That's all there is to it. A mod of mine said it all:

http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php?topic=6274.0


Frank's post at the very bottom. Only thing I have to add is a shitload of expletives.


Oh, and for those of you that think Republicans are Chickenhawks,

http://www.vote4frank.com/bio.htm

http://www.vote4frank.com/service.htm


You libs do not know of what you ask. This isn't f'n Vietnam. I pray it's not my f'n city that's attacked next. Since libs tend to horde in large cities, maybe you guys will be the only ones affected. When it DOES happen, not IF it happens, DOES, do NOT ***** about a damn thing. It was you guys that decided to give up.

I don't disagree with you, but with the huge proportion of anti-war sentiment in this country now (well over 50%) it only makes sense for them to have this view. It helps keep them elected.

I think Iraq is going to end up in a civil war no matter what. But a non-binding resolution has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Seriously...whats the point?

dwr0109 Wrote:I think Iraq is going to end up in a civil war no matter what. But a non-binding resolution has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Seriously...whats the point?

So a politician can run on the fact that voted "against" the war.

non-binding resolutions are the height of cowardice and stupidity.

mlb Wrote:I don't disagree with you, but with the huge proportion of anti-war sentiment in this country now (well over 50%) it only makes sense for them to have this view. It helps keep them elected.

50% of whom?? The entire nation?!?!?!? Ohh, I think not. Polls are polls and they are manipulated to show what the pollster wants. Nobody polled me, Kev or many other people.

Thor Wrote:

mlb Wrote:I don't disagree with you, but with the huge proportion of anti-war sentiment in this country now (well over 50%) it only makes sense for them to have this view. It helps keep them elected.

50% of whom?? The entire nation?!?!?!? Ohh, I think not. Polls are polls and they are manipulated to show what the pollster wants. Nobody polled me, Kev or many other people.

Has anyone been polled? I've never been polled in my life. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone that has. The local radio talk show here in Augusta, Austin Rhodes, said he had and the only question was, "Are you happy with the way the Bush Administration is handling the war?". He said no.....and they ended the call. He explained on the air that he thought we should be even more aggressive. They didn't want to know the reason why. Did I mention Austin is a supporter of the war and a Republican?

If that's the way polls are conducted, I don't want their "science" any f'n where near me. That poll turned out to be a poll approval/disapproval poll for Bush. One f'n question.

Based on how many democrats won seats in the last election, I would bet that the majority of people are not happy with what Bush has done in Iraq thus far. I have never been polled either, but with 300 million people in the country, what are the odds? If they mention a poll though, they should at least tell you what question was asked. But that would be way too in-depth for the 3rd grade level media we have nowadays.

Could it be that the Democrats wanted a non-binding resolution because the surge troops are said to be already in Iraq, so if you do a binding resolution that cuts off funds, you're cutting off funds to troops already fighting in Iraq? The result would be predictable - claims that the Dems are not supporting the troops. Just guessing, I can't think of any other reason. A symbolic gesture is not helpful at this point, I don't think. If the democratic politicians didn't want a surge, they should have taken a closer look at the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place, and voted "NO" at that point. Too late now.

NIU007 Wrote:Based on how many democrats won seats in the last election, I would bet that the majority of people are not happy with what Bush has done in Iraq thus far. I have never been polled either, but with 300 million people in the country, what are the odds? If they mention a poll though, they should at least tell you what question was asked. But that would be way too in-depth for the 3rd grade level media we have nowadays.

Could it be that the Democrats wanted a non-binding resolution because the surge troops are said to be already in Iraq, so if you do a binding resolution that cuts off funds, you're cutting off funds to troops already fighting in Iraq? The result would be predictable - claims that the Dems are not supporting the troops. Just guessing, I can't think of any other reason. A symbolic gesture is not helpful at this point, I don't think. If the democratic politicians didn't want a surge, they should have taken a closer look at the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place, and voted "NO" at that point. Too late now.

You do know that most of the Democrats that were elected were considered "conservative", right? Also, the Republicans that were voted out were considered liberal.

NIU007 Wrote:Could it be that the Democrats wanted a non-binding resolution because the surge troops are said to be already in Iraq, so if you do a binding resolution that cuts off funds, you're cutting off funds to troops already fighting in Iraq? The result would be predictable - claims that the Dems are not supporting the troops. Just guessing, I can't think of any other reason. A symbolic gesture is not helpful at this point, I don't think. If the democratic politicians didn't want a surge, they should have taken a closer look at the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place, and voted "NO" at that point. Too late now.

So what you're saying is that the dems will stick to the courage of their "convictions", as long as it costs them absolutely nothing.

If the dems really gave two sh!ts about the troops, then they'd vote their conscience (at least what they claim is their conscience) and vote to cut off funding so Bush would be forced to bring the troops home. The fact that they won't shows they are hypocrits and cowards.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:Could it be that the Democrats wanted a non-binding resolution because the surge troops are said to be already in Iraq, so if you do a binding resolution that cuts off funds, you're cutting off funds to troops already fighting in Iraq? The result would be predictable - claims that the Dems are not supporting the troops. Just guessing, I can't think of any other reason. A symbolic gesture is not helpful at this point, I don't think. If the democratic politicians didn't want a surge, they should have taken a closer look at the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place, and voted "NO" at that point. Too late now.

So what you're saying is that the dems will stick to the courage of their "convictions", as long as it costs them absolutely nothing.

If the dems really gave two sh!ts about the troops, then they'd vote their conscience (at least what they claim is their conscience) and vote to cut off funding so Bush would be forced to bring the troops home. The fact that they won't shows they are hypocrits and cowards.

I don't agree. Is Bush going to really bring the troops home if funding is cut off for the additional troops? I doubt it. He's more likely to leave them there and, as I said, the Republicans can point to the Dems and say that if they're underequipped it's because of the Dems. They'll say the troops are fighting the war with one arm tied behind their backs because of the Dems. Doesn't take any imagination to know that would be next.

And what makes you think Bush cares any more about the troops than the Dems do? Did he fight in any wars? Nope.

I'm not sure if the Dems voted their convictions when the invasion of Iraq first came up - did they believe the evidence? Or did they not want to seem unpatriotic? Any time someone argues against being in Iraq they're labeled as unpatriotic. That's not an excuse for a congressman to vote a certain way. But I can see where it would be used against them.

NIU007 Wrote:And what makes you think Bush cares any more about the troops than the Dems do? Did he fight in any wars? Nope.

Actions.

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:And what makes you think Bush cares any more about the troops than the Dems do? Did he fight in any wars? Nope.

Actions.

what types of actions? sacrificing them for a war we didnt need to fight?

Quote:I don't agree. Is Bush going to really bring the troops home if funding is cut off for the additional troops? I doubt it. He's more likely to leave them there and, as I said, the Republicans can point to the Dems and say that if they're underequipped it's because of the Dems. They'll say the troops are fighting the war with one arm tied behind their backs because of the Dems. Doesn't take any imagination to know that would be next.

Bush would have to bring them home. No funding means no money for ammo, gas, food etc. It's not a matter of under equipped if funding is cut off, it's a matter of not equipped at all. Bush isn't going to leave them there with nothing to try and make a political statement about the dems. To try and argue otherwise is pointless.

Quote:And what makes you think Bush cares any more about the troops than the Dems do? Did he fight in any wars? Nope.

I've never fought a war, are you saying I don't care about the troops? FDR never fought in a war, guess he didn't care about the troops in WWII. Pelosi has never fought in a war, so obviously she can't care about the troops. As Kev said it's actions that show what a person really feels. And a non-binding resolution shows exactly what matters to the democrats and republicans who voted for it.

I've never been dead either, doesn't mean I can't write an obituary.

Quote:I'm not sure if the Dems voted their convictions when the invasion of Iraq first came up - did they believe the evidence? Or did they not want to seem unpatriotic? Any time someone argues against being in Iraq they're labeled as unpatriotic. That's not an excuse for a congressman to vote a certain way. But I can see where it would be used against them.

This unpatriotic myth makes me laugh out loud everytime I hear it. If the dems are really worried about troops, really have the conviction this war is wrong, really care so much about our troops and don't want to see them continue to fight in a hopeless war, they'd vote to cut off funding and force Bush to bring them home. The fact that they won't do that shows they are perfectly content to simply have the issue.

And BTW, you said you disagreed with my point, but every word you spoke after that made my point. The point isn't that they don't care, it's that they care about winning elections and keeping their power more. And everything you just wrote validates that.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:I don't agree. Is Bush going to really bring the troops home if funding is cut off for the additional troops? I doubt it. He's more likely to leave them there and, as I said, the Republicans can point to the Dems and say that if they're underequipped it's because of the Dems. They'll say the troops are fighting the war with one arm tied behind their backs because of the Dems. Doesn't take any imagination to know that would be next.

Bush would have to bring them home. No funding means no money for ammo, gas, food etc. It's not a matter of under equipped if funding is cut off, it's a matter of not equipped at all. Bush isn't going to leave them there with nothing to try and make a political statement about the dems. To try and argue otherwise is pointless.

Quote:And what makes you think Bush cares any more about the troops than the Dems do? Did he fight in any wars? Nope.

I've never fought a war, are you saying I don't care about the troops? FDR never fought in a war, guess he didn't care about the troops in WWII. Pelosi has never fought in a war, so obviously she can't care about the troops. As Kev said it's actions that show what a person really feels. And a non-binding resolution shows exactly what matters to the democrats and republicans who voted for it.

I've never been dead either, doesn't mean I can't write an obituary.

Quote:I'm not sure if the Dems voted their convictions when the invasion of Iraq first came up - did they believe the evidence? Or did they not want to seem unpatriotic? Any time someone argues against being in Iraq they're labeled as unpatriotic. That's not an excuse for a congressman to vote a certain way. But I can see where it would be used against them.

This unpatriotic myth makes me laugh out loud everytime I hear it. If the dems are really worried about troops, really have the conviction this war is wrong, really care so much about our troops and don't want to see them continue to fight in a hopeless war, they'd vote to cut off funding and force Bush to bring them home. The fact that they won't do that shows they are perfectly content to simply have the issue.

And BTW, you said you disagreed with my point, but every word you spoke after that made my point. The point isn't that they don't care, it's that they care about winning elections and keeping their power more. And everything you just wrote validates that.

Unpatriotic myth? Now that's funny. Anybody that says that soldiers were sent over there needlessly is called unpatriotic. I've heard that plenty of times.

The Dems, like Bush, don't want to just pull everybody out immediately, which is why they didn't want to cut off funding altogether. If we pull out, chances are very good you end up with civil war continuing in Iraq. They just didn't agree with adding more troops to the mix, as most people don't seem to think it will help.

Because the Dems didn't vote to cut funding to force the soldiers out of Iraq, that makes them worse than the guy that put them there and is keeping them there, in the first place? The republican congressmen didn't vote to pull them out either. Bush hasn't pulled them out either. What kind of logic is that?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:what types of actions? sacrificing them for a war we didnt need to fight?

Seems the people that say this aren't the ones actually serving.

Yeah, gas is $2/gallon again. The war was worth it!

NIU007 Wrote:Because the Dems didn't vote to cut funding to force the soldiers out of Iraq, that makes them worse than the guy that put them there and is keeping them there, in the first place? The republican congressmen didn't vote to pull them out either. Bush hasn't pulled them out either. What kind of logic is that?

That little non-binding resolution wasn't as pointless as you think it was. Our enemy received the message loud and clear. No, I don't think the Dems understand this as I don't think they know how to defend this nation. To them it's just an attack on the President. They couldn't be more f'n wrong.

Quote:Unpatriotic myth? Now that's funny. Anybody that says that soldiers were sent over there needlessly is called unpatriotic. I've heard that plenty of times.

That makes one of us.

Quote:The Dems, like Bush, don't want to just pull everybody out immediately, which is why they didn't want to cut off funding altogether. If we pull out, chances are very good you end up with civil war continuing in Iraq. They just didn't agree with adding more troops to the mix, as most people don't seem to think it will help.

The general in charge of the operation, who the dems unanimously approved of says he needs them. So why don't you explain to me why you would unanimously approve the general in charge of the mission yet bluster all day long and pass non-binding resolutions that in effect say he's wrong about what he says he needs to succeed.

And you're wrong about the dems not wanting the troops out now. Hillary has said that the pullout should begin in 90 days.

Quote:Because the Dems didn't vote to cut funding to force the soldiers out of Iraq, that makes them worse than the guy that put them there and is keeping them there, in the first place? The republican congressmen didn't vote to pull them out either. Bush hasn't pulled them out either. What kind of logic is that?

You're still not getting it. Your basis for "worse" is the fact that they are there because you don't believe they should be. I don't say worse because I believe they should be. I say bad, because the dems are blustering all over the place about how they shouldn't be there and it's wrong for them to be there, yet they won't do what they have the power to do in order to bring them home. I call that cowardly and I call it hypocritical. The republicans that are now against this war are just as bad as the dems are who voted for this non-binding resolution.

Think about it this way. The American people have decided they hate the way cars are being made. So they elect me and my team to fix the way cars are made because we say we agree with them that the way cars are made is bad. After being put in a position to change it, instead of changing, we continue to yell about how wrong the way cars are made is while doing nothing to change it. We've got the power to do so, and the American car buyer put us in place to do so. But we refuse, and instead just release a statement through our PR person that reiterates just how wrong the way cars are made is.

That is exactly what the dems, and republicans, did with this cowardly non-binding resolution. They got themselves on record has opposing the plan yet did nothing about it, even though they have the power to do so.

Empty gestures from old windbags and hypocrits may toot your horn, but I find them repulsive.

So getting back to the original point, the question was asked what's the point of a non-binding resolution. And the point is so the dems and republicans who voted for it can go on record as against it, thinking that will be enough to appease people while not actually having to do a damn thing about it.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Unpatriotic myth? Now that's funny. Anybody that says that soldiers were sent over there needlessly is called unpatriotic. I've heard that plenty of times.

That makes one of us.

Quote:The Dems, like Bush, don't want to just pull everybody out immediately, which is why they didn't want to cut off funding altogether. If we pull out, chances are very good you end up with civil war continuing in Iraq. They just didn't agree with adding more troops to the mix, as most people don't seem to think it will help.

The general in charge of the operation, who the dems unanimously approved of says he needs them. So why don't you explain to me why you would unanimously approve the general in charge of the mission yet bluster all day long and pass non-binding resolutions that in effect say he's wrong about what he says he needs to succeed.

And you're wrong about the dems not wanting the troops out now. Hillary has said that the pullout should begin in 90 days.

Quote:Because the Dems didn't vote to cut funding to force the soldiers out of Iraq, that makes them worse than the guy that put them there and is keeping them there, in the first place? The republican congressmen didn't vote to pull them out either. Bush hasn't pulled them out either. What kind of logic is that?

You're still not getting it. Your basis for "worse" is the fact that they are there because you don't believe they should be. I don't say worse because I believe they should be. I say bad, because the dems are blustering all over the place about how they shouldn't be there and it's wrong for them to be there, yet they won't do what they have the power to do in order to bring them home. I call that cowardly and I call it hypocritical. The republicans that are now against this war are just as bad as the dems are who voted for this non-binding resolution.

Think about it this way. The American people have decided they hate the way cars are being made. So they elect me and my team to fix the way cars are made because we say we agree with them that the way cars are made is bad. After being put in a position to change it, instead of changing, we continue to yell about how wrong the way cars are made is while doing nothing to change it. We've got the power to do so, and the American car buyer put us in place to do so. But we refuse, and instead just release a statement through our PR person that reiterates just how wrong the way cars are made is.

That is exactly what the dems, and republicans, did with this cowardly non-binding resolution. They got themselves on record has opposing the plan yet did nothing about it, even though they have the power to do so.

Empty gestures from old windbags and hypocrits may toot your horn, but I find them repulsive.

So getting back to the original point, the question was asked what's the point of a non-binding resolution. And the point is so the dems and republicans who voted for it can go on record as against it, thinking that will be enough to appease people while not actually having to do a damn thing about it.

I have to say, I didn't like how they were patting themselves on the back after the resolution passed in the house. Most of these were Dems that didn't vote against the war originally. As I said before, it's too late now, unless they're going to force all the soldiers out of there. I hadn't heard what Hillary's official stance was on a pullout. So I'm not sure our opinions are all that different regarding the resolution. I just disagreed from the beginning about having to be in Iraq in the first place.

NIU007 Wrote:I have to say, I didn't like how they were patting themselves on the back after the resolution passed in the house. Most of these were Dems that didn't vote against the war originally. As I said before, it's too late now, unless they're going to force all the soldiers out of there. I hadn't heard what Hillary's official stance was on a pullout. So I'm not sure our opinions are all that different regarding the resolution. I just disagreed from the beginning about having to be in Iraq in the first place.

If you've never wavered from that position, we don't have a problem. I know people don't support the war. What I can't f'n stand is those that did, now say they were lied to. It's these people that change their stance on issues as fast as the wind changes directions that I have a problem with. Toby Keith didn't support the war.

This vote was meaningless, and yes, it did send a strong message to our enemy. General Giap knew this years ago. He knew we couldn't be beat militarily and knew he had to do everything in his power to get the left wing on his side.