Senate panel votes against Bush on Iraq

[Cleese]

Link

Bush pissed into the wind on calling for more troops last night during the State of the Union address.

[TeleportSandwich]

lol "bi-partisen" non binding resolution

Translation: this will change NOTHING in Bush's plans. If the Dem's really want to put a stop to this so-called surge, they need to find a way to cut funding.

[Nega-Brent]

A minor increase in troop numbers isn't a change of strategy.

[The Lone Magician]

21500 is not a small number.

[Nega-Brent]

21500 is not a small number.

It is in comparison to the number of troops already there and it only raises the number of troops back up to their original amount.

[Cleese]

actual number matters not, current polls show how vehemently opposed people are to the idea of even sending even one more soldier to Iraq. This senate panel's reaction shows how well the senate (& possibly the house too) agree with his proposal.

[GummyBearOfDoom]

It is in comparison to the number of troops already there and it only raises the number of troops back up to their original amount.

Actually it is a large increase to the number of troops there, isn't it like 10%?

[bizzarozod]

it is a large number of people, some of who are going to die, regardless of by what percentage it increases the total number of troops

[Nega-Brent]

Actually it is a large increase to the number of troops there, isn't it like 10%?

Which isn't a large increase at all. I've already mentioned that it merely raises the number of troops back to around the original force, but the estimated amount for success was 300,000. Basically all Bush has done and is made everyone on leave come back and replaced those who have been maimed, wounded, or killed.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Actually it is a large increase to the number of troops there, isn't it like 10%?

Ten percent isn't a large number.

I leave more than 10% for a tip.

70% and up is what the war needs. But we don't have the resources to maintain the moral and equipment of what we already have there.

This is just one more example that traditional warfare is dead in the modern world.

[Ceraziefish]

Ten percent isn't a large number.

I leave more than 10% for a tip.

70% and up is what the war needs. But we don't have the resources to maintain the moral and equipment of what we already have there.

This is just one more example that traditional warfare is dead in the modern world.

I agree with GPS on his second point; but on the first point ("70% and up...") I don't really think that any amount of troops is going to win this war, because this isn't a war that's going to be won with soldiers.

As for the second post, though, our army is still made to fight conflicts in the 19th century, and we didn't learn anything from the Vietnam War.

[Nega-Brent]

I agree with GPS on his second point; but on the first point ("70% and up...") I don't really think that any amount of troops is going to win this war, because this isn't a war that's going to be won with soldiers.

As for the second post, though, our army is still made to fight conflicts in the 19th century, and we didn't learn anything from the Vietnam War.

Right... I think we all forgot the war of 1969 where the conflict was resolved through mutual oral sex.

[TeleportSandwich]

Right... I think we all forgot the war of 1969 where the conflict was resolved through mutual oral sex.

Historical film or it didn't happen :hardgay:

[Cleese]

Diplomacy died with World War 1

[Ceraziefish]

Diplomacy died with World War 1

I'm beginning to think this is true, but could I ask you to elaborate on that statement?

I don't mean to be an ass, I'm just interested as to your line of thought.

[Cleese]

well to be blunt and overly-general, diplomacy was the long-term cause for the war.

I'll go more into this later or tomorrow, gonna watch the rest of futureweapons.

[TeleportSandwich]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...ution13.art.htm

The first resolution gets voted down from even being discussed on the senete floor and this is what they come up with as a replacement. Pathetic.

[Satan]

I agree with GPS on his second point; but on the first point ("70% and up...") I don't really think that any amount of troops is going to win this war, because this isn't a war that's going to be won with soldiers.

As for the second post, though, our army is still made to fight conflicts in the 19th century, and we didn't learn anything from the Vietnam War.

I still say that yes, one million soldiers properly armed and deployed could win this war, but it wouldn't fly politically, since genocide is frowned on by a larg part of the population.