PDA

View Full Version : US to pull out of Iraq!



TimH
03-23-2007, 12:49 PM
From ABC news:


WASHINGTON Mar 23, 2007 (AP)— A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."



Who want to bet Bush will throw us into a war with Iran to keep his war going?

TimH
03-23-2007, 02:25 PM
no takers on this one?

High C
03-23-2007, 02:33 PM
no takers on this one?

Your thread title is a bit.....premature. (brush up on your basic civics ;) )

TimH
03-23-2007, 02:35 PM
Your thread title is a bit.....premature. (brush up on your basic civics ;) )

it was supposed to be attention-grabbing ;)

John of Phoenix
03-23-2007, 02:58 PM
Dubya promises veto. (This will be his second !)
The Decider:
The Democrats have sent their message. Now it’s time to send their money.

S.V. Airlie
03-23-2007, 03:12 PM
I still have two concerns:
How is the withdrawl going to be accomplished.. and yes, a question that seems to be a Republican one.
If one sets a date for withdrawal.. complete withdrawal.. is this not just playing into the hands of those who oppose a united Iraq?

Okay.. so I question putting a (specific ) time limit on a withdrawal.

TimH
03-23-2007, 03:14 PM
If Bush is forced to abandon his Iraq folly, he will surely move to attack Iran. Without a war he would have nothing to do.

PatCox
03-23-2007, 03:20 PM
What will I say, C223? I feel neglected, unnoticed.

ljb5
03-23-2007, 03:25 PM
I still have two concerns:
How is the withdrawl going to be accomplished..

Logistical questions like this are best left to the Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense and the chain of command.

Then again, since when have the Republicans cared about "accomplishing" anything????

Why do you ask, "How is the withdrawl going to be accomplished" when you never bothered to ask, "How are the goals going to be accomplished"???


is this not just playing into the hands of those who oppose a united Iraq?

This is what it looks like when troops come home:

http://www.armor4troops.org/images2/ComingHomeFromWar-4.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40927000/jpg/_40927879_dutch_story2ap.jpg


Yes... I see that they are in somone's hands. That's for sure.

High C
03-23-2007, 03:27 PM
Pat...I guess you fall into the reasonable catagory....

Pat who? :confused: :eek: :p :D

S.V. Airlie
03-23-2007, 03:27 PM
Do I have to post every concern I have here on the forum ljb5..? No!.. Does not mean I don't have them.

You are losing it. But then again, expected.
Why don't you go find a rock to hide under? And as you so often write in your so called defence...

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME.. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME..THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME... ad nausium.

George.
03-23-2007, 03:48 PM
it was supposed to be attention-grabbing ;)

Same as the meaningless partisan vote you refer to.

George.
03-23-2007, 03:49 PM
George: If you had your act together like we do in Brazil...



I may have my mean moments, but I would not wish that on anyone... :D

TimH
03-23-2007, 03:59 PM
Same as the meaningless partisan vote you refer to.

Just over an hour later, an angry Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."

its a war within a war...

The House vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 or more additional troops to Iraq to work.

ljb5
03-23-2007, 04:41 PM
Same as the meaningless partisan vote you refer to.


I'm not sure the vote was meaningless.

Even though it won't be enacted into law, it does accomplish a couple of things.

It generates discussion.
It creates a record of the positions of members of congress to which we can later refer.
It demonstrates to the president a certain amount of resolve.

Lots of things can be accomplished in Washington without passing binding resolutions or forceful laws.

Rumsfeld, Miers, Kerik and Brownie were all kicked out after persistent, but technically toothless criticism.

TimH
03-23-2007, 04:42 PM
Rule #1

never start a fight with someone who has a lot less to lose than you do.


I just made that up by the way... :-)

S.V. Airlie
03-23-2007, 04:44 PM
ljb5 you may be right but at the same time, people will also remember that 14 Dems voted against it. It was not a solid front, and will be forgotten almost as quickly as so many past attempts by a minority.
Now if all of the Dems had voted for it.. perhaps. But, as is often the case, the Dems did not put on a united front.

ljb5
03-23-2007, 04:55 PM
ljb5 you may be right but at the same time, people will also remember that 14 Dems voted against it. It was not a solid front, and will be forgotten almost as quickly as so many past attempts by a minority.
Now if all of the Dems had voted for it.. perhaps. But, as is often the case, the Dems did not put on a united front.

Aren't you the one who is always bragging about how you don't vote straight-party tickets?

The nice thing about the Democratic party is that they do not expect all of their members to vote exactly the same way on every issue.

I am not disturbed to know that 14 Dems voted against it.

You might forget about it soon. I will not.

John of Phoenix
03-23-2007, 05:01 PM
Some of those Dems who voted nay, wanted a stronger bill - pull out tomorrow.
Some because they come from conservative districts and they voted the feelings of their constituents, as they should.
Same can be said for the Reps who vote for the bill.

S.V. Airlie
03-23-2007, 05:02 PM
Get a life. I am not a robot. I vote for the person. You vote for the party plebes of for whomever someone tells you to vote for. "Here is the hoop Leslie! Jump!!!!" You follow those who dictate to you who to follow.
Sad.. I think, you just go by rote.. ljb5.
And yes, if splitting a ticket is due to my looking at all candidates, yes, I'll brag because I don't wear blinders..

ljb5
03-23-2007, 05:03 PM
I vote for the person.

How's that been working out for you lately?

You've already admitted that your vote was a mistake.

S.V. Airlie
03-23-2007, 05:05 PM
Yup.. and here is one for you. I voted for Carter.. umm.. another mistake also acknowledged..

ljb5
03-23-2007, 05:07 PM
Yup.. and here is one for you. I voted for Carter.. umm.. another mistake also acknowledged..


So you're a two-time screw-up.

Not such a good record, is it?

S.V. Airlie
03-23-2007, 05:10 PM
Just points out that I try to vote for the person who, I think, is best for the job.. right or wrong.. as opposed to one who doesn't care as long as he is a Democrat.
You are a product of Brave New World... go for it. You obviously are genetically programed to follow a specific role in life as long as someone dictates what road to follow.
I lived through Carter. I will live through Bush and his games.

John of Phoenix
03-23-2007, 05:13 PM
Could you two just start your own personal bash each other thread please.

This cyber wedgie sh!t you guys are so infatuated with has to stop.

Every thread! Grow up!

High C
03-23-2007, 05:39 PM
Yup.. and here is one for you. I voted for Carter.. umm.. another mistake also acknowledged..

Me too, both times. :o

LeeG
03-23-2007, 05:45 PM
it'll be vetoed but it's a beginning.

George.
03-23-2007, 06:02 PM
Me too, both times. :o

I just knew you were salvageable at heart, High C! :) :D

George Roberts
03-23-2007, 06:11 PM
When 2 guys fight over a girl, the fight is not over the girl. The fight is just to have a fight.

I would suggest that the executive and legislative just want to fight.

---

There was a suggestion about countries and people in another thread. The suggestion was that some countries and people just want to fight. And something needs to be done about them.

Perhaps we need to do something about the executive and legislative.

High C
03-23-2007, 06:12 PM
I just knew you were salvageable at heart, High C! :) :D

That was a long time ago, when I was young and foolish! :D

John of Phoenix
03-23-2007, 07:11 PM
Sorta like you bashing Bush & Co on every thread, no matter the topic, eh Teets? Talk about a cyber wedgie! You've got a cyber ingrown hair!


Poor Donn. Well that's what happens when you idolize a moron.

Tell you what, I'll back off when he smartens up.

TimH
03-23-2007, 07:15 PM
The Donn seems like an intelligent guy. I cant figure out how he still supports Butsh after all of this.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-23-2007, 07:37 PM
They are forming there responses up along party lines too. Give 'em a minute.

I will give a baseless prediction of responses due to excessive levels of caffeine as I avoid cleaning the house.

ElJ: Duh!

George: If you had your act together like we do in Brazil...

Donn: What's the purpose of the trail of rat droppings at the end of that sentence Dottie?

Joe: Yaddah yaddah yaddah Donn.

Katherine: And I hang out here for what again?

Ishmael: This reminds me of a story of when I was living with a girl I met while searching for wild ginger.

Donn: Wild ginger doesnt grow near you catbat

C223: When my wife was performing surgery while on active duty the other day...

PMJ: Shut up yah Southern racist tee-tee head. OK I'm sorry.


Now THATS funny:D :D

SamSam
03-23-2007, 08:12 PM
Poor Donn?

You mention Bush 50 times more often than I do.

That's what happens when you demonize a nemesis. It makes you look like a moron.

You have no good reasons to mention that toad. It shows intelligence that you don't. You believe in a lost cause.

Demonizing a nemesis is lesson #1 in starting a war. George and Dick sure look like morons for demonizing Saddam.

TimH
03-23-2007, 08:20 PM
but Saddam killed thousands of innocent people....

SamSam
03-23-2007, 09:48 PM
but Saddam killed thousands of innocent people....

That is OK. Saddams problem with the US was he had a lot of oil in his country.

PeterSibley
03-23-2007, 11:52 PM
He was also the lock on Pandora's Box .

Lucky Luke
03-24-2007, 12:53 AM
This is what it looks like when troops come home:

http://www.armor4troops.org/images2/ComingHomeFromWar-4.jpg

Cute and heartwarming...

But some won t have that pleasure:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3699.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3689.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3695.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3700.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3687.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3692.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3682.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3684.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3685.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3686.jpghttp://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/3675.jpg

...aso...aso....aso....aso....aso....aso....aso... ..aso....aso....aso..aso....aso.....aso....aso.... .aso....aso.....aso....aso...aso....aso..........

huisjen
03-24-2007, 06:30 AM
It's an appropriation bill. Go ahead and veto it. Then there won't be money to do anything at all. It's saying "If you agree to an orderly pull out later, we'll give you some money. If not, you're grounded and your allowance is cut off."

Dan

TimH
03-24-2007, 11:13 AM
That is OK. Saddams problem with the US was he had a lot of oil in his country.

Bush is responsible for 50 times as many civilian deaths as Saddam ever was.

High C
03-24-2007, 02:38 PM
Bush is responsible for 50 times as many civilian deaths as Saddam ever was.

B.S. ALERT!!!!! B.S. ALERT!!!!! B.S. ALERT!!!!! B.S. ALERT!!!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ljb5
03-24-2007, 03:18 PM
I tend to agree with High C. on this one.....

but frankly, I don't see the pride in being the "second-worst mass-murderer in modern Iraqi history."

Bush is responsible for more U.S. deaths than Saddam ever was.

S.V. Airlie
03-24-2007, 03:22 PM
Has anyone brought out the amount of pork that was in this bill?
A few hundred million for spinach growers.. that is one of the better ones...
There is more in the bill than just funding the troops and a deadline for getting out.

Scott P
03-24-2007, 03:34 PM
Unfortunately, there is always a lot of pork in any major bill but these items will cost us taxpayers nothing in comparison to the cost of this war.

S.V. Airlie
03-24-2007, 03:35 PM
Combined though...and the cost of the war and the pork, in this bill, is combined.
It's a double.

The Bigfella
03-24-2007, 06:53 PM
A friend's son gets home today!

WX
03-24-2007, 07:17 PM
I would like to see them all home.

The Bigfella
03-24-2007, 09:10 PM
I'd like to see an end to armed aggression too

World Peace - now there's a concept

JimD
03-24-2007, 09:33 PM
...If one sets a date for withdrawal.. complete withdrawal.. is this not just playing into the hands of those who oppose a united Iraq?

I think W has been playing into those hands for a few years now. At this point there may not be much he can do that doesn't play into those hands. Except that some of the Iraqis who oppose the occupation would be more than willing to dictate over a united Iraq.

George.
03-24-2007, 09:45 PM
World Peace is not good for business.

TimH
03-24-2007, 11:24 PM
B.S. ALERT!!!!! B.S. ALERT!!!!! B.S. ALERT!!!!! B.S. ALERT!!!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


between these numbers?

59408 65246

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


hard to tell exactly:


Iraq's Health Ministry ordered to stop counting civilian dead from war
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
The health minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, denied in an email that he had anything to do with the order, saying he didn't even know about the study.
Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department, said the order was relayed to her by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who said it came on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop.
"We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn't agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn't want this to be done."

TimH
03-24-2007, 11:34 PM
Counting the dead in Iraq


Commentary by
March 16, 2005 03:39 PM



ALP Senator John Faulkner made this speech in Parliament today.

Today I wish to place on record some facts about the civilian casualties of the Iraq War. I cannot place on record any certain statement of how many civilian casualties there have been. No-one knows.
I don’t mean that the census of the dead is incomplete, or inaccurate, or fragmentary. I mean it has not been carried out at all.
None of the coalition of the willing keep – or admit to keeping – a count of Iraqi deaths. This is in striking contrast to the anxiety that there be a scrupulous accounting of deaths attributable to Saddam Hussein.
It is not in question that in the 1980s and early 1990s, Saddam Hussein carried out horrific purges of his real and imagined enemies. More than 50,000 Kurds were shot, bombed, or gassed in the late 1980s. After the first Gulf War, when sections of the Shiite and Kurdish populations rose up in rebellion, Saddam Hussein ordered the deaths of at least 100,000 –and possibly as many as 200,000 – men, women and children.

Remember now that this was after George Bush senior told them to rise up against Saddam and America would support them. Of course they rose up and were all killed without the afore-mentioned support ever coming.


So Saddam 50,000 +
Bush Senior 100k to 200k
Bush Junior 50k - 100k possibly.

Wild Dingo
03-24-2007, 11:40 PM
typical political blatherings :rolleyes:

meanwhile the so called "war" rolls on OBL is still alive terrorism is still a real threat while Iraqi civilians fall dead in the streets in their homes and wherever else they are and the soldiers fall dead mangled or maimed... and meanwhile back at the ranch bush squanders what little international respect is left to what was once a brilliant USA... rather flamin stupid dont you think?

Lucky Luke
03-25-2007, 11:37 AM
It's an appropriation bill. Go ahead and veto it. Then there won't be money to do anything at all. It's saying "If you agree to an orderly pull out later, we'll give you some money. If not, you're grounded and your allowance is cut off."

Dan

So what?

Lucky Luke
03-25-2007, 11:44 AM
Bush is responsible for 50 times as many civilian deaths as Saddam ever was.

No matter how much one (me included) may regard you president (no uppercase *P* this time ) as a bloody murderer, it is difficult to make him directly responsible for those.

But directly responsible for the death of many more American, English, Australian boys than even O Bin Laden at his best: YES!

Hope he gets remembered as the most infamous US President (Uppercase) of all times!

BERK!

skuthorp
03-25-2007, 05:22 PM
"More than 50,000 Kurds were shot, bombed, or gassed in the late 1980s. After the first Gulf War, when sections of the Shiite and Kurdish populations rose up in rebellion"

And what country encouraged that rebellion and then reniged?
Most flirations with the US by smaller countries get's their fingers burnt, and US foriegn policy has always operated, short term, solely for the benifit of the US, even if that proves to be a major error in the medium term. Why is it that the political class seem to operate so much against the wishes of their electorate, and why does that electorate put up with it?