Bush vs. Congress Options

[pebkac]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Bush's decisions, more than two months in the making, are already drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to begin ending the war, not to send in more US forces.

I think this will turn out to be interesting. I wouldn't really have any problem with a "surge" if it would result in at least a half-assed plan to leave Iraq.

[FORSAKENR320]

not really on topic, but there are alot of advantages tactically to keeping an army across seas.. a few i see off the top of my head are::

1. it's easier to fight a war in someone elses country than your own
a. your people aren't the ones suffering the moral, economic and casualty toll
b. your civilians are less likely to object to the war in general(out of sight, out of mind)
c. use of stronger weapons and more heavy handed tactics. you'll bust out the big bombs on someone else when you would avoid them on your home turf.

2. mobility
a. mobilizing an army to invade takes time. if you already have an army ready to move at a command sitting on someones doorstep you got a head start.
b. you've already "claimed the beach" constructing a supply line and a retreat point is much easier

3. defensive reasons
a. politically it is harmful, but what leader is going to command an attack on the home soil of a country that already has an army at your door? the only choice you give the man is to spend his own money and resources on stock piling his own army in his own borders, (maintaining an army is expensive) and sending fanatical terrorist attacks on civilians (we all have seen what happens when the american public screams for blood)
b. obviously we do not have our entire army over seas. it is more likely than an enemy will lash out at the eyesore in their own country, it is what the people themselves will want, to attack otherwise would cause revolt. giving us advance warning and also letting us have the benifit of both points (1 and 2) already mentioned, with the ability to send in more troops where necessary.

4. some may disagree, but it is a show of strength. we were attacked, we responded when the american public supported it, got a few cobwebs that were BUGGING US cleared away.

5. and face it, these bastards would be fighting each other anyway. we might as well have an army over there to justify our meddling so that america can gain from it.

[Psykopath]

4. some may disagree, but it is a show of strength. we were attacked, we responded when the american public supported it, got a few cobwebs that were BUGGING US cleared away.

So, just to clarify: When did Iraq attack the United States?

[impala454]

So, just to clarify: When did Iraq attack the United States?

I love how it always comes back to this. I think I've typed this thirty times on this board.

1. saddam gets his ass kicked in gulf war
2. saddam signs treaty allowing weapons inspectors
3. saddam begins not allowing weapons inspectors
4. 5 years goes by and he still hasn't allowed weapons inspectors
5. we kick his ass again.

maybe you guys are cool with people breaking treaties and international law, but our government isnt. especially when it comes to weapons.

[Psykopath]

I love how it always comes back to this. I think I've typed this thirty times on this board.

1. saddam gets his ass kicked in gulf war
2. saddam signs treaty allowing weapons inspectors
3. saddam begins not allowing weapons inspectors
4. 5 years goes by and he still hasn't allowed weapons inspectors
5. we kick his ass again.

maybe you guys are cool with people breaking treaties and international law, but our government isnt. especially when it comes to weapons.

Well, as is typical, you didn't address my inquiry. Yep, he didn't allow inspectors in for 5 years, then allowed them again, then the U.S. called them back and we attacked. Haven't found much of anything in almost 5 years. But hey, we'll be there for quite a bit longer than that so maybe we can find those elusive chemical weapons factories that were so clearly marked on maps used to justify the war...

...so you're going with the "broke international law" justification. But I was trying to understand the reasoning behind saying "they (Iraq) attacked us" (I assume that's an allusion to 9/11).

I also get tired of reading the myriad of causes put forth to justify that cluster fuck.

[impala454]

Well, as is typical, you didn't address my inquiry. Yep, he didn't allow inspectors in for 5 years, then allowed them again, then the U.S. called them back and we attacked. Haven't found much of anything in almost 5 years. But hey, we'll be there for quite a bit longer than that so maybe we can find those elusive chemical weapons factories that were so clearly marked on maps used to justify the war...

...so you're going with the "broke international law" justification. But I was trying to understand the reasoning behind saying "they (Iraq) attacked us" (I assume that's an allusion to 9/11).

I also get tired of reading the myriad of causes put forth to justify that cluster fuck.

no, it's not an allusion to 9/11. it's obvious that iraq never attacked us, and that you were being sarcastic in your question to begin with.

and let me ask you and every other person on this board who doesn't think saddam ever had any weapons this:

when you were little, and doing something wrong, and heard your momma coming, did you just sit there and keep doing it wrong, or did you fuckin put the shit away before you got caught? geezus you people are naive

[Psykopath]

no, it's not an allusion to 9/11. it's obvious that iraq never attacked us, and that you were being sarcastic in your question to begin with.

and let me ask you and every other person on this board who doesn't think saddam ever had any weapons this:

when you were little, and doing something wrong, and heard your momma coming, did you just sit there and keep doing it wrong, or did you fuckin put the shit away before you got caught? geezus you people are naive

And people like you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

Jeez you people are hard-headed.


---

And LOL Brandon. Calling me a hippie because I actually feel that war is not the only option when it comes to international politics.

Simply wow man. Please, for the sake of all humanity: never enter international politics. One Bush is more than enough for the history of mankind.

Am I being an ass? You're goddamn right I am. I'm sick of this assumption that I'm a hippie/potsmoking/tree-hugging/etc. douchebag just because I actually believe in the diplomatic process as opposed to the "shoot first, ask questions later/kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" mentality.

[impala454]

And people like you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

oh so i'm wrong? he didn't keep out weapons inspectors for 5 years against treaty? and you would keep doing something wrong even when you heard your mom coming?

[The Fanatic]

oh so i'm wrong? he didn't keep out weapons inspectors for 5 years against resolution?

Fixed, a resolution is non binding legislation pased by the U.N. that effects member states. A treaty is simply a formal binding agreement between two or more states.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Jan 13 2007, 02:01 AM

[impala454]

Fixed, a resolution is non binding legislation pased by the U.N and effects member states. A treaty is simply a formal binding agreement between two or more states.

maybe when you hit wikipedia you should read all of the bullet points. here's the one you missed:

Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". It has been debated what kind of Security Council resolutions are covered by this provision, in particular whether it only covered Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression").