Opinions of the current house debate on Iraq.

[nlm]

What do you think of the debate that is currently going on in the House about Iraq, how that debate is being conducted, and the vote that will come out of that debate?

[MODU]

What is there to debate?  We defeated Saddam, we're defeating the insurgents, the Iraqi's have had 3 successful elections (with higher turnouts than in US elections), and their military is taking a bigger roll in policing their nation. 

[nlm]

What is there to debate?  We defeated Saddam, we're defeating the insurgents, the Iraqi's have had 3 successful elections (with higher turnouts than in US elections), and their military is taking a bigger roll in policing their nation. 

So are you saying that Congress is wasting time with this debate? You seem to be saying that you believe there should be no debate on this topic, but what I asked was...

What do you think of the debate that is currently going on in the House about Iraq, how that debate is being conducted, and the vote that will come out of that debate?

[MasterJedi]

What is there to debate?  We defeated Saddam, we're defeating the insurgents, the Iraqi's have had 3 successful elections (with higher turnouts than in US elections), and their military is taking a bigger roll in policing their nation. 

^^^^^^

It's wasting the Senate's time, stay the course. Though it is great to see the Dems so split up on this debate.

[nlm]

As we close in on $320,000,000,000 spent in Iraq, it seems fairly pathetic that this faux debate is the best Congress can manage. Our efforts are starting to look more and more like a massive entitlement program for the Iraqi people and less like an effort to protect the American people. It would seem to me that if the House were doing its job they would be codifying our goals and what costs will be associated with those goals. Insted they have choosen the more liberal approach of - it will cost what ever it ends up costing and we're all sure it will be worth it in the ends because nothing is more important than democracy in Iraq. With the supposedly conservative members of congress thinking on those lines it is no wonder that fiscal conservatism has withered to almost nothing. Little programed shows like this floor debate have become vastly more important to Congress than being responsible stewards of the tax payers money.

[MODU]

Yes, I'm saying it is a waste of time.  There is nothing to debate.  Now, this thing they voted on was stupid to begin with, but that's how the dems and reps play politics over everything. 

[nlm]

Yes, I'm saying it is a waste of time.  There is nothing to debate.  Now, this thing they voted on was stupid to begin with, but that's how the dems and reps play politics over everything. 

While I agree that what was done in the House was a giant waste of time, I disagree with the thought that there is nothing to debate - there is plenty to debate.

When does the cost become too much? $500,000,000,000, $1,000,0000,000,000, $2,000,000,000,000? Have we already passed too much? Is there no such thing as too much? I'm sure there is disagreement on this topic among the American people and thus there should be debate among our elected officials. Most notably among the group in charge of spending our tax dollars.

Are our tax dollars being spent well? Some will say that our tax dollars couldn't be spent better than they are being spent in Iraq. Some will say they couldn't be spent worse. Some think the Iraqi people are getting more bang for their buck out of American tax payer money than Americans are. Some people think that a good portion of the cash would be better used going after terrorists in a more direct manner. And you're honestly suggesting there is nothing for the House of Representives to debate on this topic?

[MODU]

Personally, I don't have any problem with the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can afford it and more.  I do have a problem with how much we spend domestically, and think the government should spend more time cutting the pork, eliminating socialist programs, and pet projects to pander to local and state voters.  Eliminating those will more than pay for our military plus put money back in our pockets.

[nlm]

Personally, I don't have any problem with the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can afford it and more.  I do have a problem with how much we spend domestically, and think the government should spend more time cutting the pork, eliminating socialist programs, and pet projects to pander to local and state voters.  Eliminating those will more than pay for our military plus put money back in our pockets.

And that would constitute an opinion of how our tax dollars should be spent. If the House of Representives were doing its job - they would be having this debate, as opposed to folks on chat boards. But they are not doing their jobs, there is no debate on how our money is spent in Iraq - in fact there is very little debate on how our money is being spent on anything, they are just spending it.

Frankly, I don't see how $320,000,000,000 can be justified as an expense for Iraq. But then I don't see how a great deal of our budget can be justified. Iraq being just another giant waste of tax payer money that is being slammed down our collective throats by a group of fiscal knaves that has the audacity to call itself conservative.

[Nym90]

Personally, I don't have any problem with the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We can afford it and more.  I do have a problem with how much we spend domestically, and think the government should spend more time cutting the pork, eliminating socialist programs, and pet projects to pander to local and state voters.  Eliminating those will more than pay for our military plus put money back in our pockets.

I tend to believe the opposite. I see the domestic programs as highly beneifical to the economy and as creating more wealth than they cost, while Iraq, at least so far, has proved to cost far more than the value of the benefits.

[adam]

Sounds like the Democrats are just outnumbered on the issue, especially with a split in their party. Looks like some of the Democrats in the Senate are tired of their party's "Magnify the Bad" strategy to everything. Despite contrary belief, there isn't as much bad happening with this as there is good.

[nlm]

Sounds like the Democrats are just outnumbered on the issue, especially with a split in their party. Looks like some of the Democrats in the Senate are tired of their party's "Magnify the Bad" strategy to everything. Despite contrary belief, there isn't as much bad happening with this as there is good.

That's way to narrow for me to buy. I'm interested in hearing about what we are getting that is worth the around 500,000,000,000 dollars we will have spent by the time Bush leaves office at the start of '09 (or the around 320,000,000,000 we have already spent if the 500,000,000,000 seems out of line to you). I'm interested in hearing what alternative paths could lead to that same thing and what cost would be associated with them. I'm interested in hearing Congress look at the various goals of our adventure in Iraq and determining the value of those goals individually and seeing what other avenues are available to achieve those goals. It's a tall order - asking Congess to do their job and all. The opinion that "there isn't as much bad happening with this as there is good" hardly indicates that the costs associated with this adventure are worthy. That's very similar to the "if it saves one life it's worth it" line of thinking - what if you could save 50 lives using the same cash, what if you could could save that same "one life" for a third of the cost. The same thing applies here, but our Congress (on both sides of the aisle, though the GOP controls the rules of engagement within the House at this moment so they deserve some extra smack down) is more interested in playing partisan political games than doing their jobs, and it is the American tax payer that is footing the bill for them failing to do their jobs.

[Nym90]

Sounds like the Democrats are just outnumbered on the issue, especially with a split in their party. Looks like some of the Democrats in the Senate are tired of their party's "Magnify the Bad" strategy to everything. Despite contrary belief, there isn't as much bad happening with this as there is good.

That's way to narrow for me to buy. I'm interested in hearing about what we are getting that is worth the around 500,000,000,000 dollars we will have spent by the time Bush leaves office at the start of '09 (or the around 320,000,000,000 we have already spent if the 500,000,000,000 seems out of line to you). I'm interested in hearing what alternative paths could lead to that same thing and what cost would be associated with them. I'm interested in hearing Congress look at the various goals of our adventure in Iraq and determining the value of those goals individually and seeing what other avenues are available to achieve those goals. It's a tall order - asking Congess to do their job and all. The opinion that "there isn't as much bad happening with this as there is good" hardly indicates that the costs associated with this adventure are worthy. That's very similar to the "if it saves one life it's worth it" line of thinking - what if you could save 50 lives using the same cash, what if you could could save that same "one life" for a third of the cost. The same thing applies here, but our Congress (on both sides of the aisle, though the GOP controls the rules of engagement within the House at this moment so they deserve some extra smack down) is more interested in playing partisan political games than doing their jobs, and it is the American tax payer that is footing the bill for them failing to do their jobs.

Exactly; very well said.

The real question is whether what we are doing is the best and most cost efficient course of action; if not, we should change. I haven't seen any convincing evidence to suggest that our current course is worth the expenditure of time, money, effort, and people.

I agree with the overall goal and mission, but I don't think it's been worth the costs. I also don't have much trust in the President's motives or leadership, but even leaving that aside, I think the cost is the big issue here.