NationStates Jolt Archive

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070327/D8O4P0TO2.html

AP NEWS:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

There are more details on the article.

So, it comes.

Thoughts?

And b/c the president will veto and they don't have 2/3 it means nothing except that we are being told to do a job that we won't be allowed to finish.

Too bad its going to be vetoed. Oh well, that just shows who really wants to keep troops in harms way.

good for them.

The Veto issue is a good point, in that they barely scraped up the votes to do this in the first place, but I'm hoping that pressing the issue will force many to examine where they stand. At least the Democrats having now fulfilled their promise in that they attempted this.

Props to the Dems for holding ranks.

And b/c the president will veto and they don't have 2/3 it means nothing except that we are being told to do a job that we won't be allowed to finish.

Its a shame really. Its like, whats the point of passing this when they know it is going to get struck down. I still can't believe there are still people there that think that we can still achieve "victory" at this point.

Well i can but still...I'm an optimist.

Too bad its going to be vetoed. Oh well, that just shows who really wants to keep troops in harms way.

I don't care what argument that you make for pulling out of Iraq but please don't use that one.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070327/D8O4P0TO2.html

AP NEWS:



There are more details on the article.

So, it comes.

Thoughts?

It'd be a nice 21st birthday present for me, given that the war was a 16th birthday present, more or less.

I just wish Bush would listen to the fucking people already and not insist on vetoing such a bill.

So let me get this straight.

The people who the people voted in last time have delivered the promises they made at the last election, and yet the person who hasn't faced a vote in over two years gets to veto this alone.

I love the "worlds greatest democracy".

So let me get this straight.

The people who the people voted in last time have delivered the promises they made at the last election, and yet the person who hasn't faced a vote in over two years gets to veto this alone.

I love the "worlds greatest democracy".

Unfortunately, the system was designed so people couldn't pass frivolous or bad laws with a one person majority- and while it works for that purpose, it occasionally stops laws I consider to be good.

So let me get this straight.

The people who the people voted in last time have delivered the promises they made at the last election, and yet the person who hasn't faced a vote in over two years gets to veto this alone.

I love the "worlds greatest democracy".

Well, it could be reversed...we could have a Congress trying to force us into a war while a President refuses to support any such war plans. I think we'd all like the President vetoing that. It's just how the system works, eh?

And b/c the president will veto and they don't have 2/3 it means nothing except that we are being told to do a job that we won't be allowed to finish.
And since it's a spending bill, you won't get the material you need. Sure, the Democrats support the troops.They make handy political footballs.

Good at least it shows the people got some of what they voted for.

Good at least it shows the people got some of what they voted for.

That's what I'm saying. And while this battle may yet not see victory, the issue has at least been raised and it sets a standard (having the appropriate amount of votes) for other actions.

And since it's a spending bill, you won't get the material you need. Sure, the Democrats support the troops.They make handy political footballs.
Hang on...let me see if I can follow your logic...the Democratics created the bill both to give the troops additional funding and to ask for a withdrawl in the nearby future, both good things to do, and the President has stated he will veto it...and somehow it's the Democrat's fault the troops won't get the funding? How does that work? The President is the one vetoing the bill, not the Democrats.

Hang on...let me see if I can follow your logic...the Democratics created the bill both to give the troops additional funding and to ask for a withdrawl in the nearby future, both good things to do, and the President has stated he will veto it...and somehow it's the Democrat's fault the troops won't get the funding? How does that work? The President is the one vetoing the bill, not the Democrats.

Uhhh, how is that good for the troops? You don't base foreign policy decisions on whether the troops want to do something or not. It is our job and we are more than willing to do it. The one thing that really bugs me is the correlation between supporting the troops and getting them out of harms way.

Hang on...let me see if I can follow your logic...the Democratics created the bill both to give the troops additional funding and to ask for a withdrawl in the nearby future, both good things to do, and the President has stated he will veto it...and somehow it's the Democrat's fault the troops won't get the funding? How does that work? The President is the one vetoing the bill, not the Democrats.
Of course it's the fault of the majority party. They attached this silly amendment to the spending bill when they could have sent both to be evaluated on their own merits.

Uhhh, how is that good for the troops? You don't base foreign policy decisions on whether the troops want to do something or not. It is our job and we are more than willing to do it. The one thing that really bugs me is the correlation between supporting the troops and getting them out of harms way.

No one is blaming them. We made a mistake (Or Bush did, I didn't vote for him) and the longer we drag it out, the more damage we will cause without gaining anything. I know we're taking what seems like a cowards way out, but we cant play "principles" with innocent lives.

Of course it's the fault of the majority party. They attached this silly amendment to the spending bill when they could have sent both to be evaluated on their own merits.

This war could go on indefinitely without action. Either Bush agrees to a timeline, or the wars ends abruptly. After all, Bush wouldn't force soldiers to fight without funding...would he?

And since it's a spending bill, you won't get the material you need. Sure, the Democrats support the troops.They make handy political footballs.

So you don't support bringing them home but you do support them being sent there on a false premise without proper training or armor? The problem is not that the dems are making them a political football, it's that Bush has used them in that way since the beginning. He sees them as a means to an end and doesn't much care about how they are treated during or after the war. He and the rest of the right wing used the "support the troops" line to question others' patriotism before now. This tactic is losing it's power because people see their actions rather than their words. They see soldiers coming back from war and not being given the treatment they need from the VA. They see tours being stretched too far, stop loss orders being enacted, troops being pushed so far to the edge they are being found guilty or rape, murder, and more due to their values system being twisted off due to the horror of war. Supporting the troops means sacrifice and what have the powers that be sacrificed or told us to sacrfice? NOTHING! Saying "support the troops" was all they did to demonize anyone who questioned the "Manipulated intelligence" (read the IG report that says so)

Further, elected officials are elected by the people. The majority of people in this country don't support Bush, Cheney, or their war. So the elected officials do what the hell the people who elected them tell them to do. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around. Don't cry about funding being cut now when the Republican led congress didn't authorize enough funding in the first place. Or do you not remember Rumsfeld's "go to war with the army you have" bullshit? Blaming the Democrats for what Bush started and broke is not going to work anymore. It's called acountability and it's about time Bush face some. Or in the words of an honorable Republican Chug Hagel, 'we might just have to "impeach" him.' Now unleash your outrage for the Dems and ignore the fact that Bush broke it and every attempt he has made to fix it has failed. As a matter of fact, most everything he's eve done in his life has failed. So we're expecting a loser (except for the family name lottery) to suddenly become a winner? STill wiating for black to turn to white huh?

No one is blaming them. We made a mistake (Or Bush did, I didn't vote for him) and the longer we drag it out, the more damage we will cause without gaining anything. I know we're taking what seems like a cowards way out, but we cant play "principles" with innocent lives.

Those innocent lives are Iraqi lives and if we leave the killing that is happening right now will begin to look like a joke. As the sole superpower we have a responsibility to fix our own mistakes.

Those innocent lives are Iraqi lives and if we leave the killing that is happening right now will begin to look like a joke. As the sole superpower we have a responsibility to fix our own mistakes.

And how!? This turned into a civil war under our nose. The entire general area has been in a civil war since before the rise of the Roman Empire! What can a bunch of armed foreign nationals do to rectify this?

Uhhh, how is that good for the troops? You don't base foreign policy decisions on whether the troops want to do something or not. It is our job and we are more than willing to do it. The one thing that really bugs me is the correlation between supporting the troops and getting them out of harms way.
Don't get me wrong, USMC. I respect the hell out of you guys. You do a job I wouldn't dare do. My problem is that this war never should have been started and you're getting killed over there for nothing. The war has been in vain from the start and staying in there will accomplish nothing but killing more of you guys. The chaos over there cannot be stopped with our military forces as sad as that is. We have to face the facts and simply let it be.

Myrmi: Bush has had a history of treating troops poorly, often supporting cuts both for troop funding, veteran hospital funding, and other troop related items. It wasn't silly for the Dems to attach the withdrawl bit to this bill because it forces it through when on its own merits it would be slain by the Republicans in the Senate. By vetoing it Bush shows once more he doesn't care about the troops but merely decides to use them for his own desires.

The Veto issue is a good point, in that they barely scraped up the votes to do this in the first place, but I'm hoping that pressing the issue will force many to examine where they stand. At least the Democrats having now fulfilled their promise in that they attempted this.

And now it'll be up to Bush as to whether he wants to continue the war. It looks like this will go to conference with the Iraq language in it, and will probably come out of Congress with the Iraq language in it.

So here's the deal--it's a no lose for the Democrats if they want it. They've put up a bill that has funding for the troops in it, over the objections of some of their own members in the House. If Bush vetoes it, he's vetoed spending for the troops, and will be forced to withdraw them sooner, because the war will run out of money this summer otherwise. That's a win for the Democrats who want the troops home. If he signs it (assuming no signing statement bullshit), then the war ends in a year and a half. The Democrats don't have to override the veto if they want to end the war--Bush would end it with a veto.

And how!? This turned into a civil war under our nose. The entire general area has been in a civil war since before the rise of the Roman Empire! What can a bunch of armed foreign nationals do to rectify this?

1) I do not agree with your assessment that it is a civil war. It is a series of gang fights.

2) A bunch of armed foreign nationals can do exactly what we have started doing in a more widespread manner under Gen. Patraeus.

Of course it's the fault of the majority party. They attached this silly amendment to the spending bill when they could have sent both to be evaluated on their own merits.

You know, I don't normally do this, but call a waaaahmbulance already. Didn't hear any of this kind of shit when it was the Republicans doing it, so spare me now.

Its a shame really. Its like, whats the point of passing this when they know it is going to get struck down. I still can't believe there are still people there that think that we can still achieve "victory" at this point.
There are people who still think "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" and was aiming to kill us all and that "if we didn't fight them there we would be fighting him here." Having the dumbass in office keep telling this idiotic shit to these gullible dimwits doesn't help it any.

And now it'll be up to Bush as to whether he wants to continue the war. It looks like this will go to conference with the Iraq language in it, and will probably come out of Congress with the Iraq language in it.

So here's the deal--it's a no lose for the Democrats if they want it. They've put up a bill that has funding for the troops in it, over the objections of some of their own members in the House. If Bush vetoes it, he's vetoed spending for the troops, and will be forced to withdraw them sooner, because the war will run out of money this summer otherwise. That's a win for the Democrats who want the troops home. If he signs it (assuming no signing statement bullshit), then the war ends in a year and a half. The Democrats don't have to override the veto if they want to end the war--Bush would end it with a veto.

exactly! As I said earlier, Bush wont resume the war without funding (Though good point about 'signing statements'). I think any signing statement that could possibly get around this should be examined by the supreme courts. I have personally felt all signing statements should have been brought before courts.

My problem is that this war never should have been started and you're getting killed over there for nothing.

This is where i disagree completely. I understand that you don't see what we are fighting for every day and it is quite regrettable. We are not fighting for America, we are fighting to protect innocent Iraqis and provide them a suitable future. This is a goal that I consider attainable and worth dying for.

The war has been in vain from the start and staying in there will accomplish nothing but killing more of you guys. The chaos over there cannot be stopped with our military forces as sad as that is. We have to face the facts and simply let it be.

I agree with you to an extent on some of your ideas and see where you are coming from but i disagree that we can't win. I agree that the war should never have been started in hindsight but I agree with the intent. Things just didn't go as planned.

1) I do not agree with your assessment that it is a civil war. It is a series of gang fights.


A series of gang fights!? Well, officer Trumpsky, I'm afraid that it ain't the Sharks and Jets you're up against this time. This is an ethnic civil war that has long past its thousandth birthday. Read up on your middle eastern history. As I said before: before the rise of Rome, this war was going on.

Had Congress voted unequivically cut off funding for this war and not confirmed General Petraeus as the commander there after knowing what his strategy would be, that would be one thing. I might not agree with it, but I could respect it as an honest decision. And the congressmen who voted for it would bear the responsibility for that choice, for good or ill.

But to do it in this fashion, at this time, in a bill larded with special interest funding is more than simply wrong. It is an attempt by the Democrats to have it both ways at our troops' expense, to attempt to avoid any politicul onus for `not supporting the troops' while pleasing the Angry Left. It sends a message to the jihadis that all they need do is wait us out, and a message to our friends that we are not to be trusted to keep our commitments.

I'm just as fed up with the Bush Administration's mismanagement of this war as anyone could be. But leaving in this fashion is something that will haunt us and follow us home in years to come.

exactly! As I said earlier, Bush wont resume the war without funding (Though good point about 'signing statements'). I think any signing statement that could possibly get around this should be examined by the supreme courts. I have personally felt all signing statements should have been brought before courts.

It would certainly raise the issue of the reach of those signing statements--that hasn't been raised yet. There's also the fact that the withdrawal date would happen right in the thick of a presidential campaign, so there's always the potential for changing the law at the last minute. My guess is that, given how unpopular the war is right now, there won't be much pressure to extend the war any longer than that.

A series of gang fights!? Read up on your middle eastern history. As I said before: before the rise of Rome, this war was going on.

Islam started in the 6th century. Well after the fall of Rome.

It seems your understanding is uh...flawed.

Islam started in the 6th century. Well after the fall of Rome.

It seems your understanding is uh...flawed.

Nope, this fight preceded even the rise of Islam. I actually think it began over some land disagreements, (anyone history buffs want to help me out on this?) All sides absorbed Islam but ethnic conflicts in the middle east havent known periods of peace for a very long time.

This is where i disagree completely. I understand that you don't see what we are fighting for every day and it is quite regrettable. We are not fighting for America, we are fighting to protect innocent Iraqis and provide them a suitable future. This is a goal that I consider attainable and worth dying for.



I agree with you to an extent on some of your ideas and see where you are coming from but i disagree that we can't win. I agree that the war should never have been started in hindsight but I agree with the intent. Things just didn't go as planned.

All the same, I'd rather get all of your comrades home so we don't keep wasting money and resources on this. Under the Hussein regime none of this chaos occurred, women were treated better--on the whole, at least--and there was some semblence of order. Thing is, Saddam had his hand holding down the lid of the Pandora's Box that is Iraq and when we removed him we let that lid open up and nothing we do now will shut it. It has to shut itself on its own and we can't do that ourselves.

I have no problem with troops fighting a war that at least has something good behind it.(Such as, say, fighting against a malevolent power conquering various nations and attempting to conquer our own.) But we were mislead into this war and have disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed thousands, and accomplished nothing but fucking the region up beyond all recognition.

Nope, this fight preceded even the rise of Islam.

What fight are you talking about? I assumed that you meant the Sunni-Shia violence when you were referring to this hypothetical civil war.

A series of gang fights!? Well, officer Trumpsky, I'm afraid that it ain't the Sharks and Jets you're up against this time. This is an ethnic civil war that has long past its thousandth birthday. Read up on your middle eastern history. As I said before: before the rise of Rome, this war was going on.

There are religious undertones to the conflict, especially in the more radical groups, but for the most part it is just one small group against another vying for control over a small area. Now take this and make it hundreds of these fights and you have Iraq.

All the same, I'd rather get all of your comrades home so we don't keep wasting money and resources on this. Under the Hussein regime none of this chaos occurred, women were treated better--on the whole, at least--and there was some semblence of order. Thing is, Saddam had his hand holding down the lid of the Pandora's Box that is Iraq and when we removed him we let that lid open up and nothing we do now will shut it. It has to shut itself on its own and we can't do that ourselves.

I agree with most of the above but i just don't see the bolded part happening. No single group is strong enough to take over the country and there will only be an expansion of territorial gang wars.

I have no problem with troops fighting a war that at least has something good behind it.(Such as, say, fighting against a malevolent power conquering various nations and attempting to conquer our own.) But we were mislead into this war and have disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed thousands, and accomplished nothing but fucking the region up beyond all recognition.
Fair enough.

What fight are you talking about? I assumed that you meant the Sunni-Shia violence when you were referring to this hypothetical civil war.

I'm referring to severe Ethnic unrest in general. Sunni-Shiite are just more recent conflicts. I'm referring more to ethnic tribal conflicts (think Kurds).

There are religious undertones to the conflict, especially in the more radical groups, but for the most part it is just one small group against another vying for control over a small area. Now take this and make it hundreds of these fights and you have Iraq.

In a sense you're right. The religious differences are merely used as justification for their actions but they'd find other justifications if they did not have their religion. We've seen that all too well in other places.

As for shutting itself down...you've got a good point there. I'm not sure how it would shut itself down either, but I can tell you this much: we're not going to be the ones doing it. We simply can't. As you said, there are hundreds of groups vying for power. How're we going to shut that down short of a troop level we simply don't have?

There are religious undertones to the conflict, especially in the more radical groups, but for the most part it is just one small group against another vying for control over a small area. Now take this and make it hundreds of these fights and you have Iraq.

Well thats what I've been trying to say- but I'm going to extend it to the "general area of Iraq, borders non-withstanding" and add that Iraq was like that long before Saddam and will be long after we leave.

In a sense you're right. The religious differences are merely used as justification for their actions but they'd find other justifications if they did not have their religion. We've seen that all too well in other places.

As for shutting itself down...you've got a good point there. I'm not sure how it would shut itself down either, but I can tell you this much: we're not going to be the ones doing it. We simply can't. As you said, there are hundreds of groups vying for power. How're we going to shut that down short of a troop level we simply don't have?

Ideally we'd be able to be IA/IP levels high enough so that they can conduct good police work but that will take time. Time that, if this legislation makes it through the gauntlet, we won't have. Can someone find out if the bill calls for complete withdraw by march or just most? B/c if it's just most then i could possibly see it working that we just keep the supply lines running and maintain a training/advising force in country and that being relatively successful. Of course we would also need a large air contingent for the effort as well.

I'm referring to severe Ethnic unrest in general. Sunni-Shiite are just more recent conflicts. I'm referring more to ethnic tribal conflicts (think Kurds).

Well, that's been going on all over the world ever since civilization started. Ethnic unrest is no middle eastern novelty my friend.

Ideally we'd be able to be IA/IP levels high enough so that they can conduct good police work but that will take time. Time that, if this legislation makes it through the gauntlet, we won't have. Can someone find out if the bill calls for complete withdraw by march or just most? B/c if it's just most then i could possibly see it working that we just keep the supply lines running and maintain a training/advising force in country and that being relatively successful. Of course we would also need a large air contingent for the effort as well.

That's probably the only strategy that would ever work, but I still think we would need to keep a sizeable combat force presence in Iraq to supplement the Iraqis.

The Iraqi Army and Police are infiltrated by the insurgents, unfortunately. Many units perform well, but there are also many others who's lackadaisical effort leaves much to be desired. Remember, they get Muslim holidays off, they work less days than our guys do, and they work less harder too. All told, you're looking 15 days of work the Iraqis do for every 30 days of work we do(rough estimate).

That's probably the only strategy that would ever work, but I still think we would need to keep a sizeable combat force presence in Iraq to supplement the Iraqis.

The Iraqi Army and Police are infiltrated by the insurgents, unfortunately. Many units perform well, but there are also many others who's lackadaisical effort leaves much to be desired. Remember, they get Muslim holidays off, they work less days than our guys do, and they work less harder too. All told, you're looking 15 days of work the Iraqis do for every 30 days of work we do(rough estimate).

Extremely rough estimate but you're basically correct IMO.

Well, that's been going on all over the world ever since civilization started. Ethnic unrest is no middle eastern novelty my friend.

As I am well aware. You aren't really addressing anything, you're just arguing semantics. To remove any arguable semantics let me summarize my entire view into:

"The past and present borders of the country now known as Iraq has consistently been a hotbed of violent civil unrest, which the US has not the capacity to stop"

As I am well aware. You aren't really addressing anything, you're just arguing semantics. To remove any arguable semantics let me summarize my entire view into:

"The past and present borders of the country now known as Iraq has consistently been a hotbed of violent civil unrest, which the US has not the capacity to stop"

I dunno bout that. Saddam managed to keep things pretty quiet down there(except when he was busy gassing the Kurds).

There is a way to pacify Iraq, and we can do it. But it would take more time and patience than the American public is willing to put in.

You don't base foreign policy decisions on whether the troops want to do something or not. dont be silly.. We do not trust you to know what is best for you.

We base our foreign policy on Nigerian cake. that is why we give you orders and you do as told, that is your Job..
I do not want to know your opinion, I want you to do as told.

Though I hate Bush and his cohorts politically for nearly everything they've done (Afghanistan still sits fairly well with me,) I have to say that we really should leave when the nation is stable again. Leaving certainly returns military power and gets our service men and woman outta harms way, but it will destroy our global crediblity and create an enviroment in which enemies of the US might breed (yea, clique and Bushish but also sorta true.)
I'm deeply sorry that we forced our troops into a situation they don't need to be in but now that we're there we can't leave till things have calmed to something resembling.

exactly! As I said earlier, Bush wont resume the war without funding (Though good point about 'signing statements'). I think any signing statement that could possibly get around this should be examined by the supreme courts. I have personally felt all signing statements should have been brought before courts.
Funny story: a year or two ago, Congress passed a law requiring the Executive branch to inform the Justice Department whenever Bush issued a signing statement that significantly altered the content of a law. Bush promptly issued a signing statement nullifying the law.

:headbang:

If he signs it (assuming no signing statement bullshit), then the war ends in a year and a half.

Oh it's more than that. If he does sign it, and tries to pull a signing statement out of his ass, when August 2008 rolls around, just two months before the election, and Bush attempts to back out of the law compelling withdrawl, a law the majority of americans support and one he signed, any chance of a republican majority or presidency plummets.

Basra is fine, the British have done a good job but Baghdad is still too unpredictable.

This is great, too bad the chimp in chief will veto it. Apparently he likes people dying or something.

lol. Technically they only have power of the purse and cannot order a troop withdrawal if the governement in charge does apporve of them being there.

I AM YOUR FATHER.

Yea, that.

The withdrawal date in the Senate bill is non-binding. Does this mean Bush can sign the bill into the law, then ignore whatever bits of it he dislikes?

lol. Technically they only have power of the purse and cannot order a troop withdrawal if the governement in charge does apporve of them being there.

Hey Captain WTF, that's exactly what the Congress is doing here--exercising the power of the purse. You might have to jog if you want to keep up.

Props to the Dems for holding ranks.

For some reason I don't see "holding ranks" as a positive trait in politicians.

Note that I'm not saying that I disagree with the Democrats, but I absolutely despise partisan politics.

I dunno bout that. Saddam managed to keep things pretty quiet down there(except when he was busy gassing the Kurds).
I think you answered your own implied question.

There is a way to pacify Iraq, and we can do it.
Oppress 2 out of the 3 groups militarily.

But it would take more time and patience than the American public is willing to put in.
Yes, I see "never happening" as more time, patience, and lives than I am willing to throw at something.

In my view its premature to put a deadline now on the war it should be done in a few phase's first because it is now clear that it is a mess that needs to be cleaned up but not in a angry way. What the Government need to do is first assesed if pulling all the troops out will make a differance I don't think so it is clear that a more real approch to the situation is needed and if the Democratic contolled House can not see this then it is all lost.

We must remember that the Iraq that was there isn't anymore the U.S has taken that away but you must now have a stop gap measure and say this is where we are at and we now know that we need to be at another point.It is just that way if you pull out altogether without any sort of draw down measure it will mean absoluty cahos in and around the world.

It is about winning the hearts and minds of the people of a country where about 80-90% of Americans and the World at large never even visited so how can there be victory without any understanding.

To be wise is to understand without wisdom and understanding there is only left ignorance.

In my view its premature to put a deadline now on the war it should be done in a few phase's first because it is now clear that it is a mess that needs to be cleaned up but not in a angry way. What the Government need to do is first assesed if pulling all the troops out will make a differance I don't think so it is clear that a more real approch to the situation is needed and if the Democratic contolled House can not see this then it is all lost.

Bull. We fought the war. We gave them a chance to stand on their own feet. We've done the part we had to, now tell them that it's their turn to do their part, because we won't stay forever. The house already passed this bill. All bills dealing with money must origionate in the house.

We must remember that the Iraq that was there isn't anymore the U.S has taken that away but you must now have a stop gap measure and say this is where we are at and we now know that we need to be at another point.It is just that way if you pull out altogether without any sort of draw down measure it will mean absoluty cahos in and around the world.

This is a timetable, not an immediate end of the war, so long as the President doesn't veto it. If he doesn't veto it? Then it ends the war immediately, because he doesn't get his funding. If you have a problem with an immediate end to the war, talk to the President, not teh Democrats.

It is about winning the hearts and minds of the people of a country where about 80-90% of Americans and the World at large never even visited so how can there be victory without any understanding.

To be wise is to understand without wisdom and understanding there is only left ignorance.

That's nonsense. We could have won the occupation if Chimpy and Co. had bothered to do their research, had bothered to let Iraqi companies do the rebuilding, rather than Haliburton, and had bothered to send enough troops to start. They did not. The result was a lasting insurgency, becoming a civil war, and gradually moving towards the end of the Iraqi state.

This is great, too bad the chimp in chief will veto it. Apparently he likes people dying or something.

Is it not hypocrisy to say that, and yet think its okay to let the Iraqis massacre each other?

USA should pull it's troops out as quick as it possibly can because no matter how long the troops stay in Iraq, it will only delay what awaitens Iraq after the withdrawal; anarchy. The situation will never be stabilized in Iraq as long as the USA has it's troops there.

This is where i disagree completely. I understand that you don't see what we are fighting for every day and it is quite regrettable. We are not fighting for America, we are fighting to protect innocent Iraqis and provide them a suitable future. This is a goal that I consider attainable and worth dying for.



I agree with you to an extent on some of your ideas and see where you are coming from but i disagree that we can't win. I agree that the war should never have been started in hindsight but I agree with the intent. Things just didn't go as planned.

The problem is that Iraq only existed as it did because of a dictator. Remove that and you have to face the reality that there are truly three seperate nations that need to be made in order to have peace. Iraq was thrown together stupidly after WW2 and was only ruled by an iron fist. This is the problem we are facing. It's a little thing called reality that Bush has little familiarity with during his life. A unified, democratic Iraq is not a reality.

I dunno bout that. Saddam managed to keep things pretty quiet down there(except when he was busy gassing the Kurds).

There is a way to pacify Iraq, and we can do it. But it would take more time and patience than the American public is willing to put in.

Are you suggesting we "pacify" them by instituting an iron fisted government of rape, torture, and repression. Yeah, Saddam sure as hell made Iraq work as a unified state and look at what we had to do to stop that. What the other poster is trying to say is there is no real peaceful way for us to do this. Hell, if we wanted to use Saddam's tactics we could have just kept Saddam. Time and patience are things we can handle if we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. This war has now exceeded the time America spent defeating the Axis powers. All while Rumsfeld said "It could take a few days, a few weeks, I doubt even 6 months" to fix this problem. Bush/Cheney blew it big time.

So when terrorists start coming out of Iraq and attacking the U.S. and its allies abroad, when regional governments collapse and threaten the oil supplies needed to keep Western nations afoot and with stable economies, and when a Shi'ite-Sunni war breaks out throughout the region ...

... can we impeach the Democrats for seeking a quick way out?

So when terrorists start coming out of Iraq and attacking the U.S. and its allies abroad, when regional governments collapse and threaten the oil supplies needed to keep Western nations afoot and with stable economies, and when a Shi'ite-Sunni war breaks out throughout the region ...

... can we impeach the Democrats for seeking a quick way out?

That will happen sooner or later, the only difference is that it will happen later if you stay there but it will happen. It doesn't matter who pulls out the troops but the one who does will have to take all the shit that will come with it.

I had to vote “no” as I think that would send a wrong message to the Islamic fundies. However, my “no vote” in this poll is in no way meant as support for this current presidential administration.
The citizens and their representatives have been remiss in not firing this entire administration.
The first duty of the executive branch is to defend this country, They have put this nation at risk by spreading our armed forces too thin. They’ve dropped the ball in Afghanistan, allowing the country to be retaken by Islamic fundies and leaving those who supported us there in jeopardy. Osama still runs free in Afghanistan and Pakistan (a country which, at best, is turning a blind eye). We invaded Iraq deflecting attention from Afghanistan and Osama causing loss of our troops lives for no reasons directly affecting U.S. national security.
The whole Bush administration is at best guilty of poor judgement. The citizens and representatives of the U.S. should boot this whole bunch out and replace them with competent administrators.

The problem is that Iraq only existed as it did because of a dictator. Remove that and you have to face the reality that there are truly three seperate nations that need to be made in order to have peace. Iraq was thrown together stupidly after WW2 and was only ruled by an iron fist. This is the problem we are facing. It's a little thing called reality that Bush has little familiarity with during his life. A unified, democratic Iraq is not a reality.

There are not three separate nations by any means. Why people think that is beyond me but all 3 major ethnic groups in the country live in the same cities. The reasons behind the violence are not religion at all. It is fear, paranoia and the desire for more territory to carry out gang activities. You are in the fact the one who couldn't tell reality from shit. There are some really good posters here who aren't so absolutist in their statements when they aren't 100% sure about something or when they realize that there is the possibility that there might be another explanation. You might do well to learn a thing or two.

Is it not hypocrisy to say that, and yet think its okay to let the Iraqis massacre each other?

What are they doing now? having picnics? The US presence doesn't help anything and this situation is the direct result of US involvement.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070327/D8O4P0TO2.html

AP NEWS:



There are more details on the article.

So, it comes.

Thoughts?

I think this is approximately the third thread on this subject.

I don't care what argument that you make for pulling out of Iraq but please don't use that one.

Why the hell not?

Uhhh, how is that good for the troops? You don't base foreign policy decisions on whether the troops want to do something or not. It is our job and we are more than willing to do it.

Except of course those of you who AREN'T or do you speak for everybody in the military?

This is great, too bad the chimp in chief will veto it. Apparently he likes people dying or something.

Stop agreeing with me, the world isn't due to end for decades yet.

Stop agreeing with me, the world isn't due to end for decades yet.
:p :)

If the president is not willing to conduct the war correctly, which he isnt, then the congress needs to step in and get us out of there.

Except of course those of you who AREN'T or do you speak for everybody in the military?

And you would know how yourself? Are you in the military? See the thing is, that other poster IS.

All i see out of this bill is cowards trying to do anything to end this war on the radicals of Islam. I may not like the president, but it was high time to remove that dictator that killed hundred of thousands in that nation.

The situation in Iraq is the result of millenia-old rivalries that have absorbed both main forms of Islam, possibly worsening the situation by giving two main groups two similar, yet different ideologies. Add in crappily-drawn borders that not only split up groups, but kept rivals together. Then, add one brutal dictator that kept the peace using genocide, fascist elections (elections where you can only really vote for one candidate), and fear. Sure, Sadaam kept the peace, but he likely worsened the situation by siding with the Sunnis while killing the Kurds and keeping the majority Shiites out of power. The Shiites are mad because they were oppressed for so many years. The Sunnis are mad because their relatively-good gravy train has derailed. The Kurds are just happy because they don't have to worry about any gassings any time soon. All the US did was take out a dictator whose peace-keeping tactics added fuel to the flames of hatred.

I would set up a timeline, but we would pull out based on progress, not time. Or we could help fix the problem by killing off the region's governments and redrawing the maps based on the various ethnic groups and such. Then, give Kurdland some tanks to defend themselves against any Turkish invasion. Them Turks sure do hate them Kurds. Or we could redraw Iraq's provincial borders. The Sunni-rich areas become Sunniland. Kurd area becomes Kurdland. Shiite-areas become Shiiteland. A powerful central government provides unity while the various areas write their own laws. Uncorrupt the police force good enough and give it some kickass tanks. Tanks rule.

And you would know how yourself? Are you in the military? See the thing is, that other poster IS.

I know this because of news reports on soldiers doing anything they can to avoid being sent back again.

I would set up a timeline, but we would pull out based on progress, not time. Or we could help fix the problem by killing off the region's governments and redrawing the maps based on the various ethnic groups and such. Then, give Kurdland some tanks to defend themselves against any Turkish invasion. Them Turks sure do hate them Kurds. Or we could redraw Iraq's provincial borders. The Sunni-rich areas become Sunniland. Kurd area becomes Kurdland. Shiite-areas become Shiiteland. A powerful central government provides unity while the various areas write their own laws. Uncorrupt the police force good enough and give it some kickass tanks. Tanks rule.

You summed up the basics of the Sunni-Shia-Kurd problem quite well. Partitioning Iraq is not a new idea, and whilst it looks very, very good on paper (especially IMO), the Iraqi's nevertheless want a single unified, strong Iraq. That and you'd have to deal with uprooting entire neighbourhoods of people, allocating territory and resources.

In particular there are the Kurdish Oil Fields. If an independent Kurdistan ever becomes a reality, the Oil situation in the Middle East gets pretty unbalanced.

Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders don't want thier people to lose out on the benefits of Kurd Oil, or have thier people scant on certain other resources amongst many other geographical, political and religious reasons a partitioned Iraq is generally opposed.

You summed up the basics of the Sunni-Shia-Kurd problem quite well. Partitioning Iraq is not a new idea, and whilst it looks very, very good on paper (especially IMO), the Iraqi's nevertheless want a single unified, strong Iraq. That and you'd have to deal with uprooting entire neighbourhoods of people, allocating territory and resources.

In particular there are the Kurdish Oil Fields. If an independent Kurdistan ever becomes a reality, the Oil situation in the Middle East gets pretty unbalanced.

Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders don't want thier people to lose out on the benefits of Kurd Oil, or have thier people scant on certain other resources amongst many other geographical, political and religious reasons a partitioned Iraq is generally opposed.

Saying "the Iraqis want" anything is a bit ridiculous. About the only thing that most polls of the Iraqis have agreed on is that they want the US out. Beyond that, they're as fractious and disagreeable a group as any on earth--which is to be expected. They're human, after all. Different Iraqis have different priorities, even within their ethnic groups and tribal clans.

Saying "the Iraqis want" anything is a bit ridiculous. About the only thing that most polls of the Iraqis have agreed on is that they want the US out. Beyond that, they're as fractious and disagreeable a group as any on earth--which is to be expected. They're human, after all. Different Iraqis have different priorities, even within their ethnic groups and tribal clans.

Chicago Tribune 10/22/06 - "An opinion poll in June conducted by the International Republican Institute found that 78 percent of Iraqis, including a majority of Shiites, opposed the segregation of Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines."

I would never try to say that as a Scotsman, I can speak for the whole population of Iraq.

I would never try to say that as a Scotsman, I can speak for the whole population of Iraq.
Neither, I think, can an organisation tied so close the US government and the Republican party. Not that all Shiites would want to divide Iraq, because they would lose out on all the oil-bearing regions.

Neither, I think, can an organisation tied so close the US government and the Republican party. Not that all Shiites would want to divide Iraq, because they would lose out on all the oil-bearing regions.

Well if the International Republican Institute's opinion poll, (which even in my opinion I knew would be particularly biased) doesn't take your fancy how about this one by ORB (Opinion Business Research) that states:

With the exception of the Kurdish population in the North of the country a majority (64%) support Iraq remaining as a single country run by a central national government. On this point Sunnis (57%) and Shias (69%) agree that the country should continue as one nation.

Why the hell not?

B/c we're big boys. We can handle it and we are just doing our jobs. We'll tell you if we want to leave, don't use us to further your goals.

B/c we're big boys. We can handle it and we are just doing our jobs. We'll tell you if we want to leave, don't use us to further your goals.


What about all of those Marines who say that they want to leave Iraq or don't want to go back once they return home? Have we been imagining the whole thing?

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/01/12/military/20_34_141_11_05.txt

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3907025

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56494-2003Oct20.html

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36898/

^ that is just a small sample of the many articles I found. We can't use statements from Marines as well as other military folk to back us up? WHen did that happen?

What about all of those Marines who say that they want to leave Iraq or don't want to go back once they return home? Have we been imagining the whole thing?

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/01/12/military/20_34_141_11_05.txt

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3907025

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56494-2003Oct20.html

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36898/

^ that is just a small sample of the many articles I found. We can't use statements from Marines as well as other military folk to back us up? WHen did that happen?
The fact that each person who refuses to go back gets his own article should tell you something.

The fact that each person who refuses to go back gets his own article should tell you something.

Well you just made it completely obvious that you didnt even look at them.

Here are several more for you to ignore:

http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/190806morale.htm

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/594/594_11_KellyDougherty.shtml

http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/5372

http://www.notinourname.net/troops/talk-30jan04.htm

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36898/

http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/soldiers_threatened.htm

You say -"We'll tell you if we want to leave", then I show you soldiers who want to leave and you completely ignore it. Why? Does it hurt that bad to be proven wrong that there are actually MANY sodiers who do want to leave?

Well you just made it completely obvious that you didnt even look at them.

Here are several more for you to ignore:

http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/190806morale.htm

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/594/594_11_KellyDougherty.shtml

http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/5372

http://www.notinourname.net/troops/talk-30jan04.htm

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36898/

http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/soldiers_threatened.htm

You say -"We'll tell you if we want to leave", then I show you soldiers who want to leave and you completely ignore it. Why? Does it hurt that bad to be proven wrong that there are actually MANY sodiers who do want to leave?

So you got what, 10-15 examples? There are what? 1.5 million employed by DoD?

So you got what, 10-15 examples? There are what? 1.5 million employed by DoD?

well, in this debate, we've got 15 people who want to leave (according to you re:the articles presented) and 1 who wants to stay (you)

pardon the pun, but you seem to be a little outgunned.

So you got what, 10-15 examples? There are what? 1.5 million employed by DoD?

And yet again you have not looked at the links - These articles aren't about 10-15 soldiers. I guess it's worthless showing you any evidence if you refuse to look at it.

Good day.

well, in this debate, we've got 15 people who want to leave (the articles presented) and 1 who wants to stay (you)

pardon the pun, but you seem to be a little outgunned.

Only 13% of service personnel want all troops out.

Only 13% of service personnel want all troops out.
Which is undoubtedly why we let elected civilian government decide policy, and not the military. If MacArthur had had his way, Korea and China would be smoking radioactive craters and World War III would have started in 1950. Military wants it = it must be good? No.

Which is undoubtedly why we let elected civilian government decide policy, and not the military. If MacArthur had had his way, Korea and China would be smoking radioactive craters and World War III would have started in 1950. Military wants it = it must be good? No.

That is exactly what I have been arguing the entire time fucking idiot.

Only 13% of service personnel want all troops out.

So that 13% doesn't matter or what? IF 50% or more doesn't say they want out then that means no soldiers do?

Tell me... how many men does 13% make? Does low morale hurt or help when fighting an enemy? how much higher would that percentage be if all of the people who didnt quit (14 thousand a year - outstripping recruitment), or go AWOL or desert, were still serving?

And here, earlier, you are trying to argue tha there are only 10-15 people that want out (because obviously there is an article about every single one of them so if there isn't an article they must not exist)? How many Iraq veterans belogn to an organization like http://www.ivaw.org/ (Iraqi veterans against the war)?

That is exactly what I have been arguing the entire time fucking idiot.

Well you aren't doing a very good job at it. And are you sure you are a marine because you curse like a sailor :p :D ;)

Well you aren't doing a very good job at it. And are you sure you are a marine because you curse like a sailor :p :D ;)

I was saying to not use the argument that makes the point to get the troops out of harms way. It doesn't make any sense as this goes against the vast majority of military personnel. And no sailor will ever have anything on me.:p

I was saying to not use the argument that makes the point to get the troops out of harms way. It doesn't make any sense as this goes against the vast majority of military personnel. And no sailor will ever have anything on me.:p

But I believe he was pointing out that it doesn't matter what the military wants. THey are beholden to the civilian leadership so all that matters is what our govt. wants to do witht he troops. Once you join up, you are property of the United States Govt. and no longer have any say in policy, isn't that right?

But I believe he was pointing out that it doesn't matter what the military wants. THey are beholden to the civilian leadership so all that matters is what our govt. wants to do witht he troops. Once you join up, you are property of the United States Govt. and no longer have any say in policy, isn't that right?

Exactly, that is it shouldn't matter that we are in harms way when deciding policy.

But I believe he was pointing out that it doesn't matter what the military wants. THey are beholden to the civilian leadership so all that matters is what our govt. wants to do witht he troops. Once you join up, you are property of the United States Govt. and no longer have any say in policy, isn't that right?

Aside from your vote, of course.

Exactly, that is it shouldn't matter that we are in harms way when deciding policy.

Well to us, the civilians, it does matter because you in the military are our family and friends and many if not most Americans right now feel that we aren't going to get any benefit from having our family and friends in harms way.

We (not me because I didnt believe a damn word this administration has said since before they were the administration - and keep in mind that I am aware that I don't speak for everybody) were willing to accept that you would be sent into battle and lose your lives for the greater good of all. Only a small percentage of US Americans believe that anymore.

We don't want our friends and family fighting for what we now see as a lost cause. We want you home. We want to stop spending a billion dollars every three days on something that is showing no progress. We want the President to listen to the majority govt that we put into office to get you guys out of there.

Two of my close friends are Marines and neither of them have any respect for this President and they don't believe in this 'war'. One has quit but one is in Iraq right now and he is not happy about it.

Aside from your vote, of course.

You know, you're right, and I thought about that afterwards but figured it wasn't really worth an edit.

Too bad its going to be vetoed. Oh well, that just shows who really wants to keep troops in harms way.

Why do you hate America? :( BTW, I really wholeheartedly agree with you.

Why do you hate America? :( BTW, I really wholeheartedly agree with you.

Why does America hate the world? :( BTW I'm serious LOL

Why does America hate the world? :( BTW I'm serious LOL

Because we're all idiots. When I was 6, I told some friends I came from India. they thought it was Indiana. They don't teach you anything outside the US until later. Except your average American 6 yo has probably heard of Canada.

Point is though for all those that keep painting a picture that the "mass majority" doesnt agree with the war is a wrong picture. No body can know for certain who is the majority.

But I believe he was pointing out that it doesn't matter what the military wants. THey are beholden to the civilian leadership so all that matters is what our govt. wants to do witht he troops. Once you join up, you are property of the United States Govt. and no longer have any say in policy, isn't that right?

But then again the military is over there and seeing it first hand. Personally i would rather have the professionals over some idiot politicians decide when to do what when they are not over there....

Also i can point out a organization that is for the support of the war and troops. So pointing out letters or opinions from one side and ignoring the otherside is wrong. And i believe one posters said its not fair to ignroe the ones that dont want the war, yet that poster is ignoring the troops that want to be there.

So you don't support bringing them home but you do support them being sent there on a false premise without proper training or armor? The problem is not that the dems are making them a political football, it's that Bush has used them in that way since the beginning. He sees them as a means to an end and doesn't much care about how they are treated during or after the war. He and the rest of the right wing used the "support the troops" line to question others' patriotism before now. This tactic is losing it's power because people see their actions rather than their words. They see soldiers coming back from war and not being given the treatment they need from the VA. They see tours being stretched too far, stop loss orders being enacted, troops being pushed so far to the edge they are being found guilty or rape, murder, and more due to their values system being twisted off due to the horror of war. Supporting the troops means sacrifice and what have the powers that be sacrificed or told us to sacrfice? NOTHING! Saying "support the troops" was all they did to demonize anyone who questioned the "Manipulated intelligence" (read the IG report that says so)

Further, elected officials are elected by the people. The majority of people in this country don't support Bush, Cheney, or their war. So the elected officials do what the hell the people who elected them tell them to do. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around. Don't cry about funding being cut now when the Republican led congress didn't authorize enough funding in the first place. Or do you not remember Rumsfeld's "go to war with the army you have" bullshit? Blaming the Democrats for what Bush started and broke is not going to work anymore. It's called acountability and it's about time Bush face some. Or in the words of an honorable Republican Chug Hagel, 'we might just have to "impeach" him.' Now unleash your outrage for the Dems and ignore the fact that Bush broke it and every attempt he has made to fix it has failed. As a matter of fact, most everything he's eve done in his life has failed. So we're expecting a loser (except for the family name lottery) to suddenly become a winner? STill wiating for black to turn to white huh?
Excellent post!! :)