23 May 07
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI'm saying that he has SAID that he will continue. The dems don't dare call his bluff for the reasons stated.
by controlling the money, they could cut off the funding for the war entirely. Without funding, the war would cease.
Are you suggesting that the Bush could continue the war without funding? How would he pay the soldiers? Salt? (and if the Decider decided to keep the troops unfunded in a war- are you saying that he would bear no responsibility fo ...[text shortened]... to be] a legitimate war against terror". What is a "good proportion"? FOX News watchers?
btw... There is another way to end the war. The congress has the power to simply pass a law stating that "The United States shall cease all hostilities on July 1, 2007". One line of law. The problem is that Bush will veto, and there isn't enough support to over-ride, so everyone loses "face"... whatever that is.
How many support or oppose the war depends on the question you ask. If you ask "Should the US withdraw from Iraq?" or if you ask "Should the US withdraw from Iraq as Iraqi forces become trained?" or "Should we let the terrorists win and come home now?"
You get the point i'm sure. I was in favor of the war that removed Saddam. I think Bush blew it by not declaring that war as won and then asking congress to redeclare war on the terrorists/insurgents of ALL religious background. It was and is two wars. I don't like it that in our fuzzy logic way of seeing things today, the CURRENT war to try and preserve democracy is mixed up with the previous "regime change" war. But nobody asked me. 😕
23 May 07
The Dems dropped the fight against the war funds but are looking to go about the situation through other means. Not sure what these are but Bush could always veto what they did. Maybe it was never a winning road in itself but one to get their foot in the door a little further.
23 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour last question is vague & speculative.
[bHow many support or oppose the war depends on the question you ask. If you ask "Should the US withdraw from Iraq?" or if you ask "Should the US withdraw from Iraq as Iraqi forces become trained?" or "Should we let the terrorists win and come home now?"
[/b]
23 May 07
Originally posted by GascraftYou are correct. That was the point of the post. The answer you get depends on the question you ask.
Your last question is vague & speculative.
The previous poster disputed (though not vigorously with examples etc...) that "a good portion" of the US population supports Bush. This was an effort to reply that "polls" are dependent solutions to supposed "motives" and not absolutes.
23 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut a good portion must as he is still in power and has been for a while.
You are correct. That was the point of the post. The answer you get depends on the question you ask.
The previous poster disputed (though not vigorously with examples etc...) that "a good portion" of the US population supports Bush. This was an effort to reply that "polls" are dependent solutions to supposed "motives" and not absolutes.
Maybe he is just the best foreseeable option for the bad situation those people first chose but that is speculative also. 80% proff possibly.
23 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyyou said that a "good proportion" of Americans support the war-
You are correct. That was the point of the post. The answer you get depends on the question you ask.
The previous poster disputed (though not vigorously with examples etc...) that "a good portion" of the US population supports Bush. This was an effort to reply that "polls" are dependent solutions to supposed "motives" and not absolutes.
where is your evidence of this?
23 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisBecause they know they weren't elected to end the war. They were the recipients of a revolt in the Republican party because of illegal immigration, and out of control spending by the Republican congress. There are other issues as well but republicans felt sold out and decided to send a message and not turn out to vote in 06. Dumb move but that's why the dems are in, not because of the war and they know it. By the way if you read up on the war, the previous "insurgents" are beginning to cooperate with the US forces and Iraq government against Al Qaida terrorists and Iran.
Why are the democrats in the US not ending the war in Iraq? What do they have to gain by keeping it going? I thought they were elected to end this godless war. Does anyone know?
23 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisI would liken this argument to a surgeon who, after being called in to an operation where a butcher has made a complete hash of things, being heckled "I thought you said this operation was a bad idea - why don't you stop it?". The operation has been started, and as much mess as it is anybody who gives a damn must be finish it as well as he can. Not just walk away.
Why are the democrats in the US not ending the war in Iraq? What do they have to gain by keeping it going? I thought they were elected to end this godless war. Does anyone know?
23 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisthey'll get veto-ed, and the prez has already stated that we're not pulling out of iraq when he's still in office
Why are the democrats in the US not ending the war in Iraq? What do they have to gain by keeping it going? I thought they were elected to end this godless war. Does anyone know?
that, and they still need to support our troops so they wont look like heartless politicians 🙄
23 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakIn as much as I do agree with you... the dems did promise to end the war... not just complain about it.
I would liken this argument to a surgeon who, after being called in to an operation where a butcher has made a complete hash of things, being heckled "I thought you said this operation was a bad idea - why don't you stop it?". The operation has been started, and as much mess as it is anybody who gives a damn must be finish it as well as he can. Not just walk away.
23 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Anonymousnumber1They should make him veto it...
they'll get veto-ed, and the prez has already stated that we're not pulling out of iraq when he's still in office
that, and they still need to support our troops so they wont look like heartless politicians 🙄