U.S. Democrats rally behind pullout from Iraq in '08

[fushigi]

U.S. Democrats rally behind pullout from Iraq in '08 - International Herald Tribune

n the House, Democratic leaders presented legislation to their members on Thursday that would place new conditions on military operations in Iraq as well as call for a troop withdrawal no later than August 2008. The proposals are attached to an emergency spending bill that will be considered next week in the Appropriations Committee and debated on the House floor before the end of the month. The Democratic proposal in the House would require Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of military, political and economic benchmarks. If Bush cannot verify any progress in Iraq, the legislation calls for the majority of all combat troops to be removed beginning July of this year and completed by Dec. 31. The legislation also would prohibit military action in Iran unless authorized by Congress.

Sneaky, sneaky. So, if Bush wants money to extend the war, he has to agree to a hard date for withdrawal and handcuff himself on action in Iran. No chance it'll get passed, but it's a cheeky move by the Dems.

[webjedi]

This is standard practice in Washington, it is how business gets done. Nevertheless, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. We are at war, and they are handing our enemies victory on a silver platter. Maybe they don't see it this way, but anyone who openly and purposefully helps the enemies of one's own country is a traitor - in this case a 5th Column.

Regardless of whether this particular scheme works, these children of the 60's will repeat their behavior - they will surrender, they will revel in our own defeat. However, this time they will find on the other side of it an attack on their beliefs and ideals, because ultimately Americans aren't going to accept Islamic rule. Unlike our fight in Southeast Asia, the Islamic fundamentalists are waging war outside of the theater of the present battle, indeed in every part of the World.

I predict the weak and feminized liberals will be exposed as the cowards they are. As our power is continually and progressively challenged throughout the World Americans will look to those who are both willing and able to stand up against whatever threat is posed. Obviously, this is not going to be the Democrats.

The Democrats are the Party of Defeat, and this will be the weapon of their own destruction.


On the other hand, the Republicans have also betrayed us by wanton abuse of their position. Instead of using their hegemony to balance the budget, reduce the size of government, and improve national defense, they went on a spending spree, sold us out to OPEC and big Pharma and ensured our long-term indebtedness to China. There are noises within the Republican party that they know they screwed up, but I doubt they really, truly understand the extent of their errors. Nevertheless, we are at war, and after 9/11 nobody can deny that; and the Republicans still have more credibility when it comes to defense.


Whatever the case, the more timidity I see, the more I am convinced that those wanting us to retreat don't believe in themselves, and there is no way I'm going to follow people like that.

[RickSp]

Quote by: webjedi I predict the weak and feminized liberals will be exposed as the cowards they are.

Once again the War Party supporters, lacking any real argument beyond their "Stay the Course to Certain Defeat", have nothing to offer but schoolyard insults. Well nanner, nanner, nanner to you too. If childish invective is all you can manage, you deserve no better response. Of course anyone who calls a decorated combat veteran like John Murtha a "weak and feminized" "coward" is clearly clueless anyway.

And all the while American troops are dying for nothing in endless war. Over three hundred have died just since the November election. Their blood is on the hands of the Bush supporters. It is time to really "support our troops" by bringing them home.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: fushigi U.S. Democrats rally behind pullout from Iraq in '08 - International Herald Tribune Sneaky, sneaky. So, if Bush wants money to extend the war, he has to agree to a hard date for withdrawal and handcuff himself on action in Iran. No chance it'll get passed, but it's a cheeky move by the Dems.

Not really. if the Democrats want us out by 2008, all they need to do is deny funding. That is all. Its real simple. Except of course politically. its another time when one should be glad they do not have the courage of their convictions.

[RickSp]

Funny how the war mongers can, on one hand, call the Democrats "weak and feminized" cowards for wanting a phased withdrawal and then, on the other, call them cowards, who lack the "courage of their convictions" for not just cutting off funding. I guess if you support this war, you've got a problem. No one believes your lies any more. Name calling is all you've got left.

[Boetie]

White House hangs veto over pullout plan - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders vowed Thursday to pass legislation setting a deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, a challenge to President Bush's war policy that drew a blunt veto threat in return. snip Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the GOP counterattack. "General (David) Petraeus should be the one making the decisions on what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha," Boehner added...

Now here comes the funny part. Go to this Al-Jazeera link and read what Petraeus says

Al Jazeera English - News

Petraeus: Force will not solve Iraq The new US military commander in Iraq has admitted that military might alone cannot solve the ongoing violence in the country. General David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since he took command last month, said: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq.

Now tell me folks will Rep. Boehner listen to Petraeus?

Note: The above is not a duplicate post I was unable to delete the above post from another thread. Mods would you please delete post #9 found at this link Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year Thank You.

[Praxius]

Quote by: webjedi This is standard practice in Washington, it is how business gets done. Nevertheless, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. We are at war, and they are handing our enemies victory on a silver platter. Maybe they don't see it this way, but anyone who openly and purposefully helps the enemies of one's own country is a traitor - in this case a 5th Column.

Handing them victory? Do you even see any victory for your side coming in the near future? A withdrawl is the most logical step. Just staying there and letting your troops get killed for the principle of trying to win and prove everybody wrong is foolish. The Demos are probably doing the best thing for your country at this time. Staying there longer and longer isn't going to make you win. It has already been lost and Bush's troop surge is already proving to be a failure, which was already predicted beforehand.

Regardless of whether this particular scheme works, these children of the 60's will repeat their behavior - they will surrender, they will revel in our own defeat. However, this time they will find on the other side of it an attack on their beliefs and ideals, because ultimately Americans aren't going to accept Islamic rule. Unlike our fight in Southeast Asia, the Islamic fundamentalists are waging war outside of the theater of the present battle, indeed in every part of the World.

So pulling out of Iraq will immediatly mean your country is run by Muslims? Funny..... you guys can't control them in their own country, what makes you think they would be able to control you? Nice Propaganda.

Blaming the hippies for the failures in Vietnam and now Iraq? Now there's an easy scape goat...... sure..... you're government wasn't wrong, they were just being interfeered by hippies and made them fail.......

You guys wouldn't have "Terrorists" all over the world if the Bush Administration kept their asses in Afghanistan to begin with..... this all proabably have been over a long time ago. Instead, your government attacked, at the time, a passive country, with no WOMD, and their military force was inactive. Put two and two together and you get what we're living now.

I predict the weak and feminized liberals will be exposed as the cowards they are. As our power is continually and progressively challenged throughout the World Americans will look to those who are both willing and able to stand up against whatever threat is posed. Obviously, this is not going to be the Democrats. The Democrats are the Party of Defeat, and this will be the weapon of their own destruction.

And stay with the Republicans and instead of the Democrats being your downfall, it'll be the rest of the world. They've taking you down that road long enough.

On the other hand, the Republicans have also betrayed us by wanton abuse of their position. Instead of using their hegemony to balance the budget, reduce the size of government, and improve national defense, they went on a spending spree, sold us out to OPEC and big Pharma and ensured our long-term indebtedness to China. There are noises within the Republican party that they know they screwed up, but I doubt they really, truly understand the extent of their errors. Nevertheless, we are at war, and after 9/11 nobody can deny that; and the Republicans still have more credibility when it comes to defense.

True on some points, but the only reason why the Reps have more credibility is because they've been in power ever since this all started (Coincidence? I think not.)

Whatever the case, the more timidity I see, the more I am convinced that those wanting us to retreat don't believe in themselves, and there is no way I'm going to follow people like that.

They know exactly what they're doing..... at least they appear to know more of what they're doing then the Reps.

If you're so gun-ho about winning in Iraq, perhaps you should go over and help.

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO Not really. if the Democrats want us out by 2008, all they need to do is deny funding. That is all. Its real simple. Except of course politically. its another time when one should be glad they do not have the courage of their convictions.

Yep, I can't wait to see Republicans run on a pro-war plank in 2008. Those will be some Profiles in Courage!

[Osborn F Enready]

I think we should pull out of Iraq in a controlled, timely fashion. I think they should fortify held areas and increase patrols to the point of maximum size based on manpower and effectiveness around large civillian centers, and employ Iraqis already trained police in the smaller civillian sectors and outer areas, supported by U.S. Snipers and Interdiction teams. While this was happening I would concentrate my spec ops MP specialists, as trainers, with which to train Police specialist trainers who can then train up more policemen in a more efficient and timely manner, and distribute them to the major civillian centers to train up Iraqi police trainers.

I say Spec Ops for one reason. If they have a base M.O. of Military Policemen, they have the basic grounding and time in rate to be fully familliar with Military Police standards and code. Spec Ops would be a wise choice because these men are trained to analyze the situation, and employ tactics that best fit the time available, tactical and end-goal scenario once a realistic overview is made of actual forces on ground. ( In Vietnam we employed similar tactics, having Green Berets train up local forces to provide an effective backbone to very weak technologically rebel forces, that had extremely valuable knowledge of local lands, conditions and routes used by the enemy. )
Special Operations.Com

Iraq needs a civillian "Civillian Police Fast Response Tactical Team" that can respond to tips and crimes as they happen, while lead times are as short as possible, and they should be in every major civillian city. They also need effective Military Border Patrol, which can provide the same type of fast response tactical team in border situations.

As these plans are being put in place, and the first Iraqi special MP units start hitting the streets, our troops can sweep from their positions outward toward the borders of Iraq , stabilize the interior border perimeter and slowly filter out as the new Iraqi border patrol takes over.

Yes, I know this a surfactory explanation, but it explains the gist of the types of tactics I would be looking at if I had to make the choices, and I would be shooting for withdrawls starting immediately, in a slow timely process that would end in about 2 years with all troops being out.

All in all though, this would only be tactically effective if there is diplomacy capable of following through, regardless of who is in office in 08. A problem that every foreign nation has dealth with concerning U.S. foreign policy.

The Government has to make it happen diplomaticly, before the tactical advantage can be gained.