House Votes to Cut Off Funding for Iraq War.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Fri May 16, 2008 8:36 am

Just received this info in a message from "True Majority"and it is a beautiful way to start my day:

I wanted to share some breaking news. The House of Representatives just voted 149 to 141 to cut off funding for the war in Iraq.

This was followed by votes to put significant restrictions on President Bush's war policy, including a timeline for withdrawal, and creating a new GI Bill to help returning veterans.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri May 16, 2008 11:46 am

This was followed by votes to put significant restrictions on President Bush's war policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

He did not act alone..

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Fri May 16, 2008 11:58 am

And that would be why I'm not voting for her.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri May 16, 2008 1:08 pm

Obama did not vote on the war because he was not in the US Senate at the time of the vote.

Phil Florian · Post by **Phil Florian** » Fri May 16, 2008 5:06 pm

Stephen Eisel wrote:Obama did not vote on the war because he was not in the US Senate at the time of the vote.

Neither did I.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri May 16, 2008 5:48 pm

Phil Florian wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:Obama did not vote on the war because he was not in the US Senate at the time of the vote.

Neither did I.

and you are not running for president

Phil Florian · Post by **Phil Florian** » Sat May 17, 2008 10:03 am

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Phil Florian wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:Obama did not vote on the war because he was not in the US Senate at the time of the vote.

Neither did I.
and you are not running for president

Just pointing out a silly non-sequitur with one of my own.

Only people in the Congress at the time of the War's beginning can have an opinion or vote that matters?

ryan costa · Post by **ryan costa** » Sat May 17, 2008 1:00 pm

This sounds like strong token legislation that is actually impossible to achieve.

The previous resolution to invade Iraq that so many people voted on seemed both vague and non-committal. I am guessing it was something cool to vote for with the (mis)understanding it wouldn't actually be acted on.

Reports in the media occasionally focus on any insurgent enabling coming from Iran. Iran has about 60 million people. If less than 1 percent throw a few tokens at Iraqi insurgents it is still 600,000 Iranians supporting terrism or revolutionism or something.

We need a few Iranians to act against U.S. interests in Iraq. This will distract our public's attention from all the Iraqis and Saudis acting against our interests in Iraq. Considering many of the Iraqis acting against our interests in Iraq were formerly in groups "repressed" by the Saddam Hussein administration, it is even more important that some Iranians act against U.S. interests in Iraq. Our strong emotional capacity for purpose and outrage can only be focused on a 5 degree field of vision at any one time, so it is best not focused on our own leaders or the Saudis or anything other than the Iranians.

Showing Saddam Hussein who was boss was supposed to make everything cool. It was supposed to end the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist threat also somehow, and make oil cheaper, or something.

for some set of reasons Oil is much more expensive these days. Does this make us more anxious or less anxious to control or have big influence in a place with oil?

Iran has a lot of oil, but they just ain't doing it right. Once we show Iran who is boss it might make oil cheaper and end the threat of Al Queda in Iran. Ending the threat of Al Queda usually involves invading a place where Al Queda is not strong or active or significantly present, then showing them who is boss. For some reason Al Queda moves in afterwards and manages to successfully recruit members willing to work for a few dollars a day. But most of the people they kill aren't Americans, so it isn't that bad. We have to fight them there to avoid fighting them here, because in a few hundred million years of plate tectonics there might be a large land border between the Arabian Peninsula and North America.

The Saudis have a lot of oil also. They spare us from the indignity of contronting our annual deficits and big bank collapses by investing lots of money in these losing ventures. This generates jobs in high finance Niches which should probably not exist at the scale they do.

Whether the top Saudis view this as a tax or tribute or a security payment I do not know. Saudi Arabia is a very overpopulated place, and most of the oil money collects at the top. Any revolution there will obviously be the work of communists or socialists or Al Queda.

In terms of manipulating our own populace, we can tell them invading these places will secure more oil. In actuality this also increases the cost (value) of oil, and gives our own higher ups more control or influence over it(it is ok, they are doing it for us/for America).

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Sat May 17, 2008 5:51 pm

Phil Florian wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
Phil Florian wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:Obama did not vote on the war because he was not in the US Senate at the time of the vote.

Neither did I.
and you are not running for president

Just pointing out a silly non-sequitur with one of my own. Only people in the Congress at the time of the War's beginning can have an opinion or vote that matters?

Sorry Phil! I forgpot to put a smiley icon after my last comment....