Al Q has it's back broken in Iraq. ZERO Al Q control in Baghdad!!

[JuanCarlos]

Pay attention. The legislation IS NOT a resolution to stop funding, it IS NOT a de-authorization, it IS NOT a budget dispute with the military. It IS appropriations with caveat of DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP schedule for troop withdraw despite General Petraeus ALREADY having given a schedule for troop withdraw. THAT was voted yea upon. Another version that DIDN'T have troop withdraw was voted NAY.

Actually, it is a resolution to make funding conditional. So in other words, it is a resolution to stop funding for a war with no clear exit timetable, and yet to continue funding a war with an exit timetable.

Also, Petraeus has not, to my knowledge, given any real schedule for troop withdrawal aside from the ending of the "surge." Which is, from what I can tell, different than what this resolution requires.

The dollars aren't the issue. The power to stop funding is ALWAYS an option but has not yet been exercised. The issue is withdrawing the force PREMATURELY thereby undermining the successes thus far realized. Should Generals or Senators execute a war?

Either, really. If the people decide they want the war ended, then the Senators [EDIT: or Congress in general, before we get into a pedantic argument about who the Senate represents] should be able to end it. And again, this resolution would end funding for a war with no clear exit timetable.


You seem to think that the Congress should only have two black-or-white options: fund it or don't. Apparently they do in fact have a third option, which is to fund it conditionally. The administration and his Generals then have the option to continue without funding if (and as) they so choose, or end the war as Congress requires and get the funding they need until then.

 

[hormiga]

Again, leadership by popular opinion isn't leadership.

It is called democracy.

Force a General to change a plan that is yielding results? Now why would someone do that?

Because familes are tired the body count. Because soldiers are tired of long dangerous deployments. Because many people are not percieving the alledged success that you see. You are becoming a minority my friend. This is not just a Democrat issue, Republicans are increasingly opting for a rapid end to the Iraq war.

Bruxley you are prior military right? There are guys pulling 15 month rotations over here with little rest in between, and this tempo is not going to slow down. The guys on the ground see this and know this. A generous estimate would be 10 years, but no one (in authority) has come out and said that or even hinted that this war will ever end.

How would like to look at the rest of your career as spending almost 3/4s of your time in Iraq/Afghanistan? That is a huge sacrifice and increasingly soldiers are chosing to get out because it is too much and there is no apparent reward (why are we in Iraq again? Oh yeah the reason keeps changing, that is great for morale!)

You keep asking "why,why,why,why" and insinuating that the Democrats or anyone that questions success in the war is evil and want nothing more than failure in this war. I am trying to explain to you from a person that is intimately involved with the war. Nobody wants failure, but we want some tangible goal, not "we had a 10% reduction in attacks the last 6 months" but nothing has really changed, soldiers are still dying and deployments are (if anything) getting longer. In other words the war still grinds on and there is no foreseeable end in sight.

Im not asking for a spin answer, answer this as a vet.

 

[Alex45ACP]

I don't know why some people suddenly seem to think the war is going so well, but even if it was, it doesn't matter. It's simply not affordable.

 

[GoSlash27]

Before we wander completely off-topic and get locked, I'd like to remind everybody to re-read the OP. Let's save the congress/ timetables stuff for another thread.

 

[Bruxley]

Answering as a vet, and without the resume jousting, during war deployments go from 1/3 of the time rotations to simply deployed.
During the Cold War others spent years in other countries 'deployed'. Duty they never asked for or desired. They did it because it was needed and they 'can so they should'. A line that never stopped getting used.....ever. Thousands died quietly and unceremoniously.

There are families that unless they live to be quite aged will not know their sons died heroes. And the ones that lived aren't whole. They won't be whole even if they live to be quite aged. And their family only knows they didn't care to call or write and count it as inconsiderate selfishness in the highest order.

From the Revolutionary war forward the call to duty has been a grueling ordeal. I am fully aware that OIF vets bear it. This is the very reason veterans are so highly regarded and honored.

It has been so long since the eminent threat of nuclear war was upon us that we forget that it didn't just evaporate or get talked away. And the threat today is more tangible. We are facing a determined, sworn enemy that has proven it's ability and states a vitriolic desire to kill Americans either civilian or military. The arguments about that war greatly resemble the ones about this war.

I don't know why some people suddenly seem to think the war is going so well, but even if it was, it doesn't matter. It's simply not affordable.

The reason people think the war is going well is because it is. The link in the OP, as well as:
IRAQ says the worst is over in Baghdad and Sects unite to battle Al Q in Iraq - from the LA Times

and another reluctant report from the NY Times:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

from Newsweek - http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990

This isn't made up and the entities cited aren't conservative web sites, quite the opposite.

As for the price, do you consider that the legal fees you'll incur if you fire on someone that has already killed one family member and has stated his full intent to kill more? What about considering that they really won't? That you may lose every valuable item and investment to lawyers if you shoot this threat? Or are the lives worth more then the money?

The successes are empirical. The value is immeasurable. And the largest obstacle right now is the Democrat leadership in Congress. More specifically in the Senate. In the face of success the Democrat leadership is putting their party's political equity ahead of the lives of Americans performing their call of duty. They are accountable now for their blood.

So, as a vet and for vets, there it is. Please provide some facts to back up any rebuttals and can the sophistry and bemoaning.

 

[Unregistered]

As for the price, do you consider that the legal fees you'll incur if you fire on someone that has already killed one family member and has stated his full intent to kill more?

A single person can declare bankruptcy. A nation plummets into depression.

Maybe what we should do is sell war bonds, or let the pro-war taxpayers pay some extra taxes to fund the war on their own. I know Bruxley, Bush, and Hannity would be willing.

 

[HJB]

In the face of success the Democrat leadership is putting their party's political equity ahead of the lives of Americans performing their call of duty. They are accountable now for their blood.

The "success" in Iraq is the reported decrease in violence, which IS very good to hear. But until there is political progress, there is no lasting success. And even the use of the word "success" is questionable, because the best case long-term outcome of the Iraq mess may not really serve our interests as much as Irans interests.

The majority of Americans are disappointed with the Democrat leadership not because of a lack of support for the Iraq war, but because the Democrats have not been able to end the war (mostly because they do not have a veto proof majority). The war is viewed by most people as a mistake. There was a recent poll in Iowa where even a majority of Republicans wanted the troops sent home from Iraq in the next 6 months.

The Iraq war is an albatross around the neck of the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's hard to conceive how Iraq would ever hurt the Democrats "political equity" more than it is hurting the Republicans. No matter how much pyrrhic "success" is paraded out by the pro-war crowd, the basic realization that this war was a mistake will not change, and the accountability rests with the party that has continued to enable it. It is hard to imagine that there will be a time when public opinion will judge Bush as being right all along, and the Iraq war as being worth the cost in lives and money.