Conservatives, explain to me being against a time line in Iraq - Page 2

6SpeedTA95 · 05-02-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I am not against a timeline now either as long as it has a few elements:
1. It can't be public to the point where it gives a year's notice with the exact date.
2. It can't be unconditional to progress made and the current state of Iraq.
3. Nancy Pelosi and her posse shouldn't be a determining factor in progress. It should be determined not by Pelosi or Bush, but by the Generals on the ground... specifically the ones that were voted in unanimously with bi-partisan support.
4. Any bill passed can't include millions of pork barrel spending to buy votes.
5. And finally, the bill can't change rules of engagement for our troops on the ground while they are still in Iraq.

If those criteria were met, I would support a timeline. I'm not not necessarily against a timeline. I'm against this stupid legislation and I don't think people should trust Pelosi on this. It's amazing people don't trust Bush, they don't trust the general the Dems voted in unanimously, but they trust Pelosi's judgment despite her recent actions in the middle east. She clearly has no concept of what's going on or what is good for the region whatsoever.

Well said.

ballz2wallz · 05-02-2007, 12:03 PM

I completely agree with what you're saying, but at the same time, we cannot leave them to fend for themselves when they aren't ready. The saying 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life' which I think would apply here, has a very critical part to it...'TEACH a man to fish'...we first have to teach, and teach properly. If the Iraqis are not able to fend for themselves, then what have we taught them to do? They have the incentive, but they also need the ability, right?

Scrum · 05-02-2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm against this stupid legislation and I don't think people should trust Pelosi on this. It's amazing people don't trust Bush, they don't trust the general the Dems voted in unanimously, but they trust Pelosi's judgment despite her recent actions in the middle east. She clearly has no concept of what's going on or what is good for the region whatsoever.

You must be joking. Bush has been totally wrong since day one about Iraq and you are bitching about Pelosi?

DosEquis · 05-02-2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You must be joking. Bush has been totally wrong since day one about Iraq and you are bitching about Pelosi?

But bush listens to his generals...unless they say something he didn't like. Then he just replaces them

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You must be joking. Bush has been totally wrong since day one about Iraq and you are bitching about Pelosi?

It's ignorant to replace one bad leader (Bush) with another (Pelosi) and consider it progress. Two conflicting idiots arguing stupid policies and hindering support for our troops in Iraq is not exactly something I would consider joking about. Nor is it something I find humorous enough to laugh at.

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

But bush listens to his generals...unless they say something he didn't like. Then he just replaces them

The current general in Iraq the Dems voted in unanimously and they supported him.

Donkey® · 05-02-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The current general in Iraq the Dems voted in unanimously and they supported him.

What does that have to do with Bush replacing them on whim?

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What does that have to do with Bush replacing them on whim?

What does Bush replacing them in the past have to do with the current leader and situation in Iraq in relation to a current time-line in Iraq? It doesn't, it's just a non-related cheapshot to show how bad of a leader Bush has been during Iraq. We get that. We've had our laugh at Bush's expense already in this thread. I think we can move on to related subject matter.

Scrum · 05-02-2007, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's ignorant to replace one bad leader (Bush) with another (Pelosi) and consider it progress. Two conflicting idiots arguing stupid policies and hindering support for our troops in Iraq is not exactly something I would consider joking about. Nor is it something I find humorous enough to laugh at.

Nothing Pelosi has done has hindered support for our troops.

Scrum · 05-02-2007, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

The current general in Iraq the Dems voted in unanimously and they supported him.

Excellent.

We will have someone organizing the withdrawal that has bi-partisan support.

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Nothing Pelosi has done has hindered support for our troops.

Sure she has. The same as Bush. Singularly they haven't done anything that hindered support for our troops. But each having a stupid policy and using unethical politics has gotten us to the point we are at now where the troops are waiting for funds.

Scrum · 05-02-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Sure she has. The same as Bush. Singularly they haven't done anything that hindered support for our troops. But each having a stupid policy and using unethical politics has gotten us to the point we are at now where the troops are waiting for funds.

That is totally false. The troops aren't standing around a bunch of tanks with no gas in them waiting on a money wire and Bush is the one denying them funds.

The American people have spoken. They want the war over.

The Dems are listening and acting, Bush and his supporters are being stubborn and deluded.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-02-2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I completely agree with what you're saying, but at the same time, we cannot leave them to fend for themselves when they aren't ready. The saying 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life' which I think would apply here, has a very critical part to it...'TEACH a man to fish'...we first have to teach, and teach properly. If the Iraqis are not able to fend for themselves, then what have we taught them to do? They have the incentive, but they also need the ability, right?

The Iraqis have been "training" for what? Over 4 years now? That's gotta be the longest basic training known to man. They've had an absurd abundance of time to learn, and we've spent an undue amount of time, energy and money teaching them. At this point, if they refuse to take over their own security, it's because they don't have the incentive to do it.

ballz2wallz · 05-02-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The Iraqis have been "training" for what? Over 4 years now? That's gotta be the longest basic training known to man. They've had an absurd abundance of time to learn, and we've spent an undue amount of time, energy and money teaching them. At this point, if they refuse to take over their own security, it's because they don't have the incentive to do it.

But they aren't in basic training, they are learning to fight a war, keep stability and peace in their country, and ward off invading countries. Certainly that takes a little longer than basic training, especially when starting from the ground up?

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

That is totally false. The troops aren't standing around a bunch of tanks with no gas in them waiting on a money wire and Bush is the one denying them funds.

The American people have spoken. They want the war over.

The Dems are listening and acting, Bush and his supporters are being stubborn and deluded.

The troops are waiting for funding. They are in limbo not knowing what is going to happen or if they are going to get the supplies/money they need in time.

The American people haven't spoken, Pelosi and her bought and paid for posse have. There's a big difference. The American people want the war over, but I'm willing to bet the average American would prefer the terms I listed above over this travesty of a bill they're trying to push through now.

Diamond Cross · 05-02-2007, 06:41 PM

It's not the fault of the conservatives, but rather shows the impotency of the Democratic party. I did warn people that just because they had the majority, it didn't mean that they would get any thing done.

DosEquis · 05-02-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It's not the fault of the conservatives, but rather shows the impotency of the Democratic party. I did warn people that just because they had the majority, it didn't mean that they would get any thing done.

They don't have enough majority. In order to get their agenda passed they would need enough democrats to override the veto. Secondly, they would need enough democrats to compensate for the conservative democrats.

I think a problem from the 2006 election was that people put to much emphasis on "majority" when they really dont have enough majority to accomplish anything significant.

JaJae · 05-02-2007, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It's not the fault of the conservatives, but rather shows the impotency of the Democratic party. I did warn people that just because they had the majority, it didn't mean that they would get any thing done.

They did get something done. They can't help a veto though. No party has really been able to deal with a presidential veto. It's true they haven't passed much other than non-binding resolutions and haven't gotten much done. But in this case, they worked hard to buy the votes they needed. They just couldn't get past the veto.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-02-2007, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They did get something done. They can't help a veto though. No party has really been able to deal with a presidential veto. It's true they haven't passed much other than non-binding resolutions and haven't gotten much done. But in this case, they worked hard to buy the votes they needed. They just couldn't get past the veto.

They bought votes with pork which is IMO unacceptable.