Who wouldn't vote for this?

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] Warning: THIS IS AN OFFTOPIC POST [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] Felix, thanks for the info on pay raises, etc. I did not know. However, not voting for a mega-spending bill should not be confused with voting against one line item in that bill. Just because someone doesn't want to cut the President a blank check doesn't mean they are against every piece of proposed equipment. In a perfect world, that bill would have gotten voted down at least 5 times to make the Republicans come up with a version that included more meat and less porky fat. A politician should never get a blank check.

I fully agree with you, and that terminology.
However, I'm talking about the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004. This was for the $65.6B for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care. That bill was not an open check, it was very clear and concise, especially when it came to exact amounts, and where and how they are to be used. The bill passed 87-12, Sen Kerry was only 1 of 11 (D) to vote no.

[Timber Loftis]

Felix, to be honest, I have not had the time to amass the information to investigate why Kerry voted NO on that bill. I do know this -- it's not because he didn't want soldiers in the field to go without flak gear. I don't like the assumption that a NO vote for an unknown reason equals wanting to harm soldiers. There could have been a lot of other things in the bill to object to -- people often try to use "emergency appropriations" and the threat of urgency to waste money in the heat of the moment.

If I ever do get time to fully analyze that NO vote, you'll be the first to know. I wish I could tell you more about it.

Which is why we should quit focusing on swifties and war protests and start analyzing congressional performance.

[Nightwing]

I have a lot more respect for an anti war protester than someone who belives war is an answer. We should not have our people in any of these zones putting their lives on the line. If we had more people who wanted our soldiers around to spend time with their families than sending them to police someone elses country, the soldiers would be much better off.

[Morgeruat]

why do you think that the 70-80k troops are coming back from Europe, they don't need us there, at least not in the numbers we've been at, no cold war, no threat of a european superpower declaring WW3 and wiping out the rest of the world, whereas in the middle east, we actually have a chance to make something good, we could just as easily fall flat on our faces, but it's better to try.

If we pull out of Iraq, bring everyone home before their gov't is set up to handle itself, protect itself from militants/terrorists/rogue clerics/etc, it will fall to those powers, and what pieces aren't gobbled up by neighbors will fall into the hands of whoever can take the largest chunks, we saw what happened when an extreme religious fringe took control of Afganistan, women weren't allowed to leave their homes, let alone get an education. Movies, music, lifesaving medical measures were blandly denied to people. And if you didn't like it, they shot you.

However if this experiment in democracy takes root over there, real democracy (not a tyrant taking the reigns and declaring himself Caliph, President for Life, or whatever) and real freedoms are allowed, then Iraq's neighbors will also see the benefits, and they will have the spark ignite in them that demands freedom. These are a people who have been conditioned for over 1400 years to fear self governance, take Serfs in Medeival Europe, they had been oppressed for so long that if another country came through, took out the ruling class and said "Hey, elect a leader and take care of yourself, we'll make sure no one tries to take over without your legitimate vote" similar things would have occured, barons, Priest, anyone with a loyal following would have tried to sieze control, but once the people see how it could be, they would make themselves their own protectors.

If we pull out, nothing will change, the hornets will fight for dominance, and once the blood is done spilling things would appear to calm down, but it wouldn't be any safer for the rest of the world.

Basically what I'm saying is we kicked the hornets nest, now we have to hold back the tide of violence while we let the Iraqi's get themselves settled.

[Nightwing]

What you describe is what we are doing to Iraq. I'm not convinced they were a clear and present danger to the United States. We are imposing our beliefs on them. As if our form of government is the absolute. For them it may not be, for me I wouldn't have it any other way. We sent men and women to fight a fight we shouldn't be in. It's one thing if we are defending ourselves quit another if we suspect we may be in danger in the future so we take over a country. That's like being guilty until proven innocent.

I agree now that we are there we have to guide them through the process we started. We just shouldn't have started it.

[Timber Loftis]

However if this experiment in democracy takes root over there, real democracy (not a tyrant taking the reigns and declaring himself Caliph, President for Life, or whatever) and real freedoms are allowed, then Iraq's neighbors will also see the benefits, and they will have the spark ignite in them that demands freedom.

Agreed. This is the light at the end of the tunnel. And, to be fair, it is an experiment that Bush is boldly taking and be it wise or unwise, we may wish to see how it plays out. Similar experiments done in Iraq and Afghanistan have not fared so well, however. Is this experiment any different than the ones that put Saddam and the Taliban in power? We shall see.

What is disconcerting of all is that 100% of the soldiers who have been over there that I have spoken to say that we will never be able to establish a free democratic Iraq, and that our efforts will likely fail. And, some of these guys are conservative. And some of them wear wings and other cool symbols on their lapels.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Nightwing: What you describe is what we are doing to Iraq.

That was my point, glad to see you caught that

I'm not convinced they were a clear and present danger to the United States.

I disagree, but you're most certainly entitled to that belief. There are numerous credible accounts of Saddam giving aid, both financial and safe harbor, to known terrorists ($25k to the families of suicide bombers, providing medical treatment for our "good friend" that has been claiming resposibility for the beheadings in Saudi... can't recall his name, although I should, just two examples off the top of my head)

We are imposing our beliefs on them. As if our form of government is the absolute. For them it may not be, for me I wouldn't have it any other way.

Fair enough, it's true we're imposing our way, but do you really think they've got a fair chance to see if it's the right system? if it fails utterly, it will fail, we'll count the cost in the bodies of our slain, much as we did in Vietnam, but if they find our form of government to be superior to theirs, but they can find a better path, by merging a system of their own with ours, kudos to them, at least they'll have a chance at experimenting with a new system.

We sent men and women to fight a fight we shouldn't be in. It's one thing if we are defending ourselves quite another if we suspect we may be in danger in the future so we take over a country. That's like being guilty until proven innocent.

Agreed, sort of, It's a fight that needed to occur, and it likely wouldn't have happened if we hadn't stepped in. Like what will likely happen with the Sudan, the UN will pass resolutions, and do nothing to enforce them, the evils in power will stay in power, and good people will die under a government that sponsors the murder of those that disagree with it (or have a different faith in the case of Sudan, Saddam actually treated Iraqi Christians rather well). If change is to occur for the benefit of all of a country's people, the US will have to step up, like we did in Kosovo, when Europe turned a blind eye to the slaughter in it's own yard.

I agree now that we are there we have to guide them through the process we started. We just shouldn't have started it.

glad we can agree on this [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Nightwing: I have a lot more respect for an anti war protester than someone who belives war is an answer. We should not have our people in any of these zones putting their lives on the line. If we had more people who wanted our soldiers around to spend time with their families than sending them to police someone elses country, the soldiers would be much better off.

I spent the first 10 years of my career training to put Depleted Uranium on target. 10 years of trainig, for 100hrs of combat in 1991.

I spent 2 months training in the old terminology of Peace and Stability Operations, to be a peace keeper in the Balkans for 9 months.

I have spent the last 8 months being one of many trainers, preparing a National Guard combat unit to deploy to Iraq. They are motivated, eager, and willing. When the State released the activation order to the media, men and women across the state went to the recruiters. This unit mobilized at 115% strength, with an additional 12% entering into Basic training. 7% of these folks are returning for their 2nd voluntary tour. That alone is a significant event.

I have 23 years of continuous active duty service. 14 of which stationed (not deployed, or training) in foreign countries. I have missed more birthdays, anniversaries, and special events that I can count. But every bit of it was worth it!

When I say your statement is off, I think I speak with a small bit of experience.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: What is disconcerting of all is that 100% of the soldiers who have been over there that I have spoken to say that we will never be able to establish a free democratic Iraq, and that our efforts will likely fail. And, some of these guys are conservative. And some of them wear wings and other cool symbols on their lapels.

We are way to early to even think about the final outcome.
Late 1995 UN entered Bosnia, 9 years later we still have boots on the ground. However, their government is proclaimed as an "emerging democracy".

Late 1997 US bombs rained down in Kosovo, 7 years later we still have boots on the ground. Again, their government is proclaimed to be an "emerging democracy".

The war on terrorism is guerilla at best. But if you folow closely, we are no longer fighting Iraqi's but Muslims from throughout the entire region. It is way to early to even think about pulling out, or back. It is going to take a lot more than just guerilla tactics to allow Iraq to revert back to it's previous state.

TL, I wear chevrons on my collar, and wings on my chest.

[ 08-31-2004, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

[Nightwing]

Felix, I may not be making myself clear. How many of those years was spent in defence of the nation? Spreading our beliefs about how wonderful democracy is, is not what our soldiers are for, nor are they babysitters to other nations. I don't want to see one soldier killed because we are helping other countries "make the right decisions". If there is clear and present danger then there is a need for the wonderful people who defend our nation. In my lifetime there has not been one case of that. Peaceful solutions are so much harder than violent ones. This business in Iraq was rushed into and people are dying for no other reason than to say our way is the right way. I'm sorry I don't believe we were patient enough. Yes I have great deal of respect for anyone who can solve any problem peacfully, I also respect and feel great empathy for the soldiers and families who protect this nation.