Try this, suppor the troops by empowering them with the tools and morale to win the war in which they were charged with fighting. Debate it all you want after the fact.Bubbalo wrote:
So, you can support the troops but not the war, but you can't end the war, bring the troops home to their families, and still support them?
Wow..............these rules are really complex................what if I take their family over there? Is that supporting them?
Oh, right, the war which features growing bloodshed and Iraqi civilians being killed by US soldiers who are supposed to be protecting them, whilst untried prisoners are tortured in (ironically) the very same jails Saddam used. Great.
They've had near unlimited support since they went in, and it's only gotten worse. Time to accept defeat.
They've had near unlimited support since they went in, and it's only gotten worse. Time to accept defeat.
If the war was lost, no group of people helped that along more than you socialists in positions power.Bubbalo wrote:
Oh, right, the war which features growing bloodshed and Iraqi civilians being killed by US soldiers who are supposed to be protecting them, whilst untried prisoners are tortured in (ironically) the very same jails Saddam used. Great.
They've had near unlimited support since they went in, and it's only gotten worse. Time to accept defeat.
I changed liberal to socialist for your sake after our conversation in that other thread. I hope it is acceptable.
I'm a socialist in a position of power? Really?
How, pray tell, did they help this along?
And you clearly gained nothing from our discussion, socialism doesn't favour heavy government intervention.
How, pray tell, did they help this along?
And you clearly gained nothing from our discussion, socialism doesn't favour heavy government intervention.
Re-read I said you socialists in power, that does not imply you yourself, only people like you. As for the rest , take it back to the other thread and I will respond there.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm a socialist in a position of power? Really?
How, pray tell, did they help this along?
And you clearly gained nothing from our discussion, socialism doesn't favour heavy government intervention.
Uh...........what?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Read. . . . U.S.S.R.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh............Chechen terrorists continue to make attacks on Russian civilians. And Russia pulled out of Afghanistan due to resistance led by Bin Laden.
Read. . . . U.S.S.R. not Russia.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh............Chechen terrorists continue to make attacks on Russian civilians. And Russia pulled out of Afghanistan due to resistance led by Bin Laden.
Afgahnistan was a War and the USA backed them, before that. not much did they acomplish
The USSR was just the Russia empire. No difference.
It is not the place to argue with this statment and it would continue to side track the debatet. But not many Russians will agree with you I'd be willing to bet.Bubbalo wrote:
The USSR was just the Russia empire. No difference.
So? The fact is that the USSR was almost exactly the same as the old greater Russian Empire, and what differences there were in foreign policy between the USSR and Russia had more to do with the drastic changes in the economy than anything else.
The fact that they'd disagree means nothing. Most Australians would argue that Australia is incredibly generous, but we aren't.
The fact that they'd disagree means nothing. Most Australians would argue that Australia is incredibly generous, but we aren't.
You seem to just want to argue for arguments sake. Are you aware for instance they are no longer Communist. They have elections now. Do you consider this a minor point? I doubt they do.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said yesterday that the US-led invasion of his country four years ago had turned into an occupation with dire consequences for Iraq. Talabani, a member of the Kurdish minority, which has been largely insulated from the violence and devastation visited on other parts of the country since Saddam Hussein fell, was addressing the Arab summit in the Saudi capital.
“The decision to turn the liberation of Iraq into an occupation … with the dire consequences this had internally and the fears (it aroused) in Arab, regional and international arenas, all this was contrary to what Iraqi parties and national forces were planning at the time,” he said.
“This applies equally to many hasty decisions and measures taken by the occupation’s civil administration without understanding the Iraqis’ point of view and the consequences they had on the situation in the country and the political process as a whole,” he said. “The policies pursued in the wake of the overthrow of the former regime, and the weakness of the international response to the will of the political forces who rallied to rebuild the new Iraq, stymied our early quest to broaden popular participation in order to … establish security and stability and confront the challenges of sabotage, chaos and terrorism as quickly as possible and with the least human and material losses.”
Talabani did not spell out the mistakes he was referring to, but the US-run civil administration installed after Saddam’s fall has been widely criticised for taking decisions that have made the situation worse. Particularly were the disbanding of the Saddam regime’s army and the banning of the former dictator’s Baath party. That left tens of thousands of military personnel and civilian officials and bureaucrats without jobs, fueling an insurgency among the minority Sunni community from which most of them came.
Source
“The decision to turn the liberation of Iraq into an occupation … with the dire consequences this had internally and the fears (it aroused) in Arab, regional and international arenas, all this was contrary to what Iraqi parties and national forces were planning at the time,” he said.
“This applies equally to many hasty decisions and measures taken by the occupation’s civil administration without understanding the Iraqis’ point of view and the consequences they had on the situation in the country and the political process as a whole,” he said. “The policies pursued in the wake of the overthrow of the former regime, and the weakness of the international response to the will of the political forces who rallied to rebuild the new Iraq, stymied our early quest to broaden popular participation in order to … establish security and stability and confront the challenges of sabotage, chaos and terrorism as quickly as possible and with the least human and material losses.”
Talabani did not spell out the mistakes he was referring to, but the US-run civil administration installed after Saddam’s fall has been widely criticised for taking decisions that have made the situation worse. Particularly were the disbanding of the Saddam regime’s army and the banning of the former dictator’s Baath party. That left tens of thousands of military personnel and civilian officials and bureaucrats without jobs, fueling an insurgency among the minority Sunni community from which most of them came.
Source
Saudi king’s remarks on Iraq could build credibility among Arabs
By Lee Keath
The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Middle East troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States
King Abdullah’s harsh and unexpected attack on the US military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.
The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Middle East troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States.
The White House, in a rare public retort on Thursday, rejected the king’s characterisation of US troops in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation,” saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.
“The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. “And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the UN Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people.”
“We disagree with them,” US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. “We were a little surprised to see those remarks.”
The king made his remarks on Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion.
“In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war,” said Abdullah, whose country is a US ally that quietly aided the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the “patchwork” job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq.
The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party.
The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq’s Shiite leadership, blaming it for fuelling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region.
Abdullah’s remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. And the kingdom has been talking to various factions in Iraq.
Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to US interests.
“The king’s remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false,” said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. “In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause.”
Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to take Saudi Arabia’s lead in considering the presence of US troops an illegal occupation.
“If Saudi Arabia didn’t blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?” he asked.
The US called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. US troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king’s remarks Thursday _ and his Defence had hints of the Arab nation’s attitude that the Shiite-led government doesn’t have the legitimacy to approve the US presence.
“If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it’s something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country -that is the definition of occupation,” al-Faisal told reporters.
Source
By Lee Keath
The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Middle East troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States
King Abdullah’s harsh and unexpected attack on the US military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.
The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Middle East troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States.
The White House, in a rare public retort on Thursday, rejected the king’s characterisation of US troops in Iraq as an “illegitimate foreign occupation,” saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.
“The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. “And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the UN Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people.”
“We disagree with them,” US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. “We were a little surprised to see those remarks.”
The king made his remarks on Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion.
“In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war,” said Abdullah, whose country is a US ally that quietly aided the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the “patchwork” job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq.
The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party.
The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq’s Shiite leadership, blaming it for fuelling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region.
Abdullah’s remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. And the kingdom has been talking to various factions in Iraq.
Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to US interests.
“The king’s remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false,” said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. “In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause.”
Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to take Saudi Arabia’s lead in considering the presence of US troops an illegal occupation.
“If Saudi Arabia didn’t blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?” he asked.
The US called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. US troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king’s remarks Thursday _ and his Defence had hints of the Arab nation’s attitude that the Shiite-led government doesn’t have the legitimacy to approve the US presence.
“If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it’s something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country -that is the definition of occupation,” al-Faisal told reporters.
Source
If Bush really supported the troops, he'd overlook a NON-BINDING timetable and vote in favor of giving the troops the funds they need.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Thanks We are all aware of that,
Would they have gotten the bill passed without the pork ? I dont think so it was to close as it is.
Our people are still in harms way as we speak. You would think this one time we could put partisan politics aside and send a clean bill out fast.
I mean if we REALLY supported the troops.
Retreating is supporting the troops if, by doing so, you prevent more needless deaths of our soldiers.lowing wrote:
Gotta look that up.....is retreating synonymous for "supporting the troops" now?? I guess it is for socialists huh??Bubbalo wrote:
You know what I think's great? The Democratic Senate uses it's power to control the President's ability to wage war (i.e. it's job) and in return gets accused of not supporting the troops. Surely if Bush cares he'll not veto it?
ummmmm, so fighting terrorism is "needless" now??Turquoise wrote:
Retreating is supporting the troops if, by doing so, you prevent more needless deaths of our soldiers.lowing wrote:
Gotta look that up.....is retreating synonymous for "supporting the troops" now?? I guess it is for socialists huh??Bubbalo wrote:
You know what I think's great? The Democratic Senate uses it's power to control the President's ability to wage war (i.e. it's job) and in return gets accused of not supporting the troops. Surely if Bush cares he'll not veto it?
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.lowing wrote:
ummmmm, so fighting terrorism is "needless" now??Turquoise wrote:
Retreating is supporting the troops if, by doing so, you prevent more needless deaths of our soldiers.lowing wrote:
Gotta look that up.....is retreating synonymous for "supporting the troops" now?? I guess it is for socialists huh??
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.lowing wrote:
ummmmm, so fighting terrorism is "needless" now??Turquoise wrote:
Retreating is supporting the troops if, by doing so, you prevent more needless deaths of our soldiers.
They never were Communist, for one.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
You seem to just want to argue for arguments sake. Are you aware for instance they are no longer Communist. They have elections now. Do you consider this a minor point? I doubt they do.
For another, the fact that it's governed differently doesn't mean it wasn't Russians in both wars. If they'd changed their name (e.g. that of Russia) then there would be reason to talk about it differently. But the fact is the USSR was the Russian Empire, and it was Russia exerting it's influence over other member states.
Further, whilst it has democratic elections corruption is so rife that there's no point voting for a number of reasons.
A front where you're losing, and the longer you stay in the more terrorists you create. Why not just start giving them bags of cash for ad campaigns whilst you're at it?lowing wrote:
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.lowing wrote:
ummmmm, so fighting terrorism is "needless" now??
When did one political party become a "true" form of government? Regardless if a republican or democrap is in office, we are still under a democracy..........democracy is nothing more then a voting of people, not a certain political group who holds a certain group of beliefs.Stormscythe wrote:
I'm really amazed by the enormous anger that is being brought up against Democrats. Do those who shout and yell really know, why they call themselves Democrats and what democracy actually should mean? Well, if your fellow citizens really are of the opinion that the Republican government has done well, they'll re-elect them, right?
Well, and otherwise... there'll be some changes then. Funny enough to see a minority bitching about everyone that's against them, whilst they support people who want to bring 'democracy' to another country...
As usual, it is painfully obvious which side of terrorism Bubbalo stands. I just can't figure what goes on in that socialist mind of yours when you think we should stop fighting terrorism because all it does is make them mad. Maybe you could say the same thing about 911. Maybe the terrorists should stop killing innocent people let alone there OWN people, because all it does is make the coalition mad. Nehhhh that doesn't make any sense at all does it?Bubbalo wrote:
They never were Communist, for one.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
You seem to just want to argue for arguments sake. Are you aware for instance they are no longer Communist. They have elections now. Do you consider this a minor point? I doubt they do.
For another, the fact that it's governed differently doesn't mean it wasn't Russians in both wars. If they'd changed their name (e.g. that of Russia) then there would be reason to talk about it differently. But the fact is the USSR was the Russian Empire, and it was Russia exerting it's influence over other member states.
Further, whilst it has democratic elections corruption is so rife that there's no point voting for a number of reasons.A front where you're losing, and the longer you stay in the more terrorists you create. Why not just start giving them bags of cash for ad campaigns whilst you're at it?lowing wrote:
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.
Well it is now.lowing wrote:
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.lowing wrote:
ummmmm, so fighting terrorism is "needless" now??
I'm not Socialist. I understand the theory, and don't think it can work. I just believe that Capitalism should be heavily moderated with Socialist tendencies. Further, how is arguing that we should fight wars which create terrorists arguing in favour of terrorists? What, I'm going to help my team win by starving it of troops?lowing wrote:
As usual, it is painfully obvious which side of terrorism Bubbalo stands. I just can't figure what goes on in that socialist mind of yours when you think we should stop fighting terrorism because all it does is make them mad. Maybe you could say the same thing about 911. Maybe the terrorists should stop killing innocent people let alone there OWN people, because all it does is make the coalition mad. Nehhhh that doesn't make any sense at all does it?
I can see why you consider Iraq a military success .
So I guess, why fight a cancer, all it is going to do is make you ill from chemo. Your logic amazes me. Stick your head in the sand for fear you might piss off the people that are already trying to destroy you. Staggering.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm not Socialist. I understand the theory, and don't think it can work. I just believe that Capitalism should be heavily moderated with Socialist tendencies. Further, how is arguing that we should fight wars which create terrorists arguing in favour of terrorists? What, I'm going to help my team win by starving it of troops?lowing wrote:
As usual, it is painfully obvious which side of terrorism Bubbalo stands. I just can't figure what goes on in that socialist mind of yours when you think we should stop fighting terrorism because all it does is make them mad. Maybe you could say the same thing about 911. Maybe the terrorists should stop killing innocent people let alone there OWN people, because all it does is make the coalition mad. Nehhhh that doesn't make any sense at all does it?
I can see why you consider Iraq a military success .
Only for regional terror... The kind of terrorists that actually would go to the trouble of flying over here to attack us are mostly in Afghanistan right now. Most terrorists in Iraq just have hate for their rival sects. Shiites kill Sunnis, Sunnis kill Shiites. We just happen to be in the crossfire.lowing wrote:
Iraq ,is a front on the war on terror. It isn't the war itself.Turquoise wrote:
In Iraq, it is. We should be focusing on Afghanistan. Screw Iraq.lowing wrote:
ummmmm, so fighting terrorism is "needless" now??