Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home

[gr8fuldaniel]

How far do you think this will get?

Boston Globe Group wants anti-Iraq war resolution on town meeting ballots By Associated Press, 12/18/2004 15:49 MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) An activist group is hoping to get a resolution on Town Meeting Day ballots that calls on the state to recall Vermont National Guard troops from Iraq. The war in Iraq, claims the Vermont Network on Iraq Resolutions, is a ''quintessentially local issue'' because of the National Guard and therefore belongs on the agenda at town meeting. The network is circulating petitions in an effort to get enough signatures to put a resolution concerning the war on the Town Meeting Day agenda of dozens of troops. The premise of the resolution is that the war in Iraq is unjustified and illegal. It asks the state to pursue two avenues to recall Vermont Guard troops already deployed. it calls for Vermont's congressional delegation to urge congress to return power over the National Guard to the individual states the Guard was designed to protect. It also asks the Legislature to form a committee to investigate how the Guard's deployment has affected the state's readiness for emergencies at home. Drafters say the Vermont Constitution gives the state authority to withhold Guard troops if it can demonstrate that sending them abroad would unduly compromise the state's ability to handle state crises. But the primary intent of the resolution is to foster dialogue and expose what organizers say is an illegal war. ''The resolution comes from an analysis that the Vermont Guard ought not be deployed in Iraq because of the fact that the Iraq occupation and invasion is not justified,'' said Kaye, a Windham activist. MORE.......

Our National Guardsmen have been betrayed, on many levels. This could be the loophole that sets things straight for them. If it works for Vermont it could catch on like wildfire in other states.
Meanwhile the "Coalition of the Willing" is diminishing. Hungary announces Iraq pull-out.So now Hungary has lost interest in our War on Peace. I forsee more of that, rather than an influx of willing participants.
This would tempt the Bush war machine to eat its words on the inevitability of the Draft.
The volunteer nature of the military is less and less attractive

[Technosoul]

Well I think it is great they got the guts to protest that way, using the system rather then just shouting it out with a sign or another march on Washington. Also it is great because if it were not for pancakes I would have almost forgotten that we have a state called Vermont. Been a while scince I heard that name relative to current events.

However I do not think a City Hall would have the pull needed to recall troops from a war that is being funded now by Congress. It is no doubt just for show and to hopefully generate more interest in what they feel is unjustified about the original reasons President Bush ordered the attacks.

When the elections are done in Iraq I think we might have the rest of the countries pulling back troop support relative to the reconstruction efforts unless they are offered important contracts that would send case from Halliburton their way.

Would this continued lack of support of Coalition forces result in a draft? I do not think that is yet being concidered because they hope to fund the money for the military to expand their sign-up agenda. As our economy slumps and fewer people have jobes due to outsourcing and down-sizeing of low skill production jobs we will have more people who will join the military in a volunteer nature just because they need a job and medical coverage for their family. Plus there are hopes of allowing (soon to be documented) undocumented persons form south of the boarder a chance to become full time U.S. Ameircans by doing time in the military with the added perk of educational benifits. The poor will come knocking at the recruitment's door.

(opinions by) Technosoul.

[RickSp]

How far do you think this will get?

My first thought was - "not far enough."

Then again, the American people are many things, but they are not stupid. The war is a disaster and that is becomer clearer daily. Bush will continue to spin fantasies but even he is beginning to acknowledge that things are not going well. Just today another 19 fine Americans died in this pointless war. I wonder how many more will die before the American people say "enough."

[Gorgo]

Psst. Did you notice the last election? George Bush won.

Quote by: RickSp My first thought was - "not far enough." Then again, the American people are many things, but they are not stupid.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gorgo Psst. Did you notice the last election? George Bush won.

Did you notice the margin that he won by? A whopping 3% landslide.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released today found that 56 per cent of those questioned said the cost of the war outweighed the benefits and was not worth paying. And things are only getting worse in Iraq.

[bullshitdetector]

A miss is a good as a mile, Rick, That leaves the minority in the stupid category.

[Anniee]

Wasn't it around 4 million votes? Hardly a piddling win.

Besides:

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: Anniee Wasn't it around 4 million votes? Hardly a piddling win. Besides: (image deleted)

See all those high spots of blue, Anniee? Those are the welfare counties that were bought off with cigarettes, free bus rides, food and drink if they voted for Kerry. He couldn't even BUY his votes.

I'm allowing the original picture as it was part of the poster's point. Please do not post large images such as that one. If you muse post them, provide a link where they can be enlarged in a seperate window.

[Gorgo]

Just being sarcastic. Those that voted for Bush aren't really stupid. Just ignorant.

Quote by: RickSp Did you notice the margin that he won by? A whopping 3% landslide. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released today found that 56 per cent of those questioned said the cost of the war outweighed the benefits and was not worth paying. And things are only getting worse in Iraq.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gorgo Just being sarcastic. Those that voted for Bush aren't really stupid. Just ignorant.

Well some were stupid. I mean some are impressed by really big numbers, like say 4 million.

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: RickSp Well some were stupid. I mean some are impressed by really big numbers, like say 4 million.

I'm quite sure if Bach sat down at the piano with a 4 year old child he would play chopsticks, people acting as if 4 million is really impressive for your sake is just like that.

[Anniee]

Some are impressed by big numbers like 4 million. Or by the entire map being red. Hehe.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Yes, Bush did really well in the deserts and plains and with Republican owned vote machines.
That was really impressive how they rigged the vote in broad daylight.

There are plenty of other threads for that though, thats another subject.
Lets get back on topic............

How about either bringing the National Guard home to guard our nation, or renaming them something more appropriate

[dotcoma]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Yes, Bush did really well in the deserts and plains and with Republican owned vote machines. That was really impressive how they rigged the vote in broad daylight. There are plenty of other threads for that though, thats another subject. Lets get back on topic............ How about either bringing the National Guard home to guard our nation, or renaming them something more appropriate

First of all, please stop with the whole voter rigged shpeal. Without legitimate sources I am getting tired of this argument-and I am on the left.

The election was a classic battle. The Republicans got the south (they always have since 1964 civil rights act), the north went to the dems (always does), and the midwest was pretty much a classic red state round up.

I do not understand how either side can say anything. Bush won, but also had the greatest opposition of any US president. I think people are forgetting that 54 million people voted the other way.

Also, I hope BSD is kidding when he says that those who voted for Kerry received the most welfare-when the facts say otherwise: http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxi...ingupdate.html

Also, gr8, the national guard signed up for their service, so why weep for them? They should understand that the military will use them as necessary. I don't agree with Iraq because we went in alone, but we're there, and we have to try.

[Gorgo]

The argument that "we're" there so "we" have to continue is ridiculous. These mobsters attacked another country. This is an illegal occupation. What we must do is recognize it as such.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Gorgo The argument that "we're" there so "we" have to continue is ridiculous. These mobsters attacked another country. This is an illegal occupation. What we must do is recognize it as such.

My argument is not ridiculous, it is realistic. We have committed troops, and lost now over 1,000, and spent billions. Do you really think the leadership is going to allow a pack-up? Also, even if they did because it would make matters worse at this point. If you left Iraq in a state of instability with an insurgency present that could demonstrate the weakness of the former occupier, you have a new terrorist state.

Like I said, I wasn't too fond of invading Iraq, because we should have focused on Osama, but we're there, and we started the process of democratization. If we do not finish, then we have created more problems for the region, and ourselves. Ironic that Iraq was never actually a direct threat before, and now they are if we do not continue in my opinion.

Also, keep in mind that democratization does take time. If successful, we would have a huge foothold in the region.

[Gorgo]

I didn't say that the Bush administration would want to leave. I said that it is a criminal administration.

Your idea that democracy is a goal is another fallacy. No reason to think that any kind of real democracy will be allowed. Yes, there will be all kinds of voting. There is lots of voting in Cuba, too. Some of it very democratic, but nobody calls Cuba a democracy but Fidel.

Finally, the chaos is caused by the illegal attack, not stopped by it.

[dotcoma]

I do not like the Bush administration either, but enough of the drama (i.e. mobsters, criminals, etc).

Also, I would like to know where you received this psychic knowledge that democratization in Iraq is a fallacy. Have you ever studied democratization? I have, and I know it takes time. To judge the viability of a democracy in its early stages is a guessing game. Firstly, they need elections-which they are getting (and they aren't always the best elections the first time). Secondly, they need a solid free market economy-that'll take time. Thirdly, they need an internal desire for it-I think they have a desire for stability.

Also, the chaos was caused by the invasion, but what does that matter? It is also stopped by that same invasion. The insurgency is there because it wants to prevent America from influencing Iraq's infrastructure.

I did not say that democratization in Iraq would be a success, but you never can tell for sure in the early stages. I suggest you read a little from “The Third Wave”-Samuel Huntington, or “The Global Divergence of Democracies”-Larry Diamond. I think your drama would decrease, and your rationality would increase if you understood the basic theories that make democracy possible.

Oh and by the way, that example of Cuba was horrible. Their government is not a democracy, and the voting does nothing. The voting in Iraq potentially could change the entire government. In fact, external powers investing in Iraq are watching it for such things, so it was a terrible comparison on your part. The commitment of monies on the part of the world to Iraq also is unheard of in Cuba, so the infrastructures are not the same at all.

[Technosoul]

Some democratic countries operate a different system then we do here in the USA. Under Saddam they did have (internationally monitored) elections so people could vote for their presidential leader. And Saddam has the title "President" (or did have that title - depending on how you look at it).

Some democratic countries have longer term limits for their elected presidents, perhaps 6 years in office instead of 4 years. As well they might not have rules that you can be a President only twice, but as long as you get votes you can stay in office for a lifetime.

In Irag they would conduct what amounts to two stages for an election. First the people vote if they want the standing President removed from office or not. Sort of like our "re-call" elections. So every six years the people would vote if they want to change the president and elect someone different.

If the people vote no, then the standing President simply remians in office for another 6 years. But if the people are unhappy they might vote yes and if that was the case then another presidental elections would be held right away and all the wanna-be canidates would compete for votes and one of them would win.

Same thing in Cuba, as long as the People do not vote the President out of power he gets to remain in charge of the island. In fact if the President of Cuba wanted to step down or retire it would be an act of treason because the people had ruled he must be president. (medical reasons might be one reason for a recall). Being president in that case is like being in the army, you cannot just leave your duty post by personal choice.

So a lot of democratic countries operate on that kind of recall idea for elections. In the USA we have a least two poltical parties who must debate each other every for years to and then we vote which one we want in charge. Plus, we have the option of recalls (in some states) and impeachment processes.

And of course, people always think that demcratic elections can be tainted by imtimidation or that the voting system is "fixed" or being tampered with.

[Lou Minotti]

I do not like the Bush administration either, but enough of the drama (i.e. mobsters, criminals, etc).

How is calling a spade a spade being dramatic?