Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is a perfect example of why you should not be discussing this.Whatever, you people have re-defined "winning" in Iraq like 50 times now.
We didn't have an exit strategy, we're still there, that was the point, genius.
And what exactly did WE "win" in Iraq? Hmm? We spent trillions of dollars and wasted thousands of lives and we haven't gained anything at all.
The current Iraqi regime looks as though they'll probably go the way of Iran, who they are much more closely tied to than the US.
How the hell is that "winning" anything?
That is just spin, the legislative saw the same intell the executive branch did.
The Dems voted for the war because they thought it would be short and sweet and didn't want to go into the 2004 election with a 'no' vote on a war against a supposed 'islamic type' enemy.
You are being hyper partisan here.
I opposed that stuip war from the start, I remember quite clearly how happy many dems were to go fight it.
buuuuuzzzzz, wrong answer.
The legislative branch received their intel AFTER it had been cherry picked by Bush appointees.
Remember all that BS about "imminent threats", "WMDs" and "Terrorist Training Camps"? None of which actually existed...
Which now nullifies everything you say on this issue as partisan nonsense.
Since you refuse to hold ALL the people who committed the USA to a war based on party affiliation, everything you say on the topic is now suspect as just more us/them partisan claptrap.
"The dodge appears to be your reading comprehension.
What part do you not understand?
And if you say 'dodge' again don't look for an answer."
I didn't ask if the wealthy were cowards or brave I asked if they have throughout the history of warfare used their position to influence their position in war..... a yes or no will suffice just fine as an answer.
That is not what you asked, but since this is the new question, the answer is obviously yes.I didn't ask if the wealthy were cowards or brave I asked if they have throughout the history of warfare used their position to influence their position in war..... a yes or no will suffice just fine as an answer.
Are you seriously insinuating that they didn't approve funding for the war during or after 2006 when the Dems had control of Congress? Are they still approving funding today with a Democrat President, A Democrat House, and a veto proof Democrat Senate? Give me a break.
Don't even try that BS with me.
"Not approving funding" would have had no effect at all on the progress of the war. The President would have diverted funds from other areas anyway.
The only thing it would have accomplished is to allow the Republicans to score political points against their opponents by turning the lack of funding into some sort of "Anti-American conspiracy".
You are beyond ignorant. The Congress controls the purse strings, if they say no money for a war, the President has no power or authority to get money from anywhere else. In fact Congress can vote to specifically tell the Government what it will not spend money on from any source.
This is a perfect example of why you should not be discussing this.Whatever, you people have re-defined "winning" in Iraq like 50 times now.
We didn't have an exit strategy, we're still there, that was the point, genius.
And what exactly did WE "win" in Iraq? Hmm? We spent trillions of dollars and wasted thousands of lives and we haven't gained anything at all.
The current Iraqi regime looks as though they'll probably go the way of Iran, who they are much more closely tied to than the US.
How the hell is that "winning" anything?
The 'exit strategy' for a war is victory, the idea is not to commit to combat unless you have the will and the means to win, and the only way to do is to fight a total war.
There are no 'exit strategies' that is a silly buzz word created as a nicer replacement for defeat.
That is not what you asked, but since this is the new question, the answer is obviously yes.I didn't ask if the wealthy were cowards or brave I asked if they have throughout the history of warfare used their position to influence their position in war..... a yes or no will suffice just fine as an answer.
Now tell us ONE human endeavor 'the wealthy' have not used their postion to influence.
Considering I was protesting the war before it started, I know how wrong you are.buuuuuzzzzz, wrong answer.
The legislative branch received their intel AFTER it had been cherry picked by Bush appointees.
Remember all that BS about "imminent threats", "WMDs" and "Terrorist Training Camps"? None of which actually existed...
Someone with money might have the best trainers and doctors giving an advantage within the rules.That is not what you asked, but since this is the new question, the answer is obviously yes.I didn't ask if the wealthy were cowards or brave I asked if they have throughout the history of warfare used their position to influence their position in war..... a yes or no will suffice just fine as an answer.
Now tell us ONE human endeavor 'the wealthy' have not used their postion to influence.
that I suppose would depend upon the person.... for example in a contest such as in a sporting event where fair play is expected some would use their influence to cheat while others might not.
Make it clear without the generalities.Which now nullifies everything you say on this issue as partisan nonsense.
Since you refuse to hold ALL the people who committed the USA to a war based on party affiliation, everything you say on the topic is now suspect as just more us/them partisan claptrap.
More BS.
You said I was "condemning the left", as if I had implied that they were more culpable than anyone else. I did not.
The people on the left who voted for the invasion are just as culpable as the right-wing members of congress who voted for it.
However, the executive is MOST culpable, as they lied and cherry-picked until they had everyone convinced.
And, not ALL democrats voted that way.
It seems that ever since mandatory drafting was done away with, each and every American family didn't have a stake in war any more. It became only those "patriotic enough" to want to serve, in that capacity, who "had a stake in war/policy/etc." Which, in turn, makes it easy for the average American/American family to not be too concerned or involved in the war policy decisions the country makes. Which in turn gives the military more incentive to rush into war without consequence, well political/domestic consequence. As the general thought would be, "Well those boys knew what they signed up for; Well, they chose it," so its not much a care as well as for many folks, dare I say most, they don't have an immediate stake in the game or concern cause "its not MY son/cousin/father."
Notice how most of the rest of the the civilized industial western countries aren't too keen to rush into war as Americans have been in the last few decades. I believe many, if not most of those countries have some form of mandatory service on the books. Doesn't it make a difference in the policies the countries make? They know they can't tell their citizens some BS to rush to war...their sons and daughters are on the line, they don't wanna hear that nonsense. They won't accept it.
Today, most of America's sons and daughters asses are not on the line, so they are easily convinced or tricked to rush into war..any war, for any reason. Americans, especially those of the conservative stripe seems to have never come across a war that they didn't wanna rush into naked. The rich, whom almost NEVER have any "stake in the game" are amongst the most war-mongering bunch of the lot.
Isn't it time to re-examine this policy? Or should we just continue to make it easier for the powerful war-mongerers amongst us to trick us?
What say you?
And again, history shows us that is dead wrong.my point is that when you are not wealthy or powerful you have one choice: to start at the bottom and pray you make it through. The decision to go to war for the wealthy and powerful would most likely be weighed with much more scrutiny if their sons and daughters where going along for the fight with the poor sharing the same disatvantage.
Another example of a retard. The President has no authority or power to control the flow of information to the Congress from anywhere but the information out of the White House. Congress receives the EXACT briefs the President does. And in fact has the power to ask for MORE information and to ask for it from other sources.
You dumb fucks do not know history and haven't a fucking clue how our Government works. Next you will be telling us Bush controlled the European Nations intel as well.
Considering I was protesting the war before it started, I know how wrong you are.
Chimpola never said 'imminent threat' that was said by BOTH Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
The admin could not 'cherry pick' ANYTHING as the raw data went to the senate comittees at the same time it went to the POTUS and they decided what to reveal and not to reveal to their fellow politicians.
You will NEVER get away with absolving the guilt of ALL of them by trying these tricks to just blame chimpola.
I would favor enhanced inducements to volunteer. Many students today are graduating with massive college debt and no job prospects. A volunteer program where graduates could either serve in the Military or do domestic volunteer work in exchange for payment of their college debt would be worthwhile
