US Senate panel rejects Iraq plan

[shropshire 0]

It's [still] not going too well for Georgie Boy, is it?

clicky

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

It's [still] not going too well for Georgie Boy, is it?

clicky

Wow, non-binding resolutions. We're talking about an administration that doesn't find the constitution particularry binding. Just barely short of a total waste of time and resources.

[Gawain 0]

This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't think you can accomplish the mission."

As if to say, "We love you, but you're just not capable." ...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[shropshire 0]

I dont agree. I do not believe that anyone is diss'ing the troops. It's the situation that they do not belive can be resolved just by throwing more manpower at it.

It's a political vote not an anti-military one. I would say.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't
>think you can accomplish the mission."

Actually it's "we support you but not this klutz who's running things in Washington." Sending a man to his death is not supporting him, despite what some think. Bringing him home to his family safely _is_ supporting him.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't think you can accomplish the mission."

As if to say, "We love you, but you're just not capable." ...

And what if that is actually true?

If the military cannot accomplish the task they have been given under the constaints they have to operate in is it supporting the troops to say

1) "Well we're just gonna keep throwing you guys at them and hope for the best" or

2) "Sorry guys, we know you did the job to the best of your ability but we fucked up the plan and put you into an unwinnable situation. To avoid further losses we'll draw you out now."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Actually it's "we support you but not this klutz who's running things in Washington." Sending a man to his death is not supporting him, despite what some think. Bringing him home to his family safely _is_ supporting him.

But it is General Patraeus who will be running things in Iraq, and after hearing him speak at a conference late last year, I can tell you he knows his stuff.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/national/main2387398.shtml --- just one article about his talk with Senate.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>It's a political vote not an anti-military one. I would say.

I'd say it's a pro-military one, actually.

Imagine someone is in charge of a smokejumper crew. Ten firefighters jump in to deal with a small 2-acre brush fire. The wind shifts and the fire becomes a 200-acre monster - and it's moving towards them. How should their leader best support them?

"Get to safe ground, clear an area and we'll have an evac helicopter there in ten minutes."

"Stay there until either the fire is out or you're dead."

[narcimund 0]

Quote

A) "Get to safe ground, clear an area and we'll have an evac helicopter there in ten minutes."

B) "Stay there until either the fire is out or you're dead."

I know! I know! (B) is the right answer, huh?

(A) is disrespectful to the firefighters and their sacrifice.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[matthewcline 0]

billvon has it right I think.
Max, you would be right if they held the assets (funds etc) from the troops.

So far I have only heard 4 members of congress make that threat, but I think it is hollow, as it would be tantamount to political suicide in the end.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't think you can accomplish the mission."

As if to say, "We love you, but you're just not capable." ...

Well, I doubt they're capable of winning a Nobel prize either. No slam against the troops, they are just the wrong tool for the job at hand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[csbrady 0]

You know i think this plan would actually work if they allow it to run it's course. but of course the senate will find anything to get us out of it. and by getting us out of it will only fuel the fire for future attacks on America.

But what do i know. Im one of the kids that got stuck in Iraq (according the Sen. Kerry)

Blues

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>It's a political vote not an anti-military one. I would say.

I'd say it's a pro-military one, actually.

Imagine someone is in charge of a smokejumper crew.

The missions of a smoke jumper crew and an Infantry squad are not the same. One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

One belongs to the Department of the Interior

One belongs to the Department of Defence

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

>It's a political vote not an anti-military one. I would say.

I'd say it's a pro-military one, actually.

Imagine someone is in charge of a smokejumper crew.

The missions of a smoke jumper crew and an Infantry squad are not the same. One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

I beg to differ. Why do we have a Sec. of DEFENSE then and not a Sect. of OFFENSE ? And > " One is an offensive tool". >I find that quite OFFENSIVE

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

One belongs to the Department of the Interior

One belongs to the Department of Defence

Defense...just remember what you said, "Of course, you're right."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Maybe sending in the SmokeJumpers would turn it all around for us...

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually it's "we support you but not this klutz who's running things in Washington." Sending a man to his death is not supporting him, despite what some think. Bringing him home to his family safely _is_ supporting him.

But it is General Patraeus who will be running things in Iraq, and after hearing him speak at a conference late last year, I can tell you he knows his stuff.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/national/main2387398.shtml --- just one article about his talk with Senate.

finally!!! Bush finds a General who understands "shut up and color"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't think you can accomplish the mission."

As if to say, "We love you, but you're just not capable." ...

more like....

"We support you.. but this Mission is undo-able by ANYONE (short of a fully manned Army of Occupation).. and 'We the People' cannot/do not support that....." edit: "and would not have reelected this man if he had actually admitted what would be required for his Invasion plans"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[BIGUN 1,488]

Quote

One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

Actually, either can be either depending on the mission.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

The missions of a smoke jumper crew and an Infantry squad are not the same. One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

And one wears green uniforms while the other wears blue.

But hey! I have an idea!

How about we go back to the original question and dismiss the offensive/defensive and uniform-color distinctions, lest we get distracted by irrelevancies.

Ooops. Too late, huh?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,120]

>The missions of a smoke jumper crew and an Infantry squad are not
>the same. One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

Not at all. The job of both is to defend against something (fire/aggression.) Sometimes fire crews do that by _setting_ fires, but usually their role is more defensive. Likewise, sometimes militaries are used to start wars, but for the most part their job is to defend their country. That's why the military is part of the department of defense, not the department of conquest (or pick your own term.)

If either is regularly used to start wars/fires, then something is very wrong. The only entities that use regularly use militaries for conquest are empires - and when people start forest fires for no defensive reason, we call them arsonists.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The missions of a smoke jumper crew and an Infantry squad are not
>the same. One is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.

Not at all. The job of both is to defend against something (fire/aggression.) Sometimes fire crews do that by _setting_ fires, but usually their role is more defensive. Likewise, sometimes militaries are used to start wars, but for the most part their job is to defend their country. That's why the military is part of the department of defense, not the department of conquest (or pick your own term.)

Even defensive ambush positions in a military operation call for an immediate "push through". Countering an ambush upon an Infantry squad requires immediate suppression and advance on the fixed position. Both scenarios call for an advance through, and destruction of the opposite force. Even in defense, military resources are offensive in nature.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't think you can accomplish the mission."

As if to say, "We love you, but you're just not capable." ...

Let's say the troops' mission was to displace Saddam and take over control of Iraq. Sounds reasonable. Ok, then the mission is changed to design and build a nuclear fusion reactor to handle the electricity needs of Iraq.
This is not a vote of lack of confidence in the troops or their capability to do the jobs that they were trained for.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

This is essentially saying to the troops, "We support you, but don't think you can accomplish the mission."

As if to say, "We love you, but you're just not capable." ...

Let's say the troops' mission was to displace Saddam and take over control of Iraq. Sounds reasonable. Ok, then the mission is changed to design and build a nuclear fusion reactor to handle the electricity needs of Iraq.
This is not a vote of lack of confidence in the troops or their capability to do the jobs that they were trained for.

The Army Corps of Engineers managed to build a water treatment plant right in the vicinity of Ramadi (they stared while I was there, but I got injured before they completed it). Our mission was different from the engineers and other support troops there.

Most of the other coalition forces in theater are not combat units, rather support units whose specialty is rebuilding infrastructure. The majority of US forces in the region are in the same capacity.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!