Success In Iraq

Forums: Politics, Political, American Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[INDENT]WASHINGTON: US President George W Bush plans to ask Congress for an extra $50 billion for Iraq following a highly anticipated report on progress in the war-torn country next month, US media reported yesterday.

The request would seek to pay for the current troop "surge" strategy and is a sign that Bush anticipates prevailing in a showdown with the Democratic-controlled Congress which has been pushing for troop withdrawal, the Washington Post said.

If approved, the bid would bring US spending on the Iraq war to more than $3billion per week.[/INDENT]

How much more do Americans have to spend before we wake up and get the hell out. We fucked up that country enough. At least repubushpuppets has, the war mongers that they are.

But thats OK because our next president will hold a much different set of values and fix things again. I love when history repeats itself.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,735 • Replies: 30

No top replies

@FedUpAmerican,

He'll ask for what he thinks he needs, it's not up to him to get it, it's up to Congress to take it away for you. And they have been doing a good job of that. If we cut social programs we'd have money to boot.
If Sklinton makes it in the big house, don't plan on our troops going anywhere. History repeating it self? I wonder who bill get to ****/rape now?

On a side note. I'm off camping till tuesday. Catch up with you then.

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

[SIZE="4"]NOT![/SIZE]

LOL!

[INDENT]WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy, congressional auditors have determined. [/INDENT]

Gee what a surprise.

This psychopath has the balls to want another $50 billion. :FU1:

3 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

check your sources

13 of 18 benchmarks comes out to roughly, 72%. Meaning that they only lack compliance on 28% or they are roughly 3/4 of the way there.

You aren't even seeing the glass half empty, you're seeing it 1/4 empty and saying "oh no". Give me a break with your spin.

That being said the Political Progress is trailing behind the Military progress, but this isn't some self installed dictator we're dealing with, it's the freely elected government and ultimately they will decide how they will govern themselves...

our primary concern is regional stability and the surge has thusfar proven effective, there is no sense in not funding something that is working, unless you want us to lose

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

and these two threads are to similar to be seperate

merged

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

FedUpAmerican;33718 wrote:

[SIZE="4"]NOT![/SIZE]
This psychopath has the balls to want another $50 billion. :FU1:

50 billion to secure the sovereignty of a nation we freed with our own blood

if the left is so upset about spending money why are they pushing for over 400 mil in discretionary spending this year. Which BTW, is more then the GOP led congress ever asked for. This coming after America elected the Dem's after they ran on a "less pork" platform

congrats America, you've been had

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

Actually that should read: invaded a soverign country to replace it's leader, which by the way is against the law. American blood shed over a lie from a dictator that Saddam could ever dream of being.

Sorry man, but you and I are at polar opposite ends on this one. You're 27. If you support bush and the war so much, why are you not enlisted?

If you are/were, I apologize for the assumption. I don't know much about you.

1 Reply

@FedUpAmerican,

FedUpAmerican;33723 wrote:

Actually that should read: invaded a soverign country to replace it's leader, which by the way is against the law.

wrong again, your "characters" should do some homework

The War in Iraq was legal under UN resolutions as those resolutions required compliance on pain of military action. Saddam didn't comply with inspectors and we acted within the boundaries of the UN resolution. Countries like France didn't want to enforce the military clause in the resolutions and why should they? They were making billions of dollars fleecing the oil for food program.

We can debate all you want but get your facts straight, just because you wish something was illegal doesn't make it illegal.

1 Reply

@FedUpAmerican,

FedUpAmerican;33718 wrote:

[SIZE="4"]NOT![/SIZE]

LOL!

[INDENT]WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy, congressional auditors have determined. [/INDENT]

Gee what a surprise.

This psychopath has the balls to want another $50 billion. :FU1:

The keyword in your sentence that is quoted is "lawmakers". Who are they to access war strategy? It's like having a golfer telling a quarterback how to play the game. (Sorry SoCal... couldn't think of a better analogy)

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;33724 wrote:

wrong again, your "characters" should do some homework

The War in Iraq was legal under UN resolutions as those resolutions required compliance on pain of military action. Saddam didn't comply with inspectors and we acted within the boundaries of the UN resolution. Countries like France didn't want to enforce the military clause in the resolutions and why should they? They were making billions of dollars fleecing the oil for food program.

We can debate all you want but get your facts straight, just because you wish something was illegal doesn't make it illegal.

Thats not even history bro, it's more like current events so I thought you might know a bit more about it. The UN never sanctioned bush, he acted on his own. Check your sources. But I'm sure yours are different than mine.

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

I referring to the numerous UN resolutions from 1991 on which state that Saddam must comply with completely or face military action

he didn't comply

we took action

and there Genesis of these events occurred some 16 years ago, I would think that qualifies as history...

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

The sanctions you speak of were for the first gulf war, not the current debacle.

1 Reply

@FedUpAmerican,

silver child

Who voted us the policemen of the world?

I don't remember any body ever saying the US should take out all creepy dictators in other countries.

1 Reply

@wvpeach,

wvpeach;33748 wrote:

silver child

Who voted us the policemen of the world?

I don't remember any body ever saying the US should take out all creepy dictators in other countries.

Nobody did, it was the UN who put that in place. Years later half of the security panel was on the take in the oil for food scandal and didn't want to enforce the resolutions anymore, we ended the illegal cash flow into countries like France when we invaded and caught heat from them.

at worst we were the executioner, but not the police

Beyond that look at

Kosovo
Japan
Germany
Germany again
the UK during WWII

we have always been interested in the preservation of Freedom, the idea of "all men are created equal and entitled to certain inalienable rights" didn't stop at our borders 60 years ago, and it shouldn't stop there today because it's inconvenient for a well to do lazy society to put in the work...

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

FedUpAmerican;33747 wrote:

The sanctions you speak of were for the first gulf war, not the current debacle.

The Resolutions (which included sanctions), were checklists of accomplishments which Saddam had to meet as a result of the peace accord he signed in 1991. The reason those things were still in play in 2003 was because he drug his feet and we let him...

the actions of 1991 were exactly the reason we needed compliance on weapons inspections programs. he had already proven once he didn't respect other people countries, at the very worst the US is guilty of legally enforcing Karma

Did you just create this "fedupamerican" character you play, because it's obvious he wasn't around in the 90s...

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

silver child

" we have always been interested in the preservation of freedom"

You swallowed that hook line and sinker.

You seem like a nice person. But you've been lied to.

The last war this country fought over freedom was world war 2 .

Since then it has always been for money, power and greed we fight.

I can put you in touch with Veterans who will tell you that under the Clinton administration they waged war on the side of muslims , who were killing christians in Bosnia.

Nobody made us the supreme resolution policeman of the world.

Our government does this stuff for money, pure and simple.

1 Reply

@wvpeach,

wvpeach;33756 wrote:

silver child

" we have always been interested in the preservation of freedom"

You swallowed that hook line and sinker.

You seem like a nice person. But you've been lied to.

The last war this country fought over freedom was world war 2 .

Since then it has always been for money, power and greed we fight.

I can put you in touch with Veterans who will tell you that under the Clinton administration they waged war on the side of Muslims , who were killing christians in Bosnia.

Nobody made us the supreme resolution policeman of the world.

Our government does this stuff for money, pure and simple.

Vietnam: We supported the democracy of Southern Vietnam because we feared if it fell communism would engulf the South Pacific and Russia would gain allies. (war fought over freedom)

Kuwait:: War was fought to restore the sovereignty of aforementioned country from the hands of a brutal genocidal dictator (freedom again)

Grenada : Removed a dictator so freedom would have a chance...

geez, history just doesn't seem to mesh u with what you're saying...

I'm angry that Dick Cheney and Bush are making oil companies and haliburton rich(er) with what's going on in the middle east. But that doesn't mean I want to walk away from 25 million newly freed people who we owe a debt to... that would leave them to fall into genocide which is way worse then what's going on there now...

I have been deceived? I don't think so, the Dems want you to decent, and it's so easy to not support the war because it's the more comfortable thing to do, it requires no sacrifice, it's selfish and it feels safe...

But you see that's exactly the problem, America doesn't want to do what's right, Americans want to do what's easy...

0 Replies

@FedUpAmerican,

90% of our recent battles were fought to "prevent the spread of communism".

1 Reply

@briansol,

briansol;33800 wrote:

90% of our recent battles were fought to "prevent the spread of communism".

It is fear mongering at it's finest.

Like I said, politicians a long time ago decided they could no longer sell the American people, the "American Dream", so policy shifted to protecting the sheeple from the fear they create.

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;33871 wrote:

It is fear mongering at it's finest.

Like I said, politicians a long time ago decided they could no longer sell the American people, the "American Dream", so policy shifted to protecting the sheeple from the fear they create.

Very good point 92 sorry for the mistake.

1 Reply

Success In Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know