The W
Views: 100963543
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.11.14 2159
The W - Current Events & Politics - Mission Accomplished?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.04
Pages: 1 2 Next
(474 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (21 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
On the four-year anniversary of the infamous 'Mission Accomplished' photo op, Bush vetoes Congress' war funding bill because it includes plans for troop withdrawals.

Insert your own joke here.



Promote this thread!
Nuclear Winter
Boudin rouge








Since: 9.11.03
From: Bedford, Michigan

Since last post: 243 days
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.31
Because war is funny.

Or the complete opposite of that.




Stupid of the Year (thingsstuff.741.com)
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.83
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    On the four-year anniversary of the infamous 'Mission Accomplished' photo op, Bush vetoes Congress' war funding bill because it includes plans for troop withdrawals.

    Insert your own joke here.


Canada; truly the 51st state because it chimes in on American politics (thusly having an impact on how Americans vote) all the time.

That was the joke, funny?

Seriously, am I the only person who's truly saddened, not angry, enraged, or appalled, but saddened by the way the President behaves?



Hold nothing sacred and you'll never be dissapointed. Especially not this statement.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 79 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.08
Why would the Democrats submit a bill, loaded with pork and grandstanding, to a President whom they KNOW will veto the damn thing - and NOT have enough votes to override the veto?

And why are the presidential candidates running *against* Bush?

Q: What limps and quacks and even at his worst makes the other side look incompetent?

A: A Lame Duck, with a veto stamp

FLEA


(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 2.5.07 0858)


Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.75
Lexus, I am saddened by how both sides behave. All are culpable in this mess. As a citizen labelled as unpatriotic by most for thinking this was a bad, bad idea, it is hard not to say I told you so. But I can't because the most important thing is to resolve this mess while doing the least damage. I also can't while so many are dying.



Perception is reality
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 143 days
Last activity: 14 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Lexus, I am saddened by how both sides behave. All are culpable in this mess. As a citizen labelled as unpatriotic by most for thinking this was a bad, bad idea, it is hard not to say I told you so. But I can't because the most important thing is to resolve this mess while doing the least damage. I also can't while so many are dying.

I agree with both sides being culpable and that U.S. politicians should be ashamed of their behavior (far beyond Iraq--consider also their efforts addressing our looming and daunting fiscal problems).

However, although some may have done so, I don't think that the majority of people labelled Iraq war opponents as unpatriotic. Sure, there was an extremely vocal group, but I think that was just a very vocal minority. You know, the same group that had considered, well thought out slogans like 'Boycott France' with a black line through the French flag and freedom fries and the like. I just consider them the right wing counterpart to the 'Bush is a warmonger' and 'the war is about oil' group.

Both of these extremes are idiots. And, IMHO, are in the minority. They happen to be a vocal minority that unfortunately has a disproportionally large voice, particularly in comparison to their actual numbers.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.75
    Originally posted by Corajudo
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Lexus, I am saddened by how both sides behave. All are culpable in this mess. As a citizen labelled as unpatriotic by most for thinking this was a bad, bad idea, it is hard not to say I told you so. But I can't because the most important thing is to resolve this mess while doing the least damage. I also can't while so many are dying.

    I agree with both sides being culpable and that U.S. politicians should be ashamed of their behavior (far beyond Iraq--consider also their efforts addressing our looming and daunting fiscal problems).

    However, although some may have done so, I don't think that the majority of people labelled Iraq war opponents as unpatriotic. Sure, there was an extremely vocal group, but I think that was just a very vocal minority. You know, the same group that had considered, well thought out slogans like 'Boycott France' with a black line through the French flag and freedom fries and the like. I just consider them the right wing counterpart to the 'Bush is a warmonger' and 'the war is about oil' group.

    Both of these extremes are idiots. And, IMHO, are in the minority. They happen to be a vocal minority that unfortunately has a disproportionally large voice, particularly in comparison to their actual numbers.


In the general public I would agree. But members of the administration, Cheney comes to mind, went out of their way to imply to oppose the Iraq war and Bush policy was unpatriotic.

And I almost forgot, the media is also up to its neck in this for shoddy reporting.



Perception is reality
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    Why would the Democrats submit a bill, loaded with pork and grandstanding, to a President whom they KNOW will veto the damn thing - and NOT have enough votes to override the veto?

    And why are the presidential candidates running *against* Bush?

    Q: What limps and quacks and even at his worst makes the other side look incompetent?

    A: A Lame Duck, with a veto stamp

    FLEA


    (edited by RYDER FAKIN on 2.5.07 0858)


1. Because the Democrats have the crazy idea that troops should be adequately rested, prepared and armoured before they go into battle. They also have the crazy idea that, like, the government should show enough respect to its soliders to not leave them indefinitely in a no-win situation that shouldn't have been attempted in the first place. They knew Bush would veto it, but who looks stupider: the Democrats for trying, or Bush for once again sticking to his dumb-ass stubborn guns and insisting this war is getting better? Or, option number three, the Republican senators and congressmen up for re-election in 2008 who voted against the bill and will now have to answer for it in the next election.

2. Because Giuliani, McCain, Romney, et al are all trying to become Bush-lite in order to appear more conservative and suck up to Bush's base. Also, because Bush has had such a historically awful presidency that it's easy for whichever Democrat runs in 2008 to just say, 'Do you really want to give these guys the car keys again?' This isn't exactly a new tactic -- hell, Bush's whole campaign in 2000 was "I'm not Bill Clinton," and Clinton's presidency was actually successful.

3. George Bush is the most incompetent president in American history. Period. He's even more imcompetent than William Henry Harrison, who couldn't even be counted on to wear a damn coat to his inauguration.

Feel free to ignore this post because I'm Canadian and thus am apparently not qualified to discuss American politics. I guess if there's ever another another post about Hugo Chavez in this forum, only Venezuelans can respond.



CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Feel free to ignore this post because I'm Canadian and thus am apparently not qualified to discuss American politics.
Or you're trolling. It's still hard to say at this point.



I AM CRZ
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1235 days
Last activity: 768 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.43
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by Big Bad
      Feel free to ignore this post because I'm Canadian and thus am apparently not qualified to discuss American politics.
    Or you're trolling. It's still hard to say at this point.


I wouldn't call that trolling. I can see how someone would think this board has set a precedent of telling liberal Canadians to "mind your own business," as if our policies shouldn't concern anyone outside our border and why, in this instance, Big Bad would try to meet that statement before it arrived.

At least he's consolidating his posts.



My first Marathon was November 27th 2005 -- 3:10:43
My next Marathon is April 16th 2007 -- Boston
CHAPLOW
Morcilla








Since: 14.5.04
From: right behind you

Since last post: 164 days
Last activity: 164 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.10
It's a tough call-

On one hand I feel like the Democrats should worry about funding our men and women on the field first, and then about their plan to pull them out.

On the other, can you really make a good funding plan if you dont even know by when you're pulling out?


As for the actual pulling out I am just as torn.

I am an indecisive bastard

RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 79 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.08
Because the Democrats have the crazy idea that troops should be adequately rested, prepared and armoured before they go into battle. They also have the crazy idea that, like, the government should show enough respect to its soliders to not leave them indefinitely in a no-win situation that shouldn't have been attempted in the first place. They knew Bush would veto it, but who looks stupider: the Democrats for trying, or Bush for once again sticking to his dumb-ass stubborn guns and insisting this war is getting better? Or, option number three, the Republican senators and congressmen up for re-election in 2008 who voted against the bill and will now have to answer for it in the next election.

The Democrats for trying. You dont force a veto like this without being able to override it. Period.

And I think you are giving the Dems more credit than they deserve. This was strictly a political move, not out of care for the troops - their history voting against military spending is well documented. This was not a spending bill - it was a bill crafted to force Bush's hand. And it backfired

Its not a no-win situation. Drop bombs. Or fight. Kill. Im very much for the war, but its not a war. Were hanging out over there getting murdered because no one will give the order to win.

Ive been against troops being there to begin with why are we fighting a ground war in the 21st century? But thats been the problem with just about all the military conflicts since WWII. The politicians, not the military, are at war. Americas problem, for the most part, is we like the idea of war and patriotism, but hate the idea of blood.

Because Giuliani, McCain, Romney, et al are all trying to become Bush-lite in order to appear more conservative and suck up to Bush's base. Also, because Bush has had such a historically awful presidency that it's easy for whichever Democrat runs in 2008 to just say, 'Do you really want to give these guys the car keys again?'

Bush = Bush lite. Hes not exactly the hardcore conservative that his voters had in mind. And sure, its easy to run against, especially when you dont have any ideas of your own. Which is why Democrats dont win Presidential elections.

The exception, of course, is Bill Clinton. But he ran on issues in 1992 - he promoted a vision for America. Hillary will most likely win in 2008, but not because of her platform

This isn't exactly a new tactic -- hell, Bush's whole campaign in 2000 was "I'm not Bill Clinton," and Clinton's presidency was actually successful.

Bush ran on social and fiscal conservative issues in 2000. Gore is the one who was telling everyone Im not Bill Clinton. Which is a big reason of why he lost he decided to distance himself from a very popular 2 term President.

George Bush is the most incompetent president in American history. Period. He's even more imcompetent than William Henry Harrison, who couldn't even be counted on to wear a damn coat to his inauguration.

Thats simply not true. Bush had three main goals as president: Cut Taxes, Kill Saddam and Fix the Supreme Court. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

FLEA

(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 3.5.07 1315)


Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    Its not a no-win situation. Drop bombs. Or fight. Kill. Im very much for the war, but its not a war. Were hanging out over there getting murdered because no one will give the order to win.

    Ive been against troops being there to begin with why are we fighting a ground war in the 21st century? But thats been the problem with just about all the military conflicts since WWII. The politicians, not the military, are at war. Americas problem, for the most part, is we like the idea of war and patriotism, but hate the idea of blood.


I think that is a brilliant summation of a lot of the problems people have with the war, and reading that it hit me: Where is W's Norman Schwarzkopf? EVERYBODY loved that guy, and he gave Desert Storm a level of accountability that the current Iraq war has sorely lacked.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Nuclear Winter
Boudin rouge








Since: 9.11.03
From: Bedford, Michigan

Since last post: 243 days
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.04
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    They knew Bush would veto it, but who looks stupider: the Democrats for trying, or Bush for once again sticking to his dumb-ass stubborn guns and insisting this war is getting better?


You answered your own question. The Democrats definitely look stupider, because Bush warned them several times he'd veto any bill that contained a troop withdrawal clause. But they keep passing these bills while at the same time knowing full well they'll be vetoed and that they don't have the votes to override a veto.

Or, essentially, wasting an awful lot of time (and in the process, my tax dollars! Whoopee!)



Stupid of the Year (thingsstuff.741.com)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 22 hours
Last activity: 20 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.45
Stormin Norman's busy being 72.

Look, he couldn't fix a war that we aren't allowed to fight. I work with plenty of your basic Jarheads on a regular basis and one of my best friends is a guy who was on my A team who is a Sgt Major in the 82nd today. They are all about winning this deal - but they aren't allowed to pursure and they get very demoralized NG and reserve troops. Many of the guys at Pendleton are petitioning the commanded to have longer tours with a shorter stateside time.

But, as long as we can't fight, we can't win. Unfortunately, to win wars, civilians die, because the bad guys hide among them. Ask the folks in London during the Blitz and the people of Dresden and Hiroshima.



http://myspace.com/awarulz
Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.73
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Stormin Norman's busy being 72.

    But, as long as we can't fight, we can't win. Unfortunately, to win wars, civilians die, because the bad guys hide among them. Ask the folks in London during the Blitz and the people of Dresden and Hiroshima.



I don't disagree, AWA, but fight what, an idea? Afghanistan was the right move. Iraq wasn't. The worst part is that the Iraq operation has prevented us from getting Afghanistan right.

We have the bet military in the world but no military is designed for the last three years.




Perception is reality
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10

    Its not a no-win situation. Drop bombs. Or fight. Kill. Im very much for the war, but its not a war. Were hanging out over there getting murdered because no one will give the order to win.

    Ive been against troops being there to begin with why are we fighting a ground war in the 21st century? But thats been the problem with just about all the military conflicts since WWII. The politicians, not the military, are at war. Americas problem, for the most part, is we like the idea of war and patriotism, but hate the idea of blood.



    Look, he couldn't fix a war that we aren't allowed to fight.

    But, as long as we can't fight, we can't win. Unfortunately, to win wars, civilians die, because the bad guys hide among them. Ask the folks in London during the Blitz and the people of Dresden and Hiroshima.


They're not being allowed to 'fight' or 'win'? Oh come on. This is like when I used to beat my big brother at chess, and then he immediately said afterwards that he would've won if he was really trying.

Every reason the Bush administration gave for going into Iraq was a lie. No weapons of mass destruction. No alliance with Al-Queda. There was no reason to fight Iraq when the enemy was Bin Laden. What good would pursuing the 'bomb everything' strategy have done? The U.S. still would've had to deal with insurgent forces after the bombings, and probably in far greater numbers, since they would've razed the entire country and killed (even more) innocent people for no reason. Why is this still being compared to World War II? Iraq wasn't Germany. Saddam wasn't Hitler. The problem is that the U.S. is approaching wars with a WWII mindset, when the 'war on terror' is far more complex than just the good countries against the bad countries. If anything, it's like World War I --- the U.S. are the British, still insisted on sending soldiers in regimented, gentlemanly formations to face machine gun nests.



Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 7 min.
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.68
    Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
    The Democrats definitely look stupider, because Bush warned them several times he'd veto any bill that contained a troop withdrawal clause. But they keep passing these bills while at the same time knowing full well they'll be vetoed and that they don't have the votes to override a veto.


The Democrats have three options:
1) To do nothing, which really hasn't been working for them the last 7 years.

2) To only submit legislation that they know Bush will approve, which will seem like a tacit endorsement of Bush's already bungled Iraqi policy.

3) To put forth legislation that will make them look like they're trying to end this debacle.

The Dems feel they have a mandate - which, I might add, is no bigger then some of the mandates Bush feels he had - so for them to not look like they're at least challenging the president on SOME issues would be a waste.


(edited by Leroy on 4.5.07 0918)


"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!"
-Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 3 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
    Or, essentially, wasting an awful lot of time (and in the process, my tax dollars! Whoopee!)


They do that all the time. I was flipping channels and passed C-Span two days ago and saw how they were all yielding their time to the representative from Florida so he could praise the Mens Basketball team.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.04
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Thoughts on the first GOP debate
Next thread: Twisters
Previous thread: John McCain: WTF?
(474 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
From US News and World Reports http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030818/usnews/18gays.htm Gays Force The Issue Republicans and Democrats are discovering they can't avoid homosexual politics. The question is, where are the votes?
The W - Current Events & Politics - Mission Accomplished?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.137 seconds.