Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Good topic...good debate, but I won't engage.

Unless you're a hardcore Liberal you get ridiculed by 98% of the posters here, called an idiot and troll...not worth the energy to read a bunch of immature smartasses attacking your beliefs and opinions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Or maybe to the history books, when the history of this time gets written.

---

Quote:

---

Opponents widely dismiss the resolution as toothless political posturing, and there's some truth to that. The measure requires no change in policy and offers no alternative. In a sense, it offers members a free shot at an unpopular president and a controversial war.

At the same time, it sends a powerful message, which is why those same opponents have fought so furiously to stop it. For the first time since Congress voted in late 2002 to give the president permission to go to war, a majority of one chamber will go on record against Bush's management of the conflict.

Put simply, it is a vote of no confidence in Bush's plan, and one in which a dozen or more Republicans are expected to join. It is a formal way for members of Congress to say what their constituents said in the last election and in every subsequent poll: They will not tolerate the failing war much longer.

[/ QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Critics of the bill say that it doesn't really accomplish anything

---

Quote:

---

and may damage the morale of the military

---

Quote:

---

and encourage the insurgents to keep fighting.

---

Quote:

---

Supporters says it's a vital part of the democratic process

---

Quote:

---

and a way for the Congress to let the president know that the American people aren't happy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Even Curious George must realize that the Republicans losing Congress means the people aren't happy, wagging fingers isn't going to do crap.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
I'm curious about your opinions on the resolution being debated in U.S. House of Representatives condemning the troop surge.

---

Quote:

---

excerpted from http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm
...
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Wait a second, Jongsstraw. How is what you did at the end of the paragraph any different than what you're complaining about at the start of the paragraph?

---

Quote:

---

It think it's worth making the public's disapproval a matter of record

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
and may damage the morale of the military

---

BS, anyone who could lose morale from this reolution would have lost it all long ago, lack of support for the war has been evident for years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
With all due respect, I have to disagree here. I served in Iraq at the beginning of the war, so I know whereof I speak (that is to say, I'm speaking from the experience of being one of the troops in Iraq).

As I read somewhere around, mission is a sacred thing to the military. You do the job, you accomplish the mission, and you put your life on the line to do so. We sacrifice so very much in order to see the mission get accomplished. We shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Granted. We could argue all day long about how and why we got into the war, but the bottom line is, we shouldn't have been there. But as a military man, I accepted the fact that I didn't get to be the one to make that call. I feel like a failure. And I don't like that feeling. I don't want to have suffered for nothing. I'm resolved to the fact that that may indeed turn out to be the case. But man, this just feels shitty. It feels like the country is saying to us, "You suck; pack your bags and guns and ammunition and come home, losers. You couldn't get the job done, so you're on the bench." Forget the political BS. That's how I feel. The House Resolution feels like a slap in the face. That's how it feels, and it's not because of my party affiliation. It's because I feel like I sacrificed for nothing. Because I feel like a damned failure. Makes sense to me now, why the Vietnam vets hurt so bad. They did their best and failed. I feel like I let the whole damned country down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Or it could be that the country is saying, "Given the past performance of this group of civilian leaders and their stated goals there is zero chance for success in Iraq. Our troops have done the best they could but they have been let down by their leaders. We will leave Iraq without successfully completing the mission that this administration set forth. The only question is whether we leave now or many years down the road and how much more our troops will be required to sacrifice for failed leadership."

---

Quote:

---

There is no way to win this war, given the people we have in charge, without destroying our soul as a country. The mission was impossible in March of 2003. The mission is impossible today. It will be impossible in January 2009 when the next President takes office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Yeah, the rational part of me knows that this is exactly what is being said. Believe me, my brain knows it. But in my chest beats the heart of a serviceman, and there is nothing more important to the honor of a serviceman than accomplishing the mission. If we go down in flames in Iraq (or just pull out quietly), I'll be scarred pretty deeply. I'm immensely proud of my military service; I feel like I did something important. But with the ever-more likely failure of the mission in Iraq, and the beginnings of doubts about Afghanistan, I begin to feel like I really accomplished nothing at all. And for someone to whom service is so important, that feeling is, needless to say, like a slow poison in my soul.

...

Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Again, on a purely intellectual level I get that this is most likely the case (except for maybe that second sentence). But again, mission: get the job done or die trying. I feel dishonored: I could have sacrificed more, could have done another tour, could have re-enlisted for another four years--I could have tried harder for success. I suspect that impulse is something non-veterans can't understand. But I feel that my honor is soiled--we're failing and I'm not doing a damned thing about it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
I guess my real hope is that we'll never get treated like those poor VietNam vets did. Even if we ultimately fail in Iraq, I hope we don't have to go through the same nightmare those poor guys did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
If the dems really didn't support this war, if they really wanted to pull out, if it wasn't just a bunch of lip service to their tree-hugging limp wristed constituency...couldn't they just DE-FUND the war? Don't they control the purse strings? Just a thought........

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think it is a foregone conclusion that history will pin the failure of both these missions on the Political leadership involved. Bush, Clinton, BushII, and all the others in a supporting cast.

---

Bush1? What? for not going in and taking over the country when he was there? And Clinton...to blame? Educate me please, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.




"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

---