God DAMMIT Fucking all to HELL !!!!

[DR CHIP]

Not Karl....sorry

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DR CHIP
Not Karl....sorry

Of course not.

Turd Blossom is at least intelligent with a grasp of American politics, albeit dishonest and without an ounce of soul......

You're just an ignorant fuckstump.

You may now return to another forum.....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Unchainme
I'm really starting to lean towards the left on this issue,

You really don't need to lean left on this issue, bro, just to be disgusted and amazed at what we've become

You can hold onto your right leanings, i.e. Chuck Hagel, John McCain, et al and still manage to see the disgusting waste of human life.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by DR CHIP


When these terrorists come to your town and blow up your families, kids, friends, and neighbors - AND DON'T THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT THEY WOULDN'T LOVE TO DO IT RIGHT NOW - then may be you will understand why we are fighting over there....

uh, dude, the iraqi war is not about fighting terrorists. most of the "insurgents" in iraq are not there to fight for muslim ideals. they're there to get control of iraq.

mind you, i'm not siding with them. they don't want a democratic process in iraq because they know that they will lose.

that's why the majority of the causualties have been iraqi police/army trainees.



that said, should we pull every troop out this second? no, i don't think so. we are responsible for what happens to iraq. we changed their government, for right or for wrong. we cannot undo that.

whether this war was justified or not (and i happen to believe it was not), the fact is that we took a relatively stable country (albeit, with a tyrannical dictator) and removed their governmental infrastructure. if the country falls into complete chaos (and no, they're not there right now) then it will be America's fault.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by blueturk
What terrorists are you talking about exactly, my wool-covered friend? The ones in Iraq that perpetrated 9/11? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. What the fuck ever happened to capturing bin Laden? Can you explain that to me please? You fucking sheep kill me.

Turk,

You're not actually expecting Dr. CowChip to give you an answer other than what he's learned listening to Rush while delivering our pizzas, are you



11.16.05

5 MORE MARINES KILLED TODAY FOR NO GOOD REASON

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
uh, dude, the iraqi war is not about fighting terrorists. most of the "insurgents" in iraq are not there to fight for muslim ideals. they're there to get control of iraq.

mind you, i'm not siding with them. they don't want a democratic process in iraq because they know that they will lose.

that's why the majority of the causualties have been iraqi police/army trainees.



that said, should we pull every troop out this second? no, i don't think so. we are responsible for what happens to iraq. we changed their government, for right or for wrong. we cannot undo that.

whether this war was justified or not (and i happen to believe it was not), the fact is that we took a relatively stable country (albeit, with a tyrannical dictator) and removed their governmental infrastructure. if the country falls into complete chaos (and no, they're not there right now) then it will be America's fault.

100% CORRECT.

2,078 AMERICAN LIVES, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS, 300 BILLION DOLLARS, AND 3 YEARS LATER...................

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

We cannot win this, E.

Lounge, I respect the hell out of ya man, but you are wrong here because we are winning.
The acts of desperation from those fucks is a clear sign of that.

I don't support this war in the name of Bush, I support this war in the name of every soldier there because they support the mission and believe in what they are doing, and those i now personally tell me they are winning.

But i tell ya, claiming that we can't win...that made me shutter, bro.
No soldier will ever hear me say that, or see me write that about them and their progress.
Trust me my friend, there are way more good things going on over there than any of us will see on tv or in print.

It won't bring those 5 marines back, but please don't make it worse by claiming they died fighting a losing battle because that just is not true.

I'd trade my life for all 2000+ that have given everything to this conflict in a heartbeat.
They are succeeding and they most definately will be victorious in honor of those who have fallen.

[LoungeMachine]

Amen, Cat.

Well said,..... and you know how much I admire and respect you.


God how I hope you're right on this one.

Peace, bro.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Trust me my friend, there are way more good things going on over there than any of us will see on tv or in print.

I believe that as well...

I need to start posting more success stories regarding the war...

And regargless of what you liberals think or say, there are some, many in fact...

It won't bring those 5 marines back, but please don't make it worse by claiming they died fighting a losing battle because that just is not true.

Amen, and may God bless them...

[LoungeMachine]

And bless those 5 families tonight, God what they must be going through......

I hate this.

[BigBadBrian]

I think our brave young Marines need to spend about two more weeks on the rifle range before coming out of Boot Camp and the Democrats in Congress need to STFU when budget increases are needed for the increased ammo.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think our brave young Marines need to spend about two more weeks on the rifle range before coming out of Boot Camp and the Democrats in Congress need to STFU when budget increases are needed for the increased ammo.

Are you suggesting Dems have held up ammo funding for Iraq?

Source please.


And 2 more years on the range won't help against roadside bombs, but I hear more armor will.

"sometime you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" Donald Rumsfeld

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Are you suggesting Dems have held up ammo funding for Iraq?

Source please.


And 2 more years on the range won't help against roadside bombs, but I hear more armor will.

"sometime you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" Donald Rumsfeld

Who gave Donnie that Army?

Who didn't armor those Humvees before hand?

Oh, that's right, they were never intended for those types of missions or to be an armored personnel carrier.

The Humvee was a replacement for the Jeep, nothing more.

[LoungeMachine]

Congress uses emergency spending bill to reinstate cuts

BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES

Chicago Tribune


WASHINGTON - Congress, eager to show support for American troops fighting overseas, is on the verge of setting aside up to $50 billion in "emergency" spending to help pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars next year.

But as much as 5 percent of that fund may not go for war costs at all, according to outside budget analysts. Instead, they say, Congress is using the emergency bill, known as a bridge fund, to stealthily reinstate cuts that it claims to have made in the Pentagon's regular budget.

That shift in funding is just one of the behind-the-scenes maneuvers in what critics call the shell game that is the Pentagon's 2006 budget, which lawmakers are finishing now. That game has gotten more elaborate with Congress facing competing pressures to fund two wars and cut an increasingly out-of-control federal budget.

"It's just become a budget gimmick on steroids," Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said of the restored cuts in the emergency fund. "It just gives them a chance to take those costs off budget."

Congressional leaders defend the emergency war funding. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said the additional money will provide essential military equipment, whether it was shifted from the regular Pentagon budget or not.

"We were very careful," Young said. "What we included in the House budget fund was strictly for fighting the war on terror, equipment that our presently deployed troops need, such as armor for Humvees, armor for bodies and ammunition."

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts now have cost more than $350 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, and the White House is expected to ask early next year for another special payment.

The House and Senate each have approved a version of the 2006 defense spending bill. The Senate version is about $390 billion, not including spending on the wars, and the House provides $409 billion, excluding $45 billion for war funding. They are now negotiating a final version.

But the Iraq and Afghanistan emergency fund is not the only place the so-called shell game is playing out.

About $10 billion to pay for veterans' medical costs have disappeared from the Senate version of the bill altogether, for example. Instead it has been foisted on the U.S. Treasury, allowing the Senate to claim its version of the Pentagon budget is $7 billion below the White House request of $397 billion.

A congressional source said the White House Office of Management and Budget is trying to block that money-moving, which has gone largely unnoticed.

"My guess is that you will never hear a peep about this as they debate the bill," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer and author of "Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security."

Congressional negotiators and the OMB declined to comment on the defense bill until the House and Senate agree on a final version, which could be in the next few weeks.

Facing a growing tab for hurricane-relief efforts, some in Congress have suggested a fresh look at Pentagon spending. But it is difficult to make a dent in the defense budget once both sides have signed off. It includes several hundred pages and billions of dollars of hard-won compromises over military operating costs, weapons purchases and special projects for particular states and congressional districts.

In the Senate, the Pentagon spending bill sailed through earlier this month by a 97-0 vote. The House version passed 398-19 in June.

Both versions provide much of what the White House asked for, including full funding for premier weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet, the C-17 cargo plane, the Marines' V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

This year, both the House and Senate tried to beat the White House to the war-funding punch by approving the emergency fund.

While that might look like good planning, budget watchdogs say it's also a chance for Congress to stretch the definition of "emergency" and use the extra money for purchases that have little or nothing to do with the war.

"It's invisible. ... It doesn't go through the normal vetting process," said Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. His group estimates that more than $3 billion in non-war spending has found its way into war funding in recent years, including such items as expansion of a wastewater plant in Pennsylvania and forest road maintenance in California.

A recent study by Wheeler, the former Senate staffer who now works for the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, notes that the Senate cut $343.8 million in Army depot funding, some of which is used to maintain combat vehicles and equipment and some of which is used for other things. But then the money reappears at a higher level of $1.4 billion in the emergency fund.

The Senate also cut $56 million from $680 million in upgrades to the Army's Apache helicopter, Wheeler's report states, then restored $98 million in upgrades in the emergency bill. An additional $447 million in cuts to operating expenses across the service, Wheeler found, appeared again in the emergency budget.

Rep. Young said some of those shifts may reflect a conscious decision to move military items from the annual budget to the emergency war fund. House leaders, he said, kept pork out of the emergency funding, limiting it to items requested by the military.

"There are no so-called earmarks, where members come in and ask you for something," Young said. "That was our position, and the members understood that."

Still, the attempt by Congress to pre-empt the administration's war spending could end up costing more in the end.

Although the administration has yet to ask for its 2006 war funding, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts will cost $85 billion in 2006. Young said recent discussions with administration officials suggest that those costs could be even higher, though he declined to name a figure.

If so, some fear, Congress could end up paying some 2006 war costs now - and then paying the administration's full request later.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And bless those 5 families tonight, God what they must be going through......

I hate this.

If any of them live within 100 miles of me, I'll be at their memorial service...I don't know what else to do and I have to do something or i'll go crazy.

I do think that it would be a good idea for our political leaders to stop fighting over this and accept that we are there and must finish the job so they can band together to support our troops the way they deserve to be supported.
The insurgents are losing, but all this vocal dissention is a disaster for our soldiers because the enemy is benefitting from our division on the issue.

They expect us to cut and run like we have before when things got politically damaging for us....but we must all make damn sure that doesn't happen because like Knuckleboner stated, Iraq is now America's responsibility.