US House Votes "OUT!" To Iraq

[Sgt So and So]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896789.stm
Oh, shit, son.

[2ltben]

This means absolutely nothing. The Democrats have the majority in the House and they entire midterm election platform was the Democrat response to Iraq. The Senate has a tied vote if everyone votes their party line, and Dick Cheney has a constitutional obligation to cast a vote to break any tie.

And on top of this, POTUS can veto it. The only positive in that regard is that he has to publicly veto it instead of just sticking it in his pocket because this Congress is coming back next year. However, Bush's popularity rating is so low that it won't make a bit of difference.

[Kaos]

"It is the third time this year the House has voted to end US military involvement in Iraq."

Probably get blocked in the Senate before it even makes it to the President.

[2ltben]

I'm really surprised that it wasn't killed in committee. I should look at the text of the bill. My guess it has every single demand the Republicans are making on it, with the Democrats just attaching the timetable.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

This too will be shot down. I bet 50 post count points.

[Fallschirmjäger]

I saw a news story the other say saying even if they leave its going totake 2 years to do so or 1 year if the leave all there equipment etc... in iraq.

[Moseman872{White Tiger}]

I bet that if it does pass, Bush will veto it anyway. (Good for him! seriously)

[Kaos]

I bet that if it does pass, Bush will veto it anyway. (Good for him! seriously)

Nothing better than war by executive! Sure worked in Vietnam.

[MyFingerHurts]

Boys and their wars. . . .cant wait till 2008 election so I can vote the first woman into office!

[2ltben]

Just because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat doesn't mean she will be the Lord Savior of All the Land. She's not the real thing; she's a politician, not a stateswoman. She knows how to play politics, I'll give her that, but she can't do much else. Her entire first term will be spent buying votes for midterms and her second term, which will be spent winning votes for midterms and the next Democrat nominee(most likely her VP, Chief of Staff, or one of the fourteen Secretaries).

As for the timetable, its not about getting troops out of Iraq. It has never been about getting troops out of Iraq. Its about pressuring the Iraqi government into taking legitimate measures for self-stability. No time table means absolutely no incentive for the Iraqi government to function properly, absolutely no incentive to control sectarian violence.

If POTUS fails to handle the proper foreign policy to bring the conflict to an end, then it is the obligation of the Foreign Relations Committee to take over. It has absolutely nothing to do with the United States Armed Forces. It has everything to do with foreign policy and American diplomacy.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Nothing better than war by executive! Sure worked in Vietnam.

No Vietnam will only happen again if they pull out, just like Vietnam. We learned our lesson 30 some years ago, let's not do it again.

For the people who like to say shit:
If Saddam wasn't connected to Al Qaeda then why do they bother to defend it? If they are just defending Muslim brothers then why didn't they attack Iraq when Saddam attacked Iran?

[2ltben]

See, the problem with that thinking is that you see the opposition as a collective enemy, al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda is gaining political and military strength, but it is by no means the largest or most powerful organization in Iraq. That would probably still fall to Jaish al-Mahdi.

And since when have al-Qaeda and Iran ever been cooperative. Iran is Shi'ite while al-Qaeda is Sunni. And if you attack al-Qaeda for those reasons, how come Saudi Arabia never rushed to the side of Iraq. After all, Saudi Arabia actively promoted Wahabist extremism after the Ayatollah took control of Iran in 1979. Wahabism is a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that promotes violent retaliation for any corruption or perceived threat to Sunni Islam.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

See, the problem with that thinking is that you see the opposition as a collective enemy, al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda is gaining political and military strength, but it is by no means the largest or most powerful organization in Iraq. That would probably still fall to Jaish al-Mahdi.

And since when have al-Qaeda and Iran ever been cooperative. Iran is Shi'ite while al-Qaeda is Sunni. And if you attack al-Qaeda for those reasons, how come Saudi Arabia never rushed to the side of Iraq. After all, Saudi Arabia actively promoted Wahabist extremism after the Ayatollah took control of Iran in 1979. Wahabism is a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that promotes violent retaliation for any corruption or perceived threat to Sunni Islam.

Ooh very smart mate.

I don't see Al Qaeda as the only or largest enemy. I'm just saying it like that because people like to say there was no connection. There was, so there's why we toppled Saddam and his regime.

[SuperSoldier]

Oh noes!!!! Ben versus Bravo again!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Oh noes!!!! Ben versus Bravo again!!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I thought me and Ben agreed on alot of stuff? Meh I don't remember but I do agree with him here, I was only correcting him about what I said.

[Kaos]

Just because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat doesn't mean she will be the Lord Savior of All the Land. She's not the real thing; she's a politician, not a stateswoman. She knows how to play politics, I'll give her that, but she can't do much else. Her entire first term will be spent buying votes for midterms and her second term, which will be spent winning votes for midterms and the next Democrat nominee(most likely her VP, Chief of Staff, or one of the fourteen Secretaries).

Don't forget she voted for the war in the first place.


No Vietnam will only happen again if they pull out, just like Vietnam. We learned our lesson 30 some years ago, let's not do it again.

When I mentioned Vietnam in these context I was talking about the escalation from 1963-1968 where LBJ and McNamara did basically whatever they wanted without consulting Congress or the public, though in part that's Congress' fault for signing Gulf of Tonkin. Just like then the current President is doing whatever he wants vetoing decisions made by the majority of Congress in the name of the majority people and ignoring their demands.



For the people who like to say shit:
If Saddam wasn't connected to Al Qaeda then why do they bother to defend it? If they are just defending Muslim brothers then why didn't they attack Iraq when Saddam attacked Iran?

Last time I checked Osama Bin Laden or any of the other supposed leaders of 'Al-Qaeda' weren't fighting in Iran. The mistake here is believing that when either Generals or the media tell you that these insurgent groups are 'linked to Al-Qaeda' it means that they are fighting for Al-Qaeda and their objections. According to intelligence reports and what Al-Qaeda's videos tell us their goal is a world Muslim state. The various groups in Iraq right now have a variety of goals, aims and method but basically they want:

#1 To drive out the Coalition
#2 Establish their own government, in alot of cases a non-democratic Islamic one.

However that doesn't make them all the same. The Shi'ite groups are probably funded by Iran and the Sunni's by Al-Qaeda. Doesn't mean they support either group, they're taking resources wherever they can. Just like how Osama took resources from the USA when he was fighting the Soviets.

And just to see what be a dickhead I'm going to say this. Saudi-Arabia and Iran are the biggest funders of Islamic terrorist activity in the world right now. Their money comes from selling their natural resources - in this case oil. We buy it. Want to stop terrorism? Stop driving SUV's.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Ooh Kaos is on the ball! Except for one thing I like to add/fix.

The Iraq bill is just a fad of the government at this time, like how curfews were the fad in the 1920s IRC. It's just a way to score with the people on current topics.

The decision on Iraq is split between two major groups; the ones who fight, and the ones who watch it on CNN. Surprisingly the ones who are getting shot at say they should stay, despite the fact they count their days till their next R&R. Then the ones who watch it on TV think "Oh how horrible! Our soldiers are getting killed! Let's bring them back!" without even thinking about the lives of the Iraqis. Selfishness (self being Americans).

We should be making peace not war right? Well as long as there's people who want to kill by fanatical intentions there will be wars. The only way to stop them is to kill them before they kill us. Which is better? Stop the good guy from doing good or stop the bad guy from doing bad? Bad guy of course right? This is what we do.

There's reports of thousands of civilians killed by the war. It's not the Coalition intentionally (except the murderers who are probably gang members back in the US). There's an unimaginable number of executions and beheadings by the terrorist factions for helping the Coalition bring the country on it's feet. They've already spotted a weak point.

As for the unintentional kills by the Coalition, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EVX26dgHfs) please. You have no idea how many similar situations occur this common. There's other things like when a civilian is standing near a baddy and get's killed, or if a vehicle doesn't move for a convoy after repeated warnings and get's blown up.

The only people I know in this war that treat wounded enemies and civilians would be the Coalition. The baddies only beat our wounded and dismember them.

[JonasDahlin]

Iraq isn't about good vs bad, It's just politics.
Doesn't matter how it ends, people are still going to die.

The only winners in this war are the people who sell oil and guns.

[Kaos]

Iraq isn't about good vs bad, It's just politics.
Doesn't matter how it ends, people are still going to die.

The only winners in this war are the people who sell oil and guns.

Funnily enough, they're the ones who started it.

[MyFingerHurts]

Yeah, I'm about ready to start digging a hole in my backyard in hopes of striking oil. . . . .Finger does not like spending $3.50USD for a gallon of gas. :mad:

[|Crimson|]

One man's Good Guy is another man's Bad Guy.

Imagine America has been invaded and conquered by another state illegally. Several of your innocent friends and family have been killed due to bombing, would you retaliate against the invaders and fight back?
and if you do... who's the bad guy?

[Kaos]

One man's Good Guy is another man's Bad Guy.

Imagine America has been invaded and conquered by another state illegally. Several of your innocent friends and family have been killed due to bombing, would you retaliate against the invaders and fight back?
and if you do... who's the bad guy?

"They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
'Cause if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror"

- Immortal Technique

Quite aptly put, in my opinion.

[2ltben]

When I mentioned Vietnam in these context I was talking about the escalation from 1963-1968 where LBJ and McNamara did basically whatever they wanted without consulting Congress or the public, though in part that's Congress' fault for signing Gulf of Tonkin. Just like then the current President is doing whatever he wants vetoing decisions made by the majority of Congress in the name of the majority people and ignoring their demands.
Vietnam was decided on August 4, 1964. Two days earlier three North Vietnamese gunboats attacked the USN destroyer Maddox, and also reporting another attack two days later. We now know that the attack never happened, as the North Vietnamese had declared immediately after the allegations were aired. After the gunboat attack, the President ordered a proportional, retaliatory response, but after the second, fictional attack, the President, his staff, and his cabinet met and decided to go to war.

Ever since Korea, the Department of Defense has only been comfortable with a 10-1 strength ratio in any engagement to ensure minimal casualties. North Vietnam had 100,000 in guerilla forces alone, to say nothing of their standing armed forces. And in deciding to go to war in the defense of ARVN and South Vietnam, as opposed to funding and training their forces, we tossed our hat in with the dirty politics and underhanded tactics that costed thousands of lives. This is the war that had a peace talk filibuster over the shape of the table the delegates met at.

Vietnam was decided long, long before the pullout decision had been made. It was decided over an inflamed, reactionary response to an attack that never happened. Johnson was furious that, even after the retaliatory airstrikes, that the North Vietnamese would dare, that they had the unmitigated gall to stage another attack, and on the same ship no less! That would not stand, no, that just would not stand. Unfortunately, that attack, that spit in the face of the United States on the worldwide political stage at the height of the Cold War, never actually happened. It was a false report that cost millions of lives on both sides and of innocent civilians. Someone in intelligence dropped the ball, and as a result we had one of the greatest blunders in American military history.

That is why you can compare the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the Vietnam war.

[Moseman872{White Tiger}]

Boys and their wars. . . .cant wait till 2008 election so I can vote the first woman into office!

If your thinking of Hillary, I'd shoot myself in the foot for such an abomination for happening. Nothing against a women president, everything against Hillary!!!!

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

If your thinking of Hillary, I'd shoot myself in the foot for such an abomination for happening. Nothing against a women president, everything against Hillary!!!!

Amen.

Condi for '08! :p

[Kaos]

Vietnam was decided on August 4, 1964. Two days earlier three North Vietnamese gunboats attacked the USN destroyer Maddox, and also reporting another attack two days later. We now know that the attack never happened, as the North Vietnamese had declared immediately after the allegations were aired. After the gunboat attack, the President ordered a proportional, retaliatory response, but after the second, fictional attack, the President, his staff, and his cabinet met and decided to go to war.

Ever since Korea, the Department of Defense has only been comfortable with a 10-1 strength ratio in any engagement to ensure minimal casualties. North Vietnam had 100,000 in guerilla forces alone, to say nothing of their standing armed forces. And in deciding to go to war in the defense of ARVN and South Vietnam, as opposed to funding and training their forces, we tossed our hat in with the dirty politics and underhanded tactics that costed thousands of lives. This is the war that had a peace talk filibuster over the shape of the table the delegates met at.

Vietnam was decided long, long before the pullout decision had been made. It was decided over an inflamed, reactionary response to an attack that never happened. Johnson was furious that, even after the retaliatory airstrikes, that the North Vietnamese would dare, that they had the unmitigated gall to stage another attack, and on the same ship no less! That would not stand, no, that just would not stand. Unfortunately, that attack, that spit in the face of the United States on the worldwide political stage at the height of the Cold War, never actually happened. It was a false report that cost millions of lives on both sides and of innocent civilians. Someone in intelligence dropped the ball, and as a result we had one of the greatest blunders in American military history.

That is why you can compare the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the Vietnam war.

Well I left all that as 'Gulf of Tonkin' but thanks for expanding.

[2ltben]

Amen.

Condi for '08! :p
If she gets elected President, which she won't seeing as it is far too late to enter the race, my money is on her getting us into a military conflict with Iran. I'll just bulletpoint this one.

Iran has a professional and highly trained military that has been at peace for years. We have few, if any, troops to spare, and what we can will more than likely be underfunded, undermanned, and unorganized.

In her public statements about Iran she makes vast generalizations about its power structure, which isn't that far off from the current state of the Federal government. She's not an idiot, she knows that Iran has a very legitimate republic, and she knows that this is merely a PR move to demonize Iran in the eyes of America, who generally have no idea of the system of checks and balances in the Iranian Islamic Republic.

Through some proposed reforms in statements she made, she would be doing what essentially is funding another coup of the nation. She proposes running television and radio ads inside Iran that promote democratic reform, she proposes direct funding of Iranian students to come to the United States for higher education, funding and giving public support to pro-democracy groups within the nation. We did all of this in Guatemala and throughout Central America to support the United Banana company, this time we'll be doing it for the oil industry.

She is placing political pressure on militant organizations that could care less what America will do, and when this doesn't work at all on Hamas, she'll move on to Fatah, which is currently being funded by the United States to more or less fight Hamas for power in Gaza and the West Bank. I mean actually fight, with guns and bombs, on the streets.

She makes foreign policy attacks on Iran for its uranium enrichment program, which are more than toothless and only serve to further antagonize Iran. Again, she's not an idiot. She knows exactly what this is doing. When threats didn't work, she moved the negotiations to open bribery instead.

Last April, she got into an "exchange of words" with her Iranian counterpart. It can down to throwing various curses and swears at eachother before both security details moved it, at which point it almost turned into a gunfight. This incident was unprofessional and absolutely inexcusable. As a result she refuses to ever meet with the man again.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Tis a joke mate.

[2ltben]

She's the kind of person who would be great in the United Nations, but as our Secretary of State her hypocracy is almost criminal. I didn't even mention how she denounces Iran on its human rights violations, and yet courts Equatorial Guinea, who is by and large worse when it comes to human rights, but has oil that is actually obtainable with the proper negotiations.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/sb-obiang-eg

[Total_Overkill]

Boys and their wars. . . .cant wait till 2008 election so I can vote the first woman into office!

What woman? ;)

[2ltben]

Everything that has been reported thus far is that, at the very earliest, it will be September before POTUS and the Executive Office of the White House even consider forming results on the increase in troop number(which is actually closer to the US Military's carrying capacity than a specific number of people who never leave. the rotations ensure that everyone gets a chance to run the gamut, but before the troop surge it was a lower number of people doing it at once).

I really don't know where to stand on this issue anymore. The time when any one or any number of branches of the United States government can even harbor the thought that they control anything in Iraq has long passed. The time when we could get off this roller coaster is over, now we have no choice but to sit out the ride with a maintenance failure, or to bail out right after we start to fall. Both choices are equally as bad.

What both POTUS and Congress are trying to do is choose the lesser of two equals.

[Popa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896789.stm
Oh, shit, son.

But is they pull out, which is the next county that will fall victim to the U.S Military Industrial Complex?

Wales? (Them coal miners and planting WMD's in them tunnels their digging towards the U.S) "Make no mistake, this country is under attack"

Greenland? (Those Eskimo are up to something sitting in their igloos.....they must have WMD's)

The Vatican? (Ah come on, the Pope surely has a WMD)

Sligo? ( Yup, they definitely have WMD's)

.............all prime targets under the Bush dictatorship.

[-X-Sublime]

lol i knew the vatican was up to somthing thats what they been up to all these years and the smoke......not a new pope its bomb testing gone wrong