Zenister 0
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
>They only need cut spending.
Do you support cutting funding for the war?
No I do not. I was however pointing something I think you already knew. And that is the congress does have a tool to stop the war. And that is cut off the funds.
The other point I was making is they will not do that.
They wont do it because its the wrong approach.... a country should never be forced to 'starve' its military simply because the elected leadership is to stubborn to bow to the will of the people.
its not like Bush would pull them anyway.. he'd simply ask them to do 'more with less' the way politicians always do...
OK, I see your point and it is valid. Second, I don't see the will of people being what you imply here.
Thirdly, leadership is a lonely place and somethimes decisions need to made on pricipal, not polls
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I believe that most of the Dems know we should be there . . .
Given that even some republicans are saying quite clearly that we should be getting out, I doubt that.
I can see why Congress would not want to pull funding. If they did, and the president did not implement a withdrawal plan, US troops could die due to lack of support - and that's unacceptable to everyone involved. So the president can always threaten to put US troops in danger if funding is withdrawn; that gives him the ace card in this situation.
Given that even some republicans are saying quite clearly that we should be getting out, I doubt that.
I can see why Congress would not want to pull funding. If they did, and the president did not implement a withdrawal plan, US troops could die due to lack of support - and that's unacceptable to everyone involved. So the president can always threaten to put US troops in danger if funding is withdrawn; that gives him the ace card in this situation.
Quote"How many additional dead americans was Saddam worth? Our judgement was 'not that many' - and I think we got that right."
Looks like that changed pretty drastically. Perhaps they decided the lives of american soldiers got a bit cheaper since that interview.
No, getting Saddam was pretty cheap. That was completed nearly 4 years ago. It's whatever the current mission (the one you supported, making a better Iraq) that has been costly.
BTW, no points for the BS headline.
billvon 3,132
>No, getting Saddam was pretty cheap.
In the interview, Cheney was pretty clear about how they didn't support going into Baghdad because of the cost in lives of US troops. He mentioned that 146 troops had died in Desert Storm, and while they were proud of that low number, he thought that was too many to the families involved. Hence his statement that it wasn't worth many more lives to get Saddam.
580 US soldiers died before we got Saddam. You may consider 580 US lives "pretty cheap" but I don't, and I don't think most people do. Indeed, I have a feeling that the reason you're saying that is that so many more have died since then. Which is valid, although I don't think that's something we should be happy about either.
Of course, there's a danger in that line of logic as well. By that logic, 9/11 was pretty cheap when it came to american lives.
In the interview, Cheney was pretty clear about how they didn't support going into Baghdad because of the cost in lives of US troops. He mentioned that 146 troops had died in Desert Storm, and while they were proud of that low number, he thought that was too many to the families involved. Hence his statement that it wasn't worth many more lives to get Saddam.
580 US soldiers died before we got Saddam. You may consider 580 US lives "pretty cheap" but I don't, and I don't think most people do. Indeed, I have a feeling that the reason you're saying that is that so many more have died since then. Which is valid, although I don't think that's something we should be happy about either.
Of course, there's a danger in that line of logic as well. By that logic, 9/11 was pretty cheap when it came to american lives.
to invade and take over a country with an army that is supposed to number in the millions, 580 is amazingly low. Contrast that with past wars where a single offensive charge surpassed that. Removing him from power had value to the US. And there's no chance of him being in power again.
What's been done since then is a different matter, with questionable value and uncertain longevity to it.
What's been done since then is a different matter, with questionable value and uncertain longevity to it.
billvon 3,132
>580 is amazingly low.
You can indeed argue that. But that contradicts what Cheney was saying, which is what we were discussing. And again, 580 is only amazingly low compared to 3500. It is quite high compared to 146 (the death toll of Desert Storm) in which we routed an invading army.
>Contrast that with past wars where a single offensive charge surpassed that.
We had an entire WAR that was less than that.
You can indeed argue that. But that contradicts what Cheney was saying, which is what we were discussing. And again, 580 is only amazingly low compared to 3500. It is quite high compared to 146 (the death toll of Desert Storm) in which we routed an invading army.
>Contrast that with past wars where a single offensive charge surpassed that.
We had an entire WAR that was less than that.
rushmc 23
Quote>580 is amazingly low.
You can indeed argue that. But that contradicts what Cheney was saying, which is what we were discussing. And again, 580 is only amazingly low compared to 3500. It is quite high compared to 146 (the death toll of Desert Storm) in which we routed an invading army.
>Contrast that with past wars where a single offensive charge surpassed that.
We had an entire WAR that was less than that.
IMO you are taking the contex in which Cheney made those comments and tweeking them a little.
Now, that is my opinion but I do not think the point you make using his words are what he meant.
In that I mean, 1 life is a high cost for anything. But I also believe that life will always be a cost to maintian the freedoms we have (even if ones opinion is that those freedoms are being lost) and nothing can change that. (no, I am not closing my eyes as I hope someday, I am proven wrong)
Within that context, the debate them becomes, have we paid that price (life) in a prudent way?
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
People will always disagree on where the dept is to be paid. I feel that is more what the debate should be today concerning Iraq. Painfully, that is not the case"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,132
>IMO you are taking the contex in which Cheney made those comments
>and tweeking them a little.
Well, the context was a proposed invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. I think that has some bearing on a later war intended to (in part) do just that.
>In that I mean, 1 life is a high cost for anything.
Agreed.
>But I also believe that life will always be a cost to maintian the freedoms
>we have (even if ones opinion is that those freedoms are being lost) and
>nothing can change that. (no, I am not closing my eyes as I hope
>someday, I am proven wrong)
I agree. If we did need to invade someone to defend our freedoms, well, that's what our military is for. If Saddam's army had been massing just north of the canadian border, intent on invading our country and imposing his secular rule on us, then taking it (and him) out would be worth the cost in human life - because the alternative would be to lose our freedoms _and_ lose the lives of many of our citizens.
But the opposite has happened. We invaded Iraq - a country that was no serious threat to us - and we LOST freedoms. The right of Habeas Corpus, one of our most important rights, has been weakened, as has our right to privacy. Indeed, the War on Terror has often been cited as the REASON we have to lose these rights.
Now, one could argue that we didn't know that Bush was going to do that, and we didn't know the intelligence was cherry-picked. If so, then fine - we made a mistake. We should correct it before it gets even bigger than it currently is.
>and tweeking them a little.
Well, the context was a proposed invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. I think that has some bearing on a later war intended to (in part) do just that.
>In that I mean, 1 life is a high cost for anything.
Agreed.
>But I also believe that life will always be a cost to maintian the freedoms
>we have (even if ones opinion is that those freedoms are being lost) and
>nothing can change that. (no, I am not closing my eyes as I hope
>someday, I am proven wrong)
I agree. If we did need to invade someone to defend our freedoms, well, that's what our military is for. If Saddam's army had been massing just north of the canadian border, intent on invading our country and imposing his secular rule on us, then taking it (and him) out would be worth the cost in human life - because the alternative would be to lose our freedoms _and_ lose the lives of many of our citizens.
But the opposite has happened. We invaded Iraq - a country that was no serious threat to us - and we LOST freedoms. The right of Habeas Corpus, one of our most important rights, has been weakened, as has our right to privacy. Indeed, the War on Terror has often been cited as the REASON we have to lose these rights.
Now, one could argue that we didn't know that Bush was going to do that, and we didn't know the intelligence was cherry-picked. If so, then fine - we made a mistake. We should correct it before it gets even bigger than it currently is.
rushmc 23
Quote>IMO you are taking the contex in which Cheney made those comments
>and tweeking them a little.
Well, the context was a proposed invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. I think that has some bearing on a later war intended to (in part) do just that.
>In that I mean, 1 life is a high cost for anything.
Agreed.
>But I also believe that life will always be a cost to maintian the freedoms
>we have (even if ones opinion is that those freedoms are being lost) and
>nothing can change that. (no, I am not closing my eyes as I hope
>someday, I am proven wrong)
I agree. If we did need to invade someone to defend our freedoms, well, that's what our military is for. If Saddam's army had been massing just north of the canadian border, intent on invading our country and imposing his secular rule on us, then taking it (and him) out would be worth the cost in human life - because the alternative would be to lose our freedoms _and_ lose the lives of many of our citizens.
But the opposite has happened. We invaded Iraq - a country that was no serious threat to us - and we LOST freedoms. The right of Habeas Corpus, one of our most important rights, has been weakened, as has our right to privacy. Indeed, the War on Terror has often been cited as the REASON we have to lose these rights.I was with you until this pharagrah. We are there for the right reasons IMO. Not yours and I understand that
Now, one could argue that we didn't know that Bush was going to do that, and we didn't know the intelligence was cherry-picked. If so, then fine - we made a mistake. We should correct it before it gets even bigger than it currently is.
Saying Bush "cherry picke intel is dam misleading if not a lie. All of those you support said long befor Bush was even runnin for office SH what a threat. You can not and have not ever reconciled that fact. Why, cause you can't
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,132
>We are there for the right reasons IMO.
?? The primary reason was to secure Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and ensure our safety from them. There are no WMD's - and we are now less safe than ever. In other words, we have failed.
It takes courage to acknowledge one's failures, put them in the past, and move on to future successes. I hope we have the maturity to do that.
>Saying Bush "cherry picke intel is dam misleading if not a lie.
Hmm. Should I believe RushMC on this, or a former CIA leader who was there when it happened?
------------------------------------
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
---------------------------------------
?? The primary reason was to secure Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and ensure our safety from them. There are no WMD's - and we are now less safe than ever. In other words, we have failed.
It takes courage to acknowledge one's failures, put them in the past, and move on to future successes. I hope we have the maturity to do that.
>Saying Bush "cherry picke intel is dam misleading if not a lie.
Hmm. Should I believe RushMC on this, or a former CIA leader who was there when it happened?
------------------------------------
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
---------------------------------------
Quoteto invade and take over a country with an army that is supposed to number in the millions, 580 is amazingly low. Contrast that with past wars where a single offensive charge surpassed that. Removing him from power had value to the US. And there's no chance of him being in power again.
What's been done since then is a different matter, with questionable value and uncertain longevity to it.
I think the vast majority of people will agree with you that removing Saddam from power was a good thing. That's a basic yes or no question on whether there's value in deposing a despot, and most people will say yes.
The subjective question is how much value was it worth. Considering the fact that he was pretty well contained, was it worth thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, half a trillion dollars (so far), and overwhelming international ill-will toward the US? To overthrow a guy whose hands were already tied by sanctions? Opinions will vary, but I don't think so.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
No I do not. I was however pointing something I think you already knew. And that is the congress does have a tool to stop the war. And that is cut off the funds.
The other point I was making is they will not do that.
They wont do it because its the wrong approach.... a country should never be forced to 'starve' its military simply because the elected leadership is to stubborn to bow to the will of the people.
its not like Bush would pull them anyway.. he'd simply ask them to do 'more with less' the way politicians always do...
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.