Hawkish Democrat Calls for Iraq Pullout

[Scribbler1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON - An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict. "It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region." House Republicans assailed Murtha's position as one of abandonment and surrender, and accused Democrats of playing politics with the war. "They want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement. Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. A decorated Vietnam veteran, he choked back tears during his remarks to reporters."

FULL STORY

With his support for the war, this guy was probably one of the worst things to happen to the Democratic Party, and I'll be willing to bet he gets trashed all over the media and on Internet forums over this.

[Sonart]

Heck, it's not just Democrats...

"The Republican congressman who pushed for "french fries" to be renamed "freedom fries" joined a bipartisan group of House members Thursday to call on President Bush to begin plans for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina said it is time for Congress to start talking about bringing American troops home from Iraq."

"A leading Republican senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran said Sunday the Iraq war has destabilized the Mideast and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict a generation ago. Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq."

"U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of President Bush, says the United States should consider pulling out of war-ravaged Iraq."

.

[deedee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl FULL STORY With his support for the war, this guy was probably one of the worst things to happen to the Democratic Party, and I'll be willing to bet he gets trashed all over the media and on Internet forums over this.

Yup. Typical democrat way........start something and then don't finish it and leave the Iraqi gov't to the rebels so they can continue to terrorize and rule under the iron fist.

Nothing new under the sun. :rolleyes:

[RickSp]

Quote by: deedee Yup. Typical democrat way........start something and then don't finish it and leave the Iraqi gov't to the rebels so they can continue to terrorize and rule under the iron fist. Nothing new under the sun. :rolleyes:

The longer we stay in Iraq the larger the insurgency grows. Immediately after the beginning of the occupation, the Pentagon estimated a few hundred to a few thousand insurgents. The larger the insurgency grew the less willing the Pentagon became to make estimates. Independent estimates now put the insurgency at between 20,000 and 40,000 fighters and a recent poll suggested that over 40% of all Iraqis think it is OK to attack US or British troops. We are losing.

The occupation is what unifies and feeds the insurgency and robs the new government of legitimacy. Bottom line, the longer we stay the worse it gets.

[Walmas]

The resistance to the war is growing. mabye the bush administration planed there war in the lifetime of the wrong people. Ie the vietnam era

[Walmas]

Quote by: deedee Yup. Typical democrat way........start something and then don't finish it and leave the Iraqi gov't to the rebels so they can continue to terrorize and rule under the iron fist. Nothing new under the sun. :rolleyes:

no. im sorry its called sticking to the people who voted for you.
appoval for the iraq war
Approve
Now
34%
Two weeks ago
39%
5/2003
72%

Disapprove
Now
61%
Two weeks ago
58%
5/2003
20%

dont you hate it when people cite facts

[Sonart]

Quote by: deedee Yup. Typical democrat way........start something and then don't finish it and leave the Iraqi gov't to the rebels so they can continue to terrorize and rule under the iron fist.

Would that be anything like when Saint Ronald of Reagan inserted our Marines onto Beirut Airport, surrounded on three sides by enemy held high ground, and left them pinned there for months until the terrorists found the wherewithall to blow 240 of our Marines to smithereens, whereupon Reagan immediately turned tail and ran?

You know what a pyhhric victory is, right, deedee? It's where the cost of winning something is higher than the value of what you're trying to win. The cost to America in dead, maimed and wounded servicepeople, treasure and international relations long ago passed what eliminating Saddam was worth, and the cost is only climbing... day after day after day. Like I said, if this had been about WMD and an actual threat to our country, Americans would be willing to pay the price. But now? Any poker player knows that you don't keep betting a losing hand... you curse under your breath to being suckered in, cut your loses and fold.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: deedee Typical democrat way........start something and then don't finish it

Typical Republican political crime: Fuck up, then lie about it...

[Rainbow]

Since the first part is about to reach its final-ending point, now we are ready for packing up and leaving procedures that should start right away - according to J. Murtha.

We have the following :
- pro-Saddam units awaiting for a power switch
- pro-Islamic fundamentalists awaiting for a power switch
- pro-Iranian fundamentalists awaiting for a power switch
- pro-democratic Iraqi government awaiting for a plane to take off (unless they have a desire to occupy Saddam's - and alike cells, awaiting executions)
- misery and poverty fluorishes all over Iraq (as it used to be)
- ect.

What we may expect :
- a full scale of civil war is about to emerge, in Iraq
- Shitt (with Iranian support) wins over Suuni, with all the weaponary system is ready for any developement, as the result
Saddam did not have WMD ? Iraq would have it, with no controlling and/or monitoring body over process, at all.

Is that real or not ?
What would you write, guys ? then ?

On the other hand, maybe that is just better what some of you advocate. In the name of "peace", let those guys do whatever their desire leads them to. Sooner or later, U.S. would have no option but to use its arsenal and wipe some parts of Middle-East region out, and that time for good. You would have a chance to compare your today's ideas with tomorrow's reality.

Aside note :
Some of you seem to have no clue on reality for the Middle-East region's subject (along with potential outcomes that region may result in, with a global economical influence all over the world), except for a stubborn and selfish stance in order to uphold your positions on a public forum (read : "Volcanvo"), guys.

I am not much interested in other states, political parties, activists of all sorts and/or kinds, ect. , but how events around the world may influence U.S. , and what is the best option for U.S.
It does not look "nice", sometimes. Think about those who come some decades later, exactly as like you were born some time ago. Did you care, what was or not "nice" ? You just took it.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Rainbow On the other hand, maybe that is just better what some of you advocate. In the name of "peace", let those guys do whatever their desire leads them to. Sooner or later, U.S. would have no option but to use its arsenal and wipe some parts of Middle-East region out, and that time for good. You would have a chance to comapre your today's ideas with tomorrow's reality.

What is with people like you? Why does it always have to be one extreme or the other? We either have to invade or else let them do "whatever their desire leads them to"?? Why? We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, constant surveillance by UAV's, U-2"s and satellites, no-fly zones, and occasional bombings when any of these assets were challenged. saddam was pretty effectively boxed in and neutralized. Talk about reality! Do you really believe that what we have accomplished in Iraq is worth anywhere near what it has cost?

[tinybear]

OK folks, bring out the white flags. We're surrendering to the terrorists.

[Nono]

tiny, you troll, why don't you personally go out an' mow 'em down?
Why accuse others of lacking backbone?

[Sonart]

Quote by: tinybear OK folks, bring out the white flags. We're surrendering to the terrorists.

By golly, right you are, bear. Much better to keep hacking away at our own face and cutting our own throat than to realize that our peter principle case study of a President has dealt us a losing hand, and that it's time to cut our loses and let the Iraqis be what they're gonna be, which will most likely be the Iranian province of the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

You're like what Billy Hoyle said to Sidney in White Men Can't Jump... "A (Bush) man would rather miss than look bad."

You'd rather we keep screwing ourselves in a quagmire we can't win and can't get out of than let the terrorists win because of our own bad choices. If it makes you feel better, take a lesson from Saint Ronald of Reagan. When terrorists blew up 240 of our Marines in Beirut, Reagan turned tail and ran. Better that than to lose even more while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Quote by: deedee Yup. Typical democrat way........start something and then don't finish it and leave the Iraqi gov't to the rebels so they can continue to terrorize and rule under the iron fist.

Yup, typical chickenhawk way... buncha war lovers who avoided combat themselves telling everyone else they need to keep fighting and dying in an ill-conceived, ill-conducted war that was started for reasons that didn't exist and that we can't win and can't get out of, all for the sake of appearances.

--"It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way and all those who never fired a shot in anger and are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history."-- General Anthony Zinni, former commander in chief, U.S. Central Command, and Bush's former special envoy to the Middle East, who strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq.

.

[brien]

Quote by: Scribbler1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl FULL STORY With his support for the war, this guy was probably one of the worst things to happen to the Democratic Party, and I'll be willing to bet he gets trashed all over the media and on Internet forums over this.

The US should have never been there in the first place. A Given.

The US should extract itself. A Given

So tell us something we don't already know. OK That is the timetable for the extraction.

1) Remove all soldiers and equipment beginning tomorrow and be done with it by the Spring. Not going to happen.

2) Remove all soldiers and equipment in a more timely and drawn down manner so as to continue the commitment the US made to Iraq. Probably.

It seems to my untrained eye that the US is dancing around a timetable. I have read that US soldiers will still be there in 5 years. Of course, not in the numbers they are now, but nevertheless, still there. Maybe, unless the next "Presidente" does something about it.

It also seems to my untrained eye that the soldiers in Iraq are beginning to be able to work this situation by themselves. The Sunnis seem to be participating more in the political processes. That recent bombing in Jordon went a long way to consolidate the Moderate Muslim's power in bringing the more radical leaning sects into their fold. It seems to me.

Is it not irresponsible to just up and leave tomorrow, no matter what drew us into this mess? That is water over the proverbial damn now. Is the US not morally responsible to extract itself in a manner which best protects the interests all of the people of Iraq? Whatever timetable that may be for them, independent of the Republicrats in DC.

Therfore, the US is morally responsible to provide a realistic timetable to achieve this goal of extraction. All we get now is typical Washington doublespeak. You can bet this will be one of the FIRST questions asked of every next Presidential candidate.

Can't wait.

[jose]

Quote by: tinybear OK folks, bring out the white flags. We're surrendering to the terrorists.

i doubt if the Iraqi people will care or respect your white flag, the thing is you can leave now or leave later but leave you will, better a tactical withdrawl rather than another helicopter dash from the top of the american embassy

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: brien It also seems to my untrained eye that the soldiers in Iraq are beginning to be able to work this situation by themselves. The Sunnis seem to be participating more in the political processes. That recent bombing in Jordon went a long way to consolidate the Moderate Muslim's power in bringing the more radical leaning sects into their fold. It seems to me.

I haven't heard it was actually Sunnis, but two Shiite mosques were blown up by suicide bombers today. I don't think this is the best example of the political process at work here and it gives a little weight to what I have been saying all along about how Saddam probably kept these two groups from annihilating each other. THIS is the peaceful, Saddam-free country some of us here are constantly whining about. They hate each other and want nothing better than to slaughter each other and no government can change that.

At the risk of repeating myself, this pile of garbage known as Iraq isn't worth one drop of American blood or one dollar of American money.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zeebadee What is with people like you? Why does it always have to be one extreme or the other? We either have to invade or else let them do "whatever their desire leads them to"?? Why? We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, constant surveillance by UAV's, U-2"s and satellites, no-fly zones, and occasional bombings when any of these assets were challenged. saddam was pretty effectively boxed in and neutralized. Talk about reality! Do you really believe that what we have accomplished in Iraq is worth anywhere near what it has cost?

It looks you understood my post incorrectly.
This particular expression I posted and you refer to, is taken out of the whole context.

#1
I am OK. How about you ? :-)))
My expression refers to real situation that mostly likely takes place, after U.S. military personnel is out of Iraq today.
That means :
- pro-Iranian Shitts wins, and rules Iraq in the shape as it is of today
- in some period of time, Iran supplies Iraq with WMD, in order to destroy Israel (at least)
- U.S. gets involved (regardless of Israels' countermeassures) and takes bearings at WMD locations (at least) in Iraq and Iran, respectively
I would like to read your findings, then.

#2
Arguments on U.N. inspectors' findings, contradict with U.N. Resolution #1441.

#3
We have accomplished some points in Iraq, but not the main goals, so far.
The main reason is not "insurgency", but rather a negligence in recruiting, training Iraqi security personnel, along with a security itself. As the result appx. 2 years have been wasted and we need to restart that process once again.

Additional data on U.S. military personnel withdrawal from Iraq.
The U.S. House results on U.S. troops in Iraq :
- Stay : 403
- Withdraw : 3

It may be read as follows :
- the House represents something, or something else
- 67% of U.S. population has serious problems with education (at least) and/or has no clue on politics
- those guys (read : Democrats and Republicans, respectively) put a lot of efforts to have fun
The main question :
- Who represents What ? :-)))

[tinybear]

Quote by: Nono tiny, you troll, why don't you personally go out an' mow 'em down? Why accuse others of lacking backbone?

But it is surrender, isn't it? If we're about to surrender, we can at least have the decency to admit it.

I'm only a harmless little bear. What can I do?

[Nono]

I'm only a harmless little bear. What can I do?

Well, what you've done here, in your bearishly trollifying way, is to put things in gratuitiously over-the-top language. Another great contribution to the discussion.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tinybear But it is surrender, isn't it? If we're about to surrender, we can at least have the decency to admit it. I'm only a harmless little bear. What can I do?

Since we haven't declared war on the Iraqi people we can't very well surrender, can we? What this is, is making a mistake and instead of pigheadedly pressing on with said mistaken action we CORRECT the error. It's akin to accidentally driving ONTO the exit ramp on a freeway. You quickly realize all the traffic is going the opposite way. You can keep going and assume the other cars will avoid you or for some reason the cars will all turn around and drive in the direction YOU are going.

Or you can realize your mistake, turn around and travel in the right direction. Or would that be surrendering to the highway?