regimes and both regimes are fueling the insurgents. That needs to stop. Witnout some kind of agreement we cannot expect these countries to do anything but continue to keep Iraq awash in violence.

However, we are past the tipping point in Iraq, as many privately know but wont publicly admit. We need to start now with the drawdown and FORCE the new government to take charge of its destiny. If it chooses to ignore this responsibility then it does so at its own peril.

But the thought of withdrawing all forces wont happen anyway under Bush. And knowing that we are building a 750 million ndollar walled fortress of an emabssy in Baghdad shows we will be there in some capacity for a long time.

We violated the pottery barn rule and we bought this disaster, so the best way to reduce this violence is to begin a drawdown and start using diplomacy in addition to policing and working with Iraqi forces, making them the leader in bringing peace.

The mess we are in has no easy answers, what really is sad is that all these solders dying everyday arte dying for nothing, other than the ignorance and arrogance of the Bush administration.

My feeling is that I'd be more patient if we had democratic control of both houses. Things would change. Drastically. We'd have subpeona power and have the ability to launch investigations. We'd be able to look into how 9 billion went missing, and where it went, and who allowed it to happen. We'd be able to affect change on how things are going over there. For real change to occur, we'd need control of the executive, and that would take two more years.

Right now experts and generals on the ground are saying that it's a lose/lose situation. I'd prefer to lose with less dead Americans than more, so I'd of course be leaning towards withdrawal, but I'd trust the decision more in the hands of the democratic party than in the hands of the radical ideologues that crated this horrible mess.

I rather suspect TJ, that even among Republicans, most Americans pretty much agree with your statement here.

Most Indpendents too.

But the Whigs? NEVER! And I hate those bastards for it.

Troops home now. All remaining $$$$$ from this budget earmarked for Iraq goes only to reparations/reconstruction, by way of direct payment to whatever government emerges in Iraq.

Or at the very least, no further funding for the war machine it's self in Iraq.

C.A. and Abell, I should think that you two would be outraged that your brothers have been sent to fight and die in a war designed for profit and based on lies. What if the Dems win? Perhaps some checks on a president appropriating more and more power to himself and dismantling our constitution and reputation by using the congress as his lieutenants. Maybe some questioning and accountability for the billions of dollars being given to Halliburton and others for thier profit instead of the troops. Maybe supporting our soldiers by recognizing they have sacrificed and achieved every clearly defined goal set for them and showing them that having done so we're gonna get 'em out of there because there is no logical or moral justification for leaving them there to serve simply at Bush's pleasure. And I know this has been often said, but doesn't it rankle you just a little that all these tough talking bastards so willing to spend the blood of your comrades did all they could to avoid serving themselves? Yes, the result may be imperfect and will take time but at least some checks on this chicken-hawk. quite possibly former awol weekend warrior, self-proclaimed war- president strutting around in his flight jacket will be a start. IMO you two should be outraged, saddened and doing your best to demand their swift and safe return, and welcome some accountability from those who sent them to die not in response to 9/11, not to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to control the proliferation of terrorist and instead to create more of them all to fulfill an experiment in American hegemony concocted by a cadre of extremists in 1997.

I can tell you what would come next : finger pointing. Dems win house high, across the board if you may, and then, then, try to manouver yourselves out of this fine mess.

Another "game over" scenario.

Pot luck.

Dems lose.

I dunno, I still think I'm gonna go out and get wasted before the party is declaired officially over.
Me likes Dos Equis.

But but but ...

You know what they say about early withdraw, how are dick and bush gonna screw America then?

Don't forget step 1: Sack rumsfeld. Impeach him for lying to congress, if you have to.

What makes you think I'm not angry? That I don't throw around the term facist? Moron? War criminal? Thats just not my style. But I assure you, I'm upset over it.

I'll tell you why I'm angry over Iraq. Yes, that we went in the first place and didn't focus our efforts in Afghanistan, I know thats something some can't beleive because I tend to try and discuss how we can leave Iraq more stable than it is now. That doesn't mean I thought we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, it means I'm dealing with the facts on the ground and from a narrower perspective than most, the military perspective, that just comes from having spent the majority of my adult life serving in the Army. I'm not arguing that we have to stay, but that we have an obligation to, and if we do stay what adjustments need to be made and untill the government orders our troops out of Iraq, that is the perspective the military has to take.

What I'm most angry about is the opportunities lost. The shitty planning and almost complete lack of SASO planning. My anger is directed most intensly at the OSD for micromanaging in an area that they should have left up to the experts. And while I know many will disagree, if we had done this properly from jump street, it might be done and overwith by now. Too much hopeful thinking, too much micromanagement, too much intransigence, too much pride, too much misplaced loyalty. And now, it appears that it might be too late.

The absence of cursing and name calling should not be misunderstood. Beleive me, I'm angry.

I'm sure you've read the posts here and are otherwise aware of the demise of habeus and posse comitatus as well as all the other assaults on our constitution and progression toward a "unitary presidency". At what point do you start calling them facists? I have other reasons for hoping to see a Democratic majority (both large 'D' and small 'd") but yes, mostly it's because they aren't.

Captain America, when are you going to get it into your military mind that the object of our attack on Iraq is not to win a war. We are there to maximize the conversion of the American commonwealth into private property. Period. The longer we stay, the more public monies go into private pockets. The overhead is the lives of American soldiers. A negligible cost in the eyes of this administration, considering the prize. You've been had. Bad.

A-fuckin-men!

The reality is a lot worse than we know, of this I am certain.

Look at this like a Mom for just a moment (no, you don't have to put on a skirt ).

Bullies send pawns (our soldiers) to invade and occupy sovereignterritory and instigate fight between two groups who don't like each other. Two groups kill each other and our pawns because they hate the bullies (who are not getting hurt at all, BTW). Hmmm, remove our pawns> guess what, they are now safe and sound back at home. Two groups realize that the pawns the bullies sent have left and 2 groups eventually decide to work things out amongst themselves (because the instigator is gone). Yes, boys will be boys.

Oops , forgot , a Mom would then SPANK THE BULLIES!

It's a bit of a different analogy, but it's also effective and I agree with it.



The violence in Iraq is what it is because we made it so.
I have no doubt that after the US pulls out, it'll be real bad for a shirt time.
But with the instigators out of the way, soon enough both sides will want peace.

I think the odds are that Iraq is gonna segment into 3 states. One segment for each of the 3 main factions.

ain't gonna happen.

prediction - take house by 5 to 7 seats and a "close but no cigar" senate. if include liverman as a demo, will have a draw.


however, i think that it is pointless to ask that question right now. we will have time after the election and before the swearing in to formulate an agenda. there is enough on our plates now to ensure that the election is fair and that enough demo's vote. i know it's difficult to hold off, but the old adage of "when you are up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remember that your objective is to drain the swamp," applies here

Is it okay if we want to?

Ya know, seems every day I learn stuff I did not need to know!

Hey!! It just so happens I have some Scotch in me. The nationality that is.

Scotch! Yikes. He wears a skirt and he's chea...frugal.

It took me 40 years to learn how to walk on my knuckles, say the word "liberal" with venom and malice, and to figure out....there is life outside my bubble. Give me some time yet.

But the answer is yea, yea it pisses me off some. Wish I looked at it with as much outrage as you. But, I liked the military, still do. Never asked for my country to apologize for sending me places I didnt like being BECAUSE...I freakin loved it, volunteered for it and if I had to do it again...I would right now.

What pisses me off worse, Sooner....is the erosion of the American ideals...the fundamental right of the people to vote and expect that vote to stand. To speak out and not be silenced, to enjoy the same freedoms we envisioned when the Costitution was written. To have any person or persons force feed an ideal to me via political action which is reality does NOT reflect the will of the people gets my dander up pretty harshly. I have lived my life. I have kids. What is being taken is not something I have to deal with....but my kids do. And the proposition that "The Goverment" knows what is best for me in spite of my vote to the contrary....yea....It makes me mad.

And this vote fraud thing....that REALLY has me mad. Yea, we have a misguided man leading the country. Been there before...maybe not quite as misguided but we have had some freaking weeners at the helm through the years. But thinking that MY PARTY is frauding the fundamental vote of the citizen....this is the root of where it begins. If you take away the voice of the people...well then....the democracy for which I stand....isnt really a democracy..................is it?

Well said Abell.


I don't expect you to be like me. I don't expect you to always have the same vales as me, except one.
Everything that the Constitution is about. That document is the basis of what your are in the military for.
(or at least, that's the romantic even idealistic version)

"What does the statement "support the troops" mean to you?"

I've already responded what I want done and why. Supporting the troops means not deploying them for the hell of it, under-geared and unfamiliar with the culture they are supposedly "liberating" while lying to them and us about what is happening. It does not mean pushing them into a meatgrinder so george and dick can enjoy a fucking hamburger.

Would I give POTUS more time to "win"? No. Why not? (a) Because the "War Against Terror" was lost when POTUS failed to "stay the course" in Afganistan, where the real terrorists were, and invaded Iraq, thus increasing anti-Americanism and terrorism worldwide . ( This administration has demonstrated its incompetence time and again. If they couldn't succeed 3 years ago, why should anyone believe they can succeed now that the situation there is immeasurably worse? © No one really knows what Bush means by "victory." Does he mean permanently securing the oil fields for us and suppressing all opposition? Does he mean securely establishing a puppet government that will act in the interest of U.S. hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East? I don't believe that We the People are willing to sign on to such goals. (d) Too many Americans (and Iraqis) have already spilled their blood for a cause that was lost before it ever began. (e)
The majority of Iraqi''s want us out pronto, and it's their country, not big oil's. (f) So far, our presence has only made matters worse for that country and for ours.

Supporting our troops means sending them in sufficient numbers, with state-of-the-art equipment; relieving them of combat duty before they burn out, develop PTSD, or commit suicide; taking good care of their families in their absence; not making them buy their own ticket on a commerical airline to get home when their duty is over, and recognizing PTSD as a serious disability. But above all, it means placing a very high value on their lives and good consciences by not recklessly placing them in harm's way in an unprovoked, immoral adventure stemming from secret motives and disinformation - and then leading them into temptation by rescinding our committment to honor those God-given, inalienable human rights, as per the Geneva Conventions, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta.

Titiano the Terrible

Titiano the Terrible, your entire post was exceptionally well written, but I really liked the ending as the standard for why any thinking American should be outraged by the utilizing of our military, for all the wrong reasons, to invade Iraq.

This will be a permanent stain on the GOP and will, rightfully, sink any "legacy" this administration had hoped for. Like Iraq, the plan was blown to hell and the end result will be labeled as one of incompetence, corruption and reckless ignorance.