Congressional Opposition to Iraq War

[Felix]

I realize that some of the choices overlap somewhat, but mean to ask which of them is the most appropriate, if any.

[bernardjenkins]

If there was truly opposition they would just cut off funding however, the Democratic party is split on this issue.

[Justin Thyme]

bernardjenkins said:

If there was truly opposition they would just cut off funding...

When they do that they take away resources that my son and others in the armed forces need to protect themselves.

[bernardjenkins]

What do you think about H.Reid say that we have lost?

[Justin Thyme]

I think Reid is a political opportunist that will say anything to embarass the current administration. I have plenty of contention with the way the current administration is handling the war effort but at least they aren't defeatists.

I have a son who is a member of the Tn Army National Guard that is being deployed to Iraq within the next few months. I worry about him. I worry about his attitude because I know he will act more safely if he feels good about the job he's doing. Reid isn't helping promote morale within our armed forces with these statements.

[bernardjenkins]

Reid is a joke.

Your son is an American hero!

[Dreamwebber]

Why don't they just set a pull out date and keep the funding the exact same until that date. That way it doesn't affect the troops while they are there. Seems pretty simple to me really.

[bernardjenkins]

but they will also be telling the bad folks the same information. should we pull out without finishing?

[daworm]

Why don't they just set a pull out date and keep the funding the exact same until that date.

And watch Al Quaida sit back until the day after we leave and blow the everloving shit out of everything, completely unchecked, leaving Iraq worse than when we started. The only thing that could possibly be worse than a set withdrawal date would be immediate withdrawal.

Were I as politically motivated and irresponsible as a typical liberal Democrat, I would hope they succeeded in pulling the troops out, so that when the chaos reigned in Baghdad the next day, I could sit back and tell them "I told you so!".

[legaltender]

And watch Al Quaida sit back until the day after we leave and blow the everloving shit out of everything, completely unchecked, leaving Iraq worse than when we started.

It already is worse than when we started. By a factor of about ten.

The Iraqi government apparently is powerless to prevent the U.S. from building walls around Baghad neighborhoods.

A spokesman for the American military, Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, said the military would remain "in a dialogue" with the Iraqi government about how best to protect citizens. The military did not say whether the wall’s construction would be halted. - New York Times

In other words, Iraq's elected leaders are allowed to offer "suggestions."

[bernardjenkins]

A new way of life with a new government, etc.... must face a growing stage.

[legaltender]

Ahhh, a "growing stage."

The president of a sovereign nation tells you to stop doing something in his country and you think you are supposed to discuss it? It is an abdication of responsibility by all parties.

America is leaving sooner or later. The conflict between Sunni and Shia is not going away.

[Dreamwebber]

And watch Al Quaida sit back until the day after we leave and blow the everloving shit out of everything, completely unchecked, leaving Iraq worse than when we started. The only thing that could possibly be worse than a set withdrawal date would be immediate withdrawal.

Were I as politically motivated and irresponsible as a typical liberal Democrat, I would hope they succeeded in pulling the troops out, so that when the chaos reigned in Baghdad the next day, I could sit back and tell them "I told you so!".

So, with that logic you are basically saying that the USA has to stay in Iraq for as long as Earth exists?

I say to the Iraqis, "Get your shit together, because March 30th, 2008 we are pulling out...if you can't defend yourself by then to bad so sad...we've done all we can do.....we've taught you how to fish...you better fish or starve"

If they can't defend themselves from foreign attackers it's not our place to do it for them. The US is not the police of the world.

[daworm]

It already is worse than when we started. By a factor of about ten.

Valley Forge was a real bitch, too, you know.

So, with that logic you are basically saying that the USA has to stay in Iraq for as long as Earth exists?

Did I say that? (Although I ask you, have we left Japan? Have we left Germany?)

we've taught you how to fish...

No, we've given them a lake to fish in. They still have no idea how to fish. It took us 11 years under the Articles of Confederation to figure out how to govern ourselves, and we didn't have suicide bombers and death squads.

[bernardjenkins]

LT, I was looking at the larger picture but you are right about the conflict.

daworm, Korea is another , and that was my point about growing stage, took us 11 yrs. just to get start and yrs. later we had to have the conflict between the South and North

[legaltender]

Iraq's leaders don't have the skill or the will to demand that a nation is bigger than the sum of its ethnic groups. The place was all but ungovernable before Saddam's hellish reign and remains so today.

The Iraqi people understand the situation there better than those who are advocating to continue the current course. We have lost the support and the confidence of the Iraqi people and you can’t win without it.

Baghdad may become marginally pacified enough so that the U.S. can re-deploy without acute and palatable shame. Much preferable Iraqi's hate Bush more than each other. Mistrust of and contempt for Americans could become so virulent (an unintended consequence of blunders like the Adhamiya wall) that a tribal truce is conceivable.

I'm against Bush ceding to Congress control over military strategy, though. That's a monstrous hornet's nest.

[Dreamwebber]

No, we've given them a lake to fish in. They still have no idea how to fish. It took us 11 years under the Articles of Confederation to figure out how to govern ourselves, and we didn't have suicide bombers and death squads.

Establishing a government in the region is a whole other issue. The US troops are there to train Iraqis how to protect their own country.

I believe we only give our troops what?....3 weeks in basic training? But, yet they have to protect themselves from those same suicide bombers and opposition. So, are you saying (I know you aren't but, for the sake of the debate) that our troops deserve less training than the Iraqi soldiers who have had going on 5 years of training?

I heard they were even thinking of making basic training less time (granted more intensive during the shorter period)just to get more troops in the field and not have to bring back the draft. I think it was Bill Maher's guest but, I could be wrong who said that. If that is the case I think it is a very sad day when we think our own sons and daughter's lives are expendible just to have more troops over in Iraq to protect their country.

[traveler]

I believe we only give our troops what?....3 weeks in basic training?

DW, where in the world did you come up with this? Do you honestly believe that our troops only receive 3 weeks of basic training?

[stray]

I'm firmly convinced that a high percentage of the fucktards in this country get their daily news from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

[Justin Thyme]

In regards to training our troops recieve. My son just spent 9 weeks in basic training with another six weeks in advanced individual training. He is in the Tennessee Army National Guard. He will be deployed soon to Iraq but before he goes he will receive and additional six to eight weeks of training specific to the job whe will be performing in Iraq. He is National Guard, not regular Army. This means that since he left AIT in late February his only training has been one weekend a month. Regular Army means training is a full time job. Our soldiers are well trained. That is not the problem. The problem is the politicians from both parties using the military budget as a bargaining chip in party pollitics.

[Dreamwebber]

I typed in "basic training" in my search engine and it brought up an Army site to answer questions about what was involved in basic training...and I thought it said it was 23 days. That's where I came up with 3 weeks. Maybe I misread it. I do hope that everyone receives as much training as your son received JIT. Because again, I would hate to think our troops would be put out on the field after only 3 wks training.

[legaltender]

There's concern National Guard troops aren't training on the equipment they will use in combat. Some units get three or four-week call-up notices to deploy to Iraq.

WASHINGTON | When someone joins the Alabama Army National Guard, they train with an M16 rifle.

But if they are deployed to Iraq, that’s probably not what they’ll use. They will likely be fighting with an M4.

The barrel of the M4 is about 5.5 inches shorter, and the gun is a little lighter. It was designed for the close-quarters combat going on in urban Iraq.

Lt. Col. Robert Horton of the Alabama National Guard said that because the state’s Guard units train with different equipment, they aren’t combat ready when they get called up.

“You can’t manage a military organization on a shoestring budget and expect them to perform a Cadillac mission," Horton said.

But guns aren’t the only equipment that is outdated for combat missions in Iraq.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, testifying at a Senate committee hearing on equipment readiness, said Guard and Reserve recruits train with different vehicles and different body armor. They just plain lack adequate equipment for other operations, he said.

www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20070423/NEWS/704230328/-1/ENTERTAINMENT5

The GAO reports the New Mexico Guard has only 34 percent of the type of equipment it needs for war and peacetime missions, such as radios, medical kits, trucks and generators.

[el Gusano]

When I was in the Navy, boot camp was 11 weeks, then I spent 27 weeks in my "A" school, another 16 weeks in HTC school, and two more weeks for advanced firefighting school (which was in addition to the basic firefighting that I got while waiting for a school to start). That was before I went to my first posting on a ship, at which point I learned from those who were experienced, how to apply the knowledge that I had.

[legaltender]

Back to the topic, Congress is not going to win this fight attaching a pull-out deadline.

Democrats may go for a compromise: "The United States will withdraw all combat forces no later than 6 months after being requested by the Iraqi government."

Give both sides just a little cover.

I can hear arguments how unlikely it would be for Maliki to
do such a thing. But this wouldn't be the first time a bill contained language with a more symbolic than practical effect.

[Justin Thyme]

A timetable set like that, dependent upon a request by the Iraqi government or violent attacks below some threshhold, is reasonable. In fact that is the way it should be. When one starts any job there needs to be some definition of what constitutes the job being completed and after the scope is completed a timetable establised for an orderly exit.

The problem with Iraq all along has been that we went in without any real scope of work to accomplish other than get rid of Hussein.

[Dreamwebber]

Completely agree with JIT

[gridbug]

The United States will withdraw all combat forces no later than 6 months after being requested by the Iraqi government

Now why would we start giving the Iraqis a say in their governance now?

We all know where Bush will be pointing the finger, but he has a bill on his desk today and when he vetos it then he will be the one keeping funding from the troops. And when he accuses the dems of "playing politics", someone please tell him they are politicians. WTF would one expect?

None of this would have ever happened had the war funding been in the budget. The expense of the administration's current wars is not a surprise. It was kept out of the budget just to make the numbers look better.

[Deleted]

The U.S. is trying to help the Iraqis establish a government? How about we pull back to a remote corner, wait until the civil war is over and then see who the government is?

Now - why are we really there? and what made us think we were going to win an Iraqi war when the Iranians didn't win one either? or did they?

Gotta go. I have poppies to plant. Good cash crop, I hear.

[legaltender]

I continue to question whether we are building permanent military bases inside Iraq and need time to complete the task. The build would have been "contracted out" to Bechtel, Halliburton, Chemonics and Blackwater, along with countless sub-contractors. We currently maintain 737 military bases in 130 countries around the globe. I have never heard our leaders say that they would commit to the Iraqi people that 10 years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq.

A large headquarters base in the Gulf region - with satellites in Kuwait and UAE - would exist for the purpose of defending our economic interests, which is euphemistically called "national security."

An awful lot rides on the June vote in the Iraqi parliament on an oil law and whether western powers should be granted operational control for 30 years.

news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

[Longshot! [ Saint ]]

An awful lot rides on the June vote in the Iraqi parliament on an oil law and whether western powers should be granted operational control for 30 years.


...And the fact that 99% of all Democrats involved have absolutely no understanding of the cultural and religious thought processes of the people involved and the ramifications of how we our involvement in this conflict will affect us for the next 50 years, and what a defeatest attitude will REALLY garner for us all in the end. Specifically, a continuation of war on our own soil from the green light this will give the Universe to continue its attacks on us*. (*By 'Continue', I indicate that they have begun in 1993, and having a 'group' instead of a 'nation' seems to make it easy to disregard them, even after being glued to CNN for 1,462 straight hours like the rest of us and agreeing to the launch into Afghanistan--and Iraq--like the majority of the Democrats in Congress. 'That' kind of 'continue'.)

This isn't so much about demanding to give up and set deadlines for those that wish to kill us (simply because we exist) to hammer it home, or about giving up on a nation of people's lives--who I believe you actually, indirectly, -justified- being ruled by Hussein, genocidal acts and all--WTF?!--it's about setting the tone on what happens when "You Rub The Kitties Tummy".

And the primary tool is doing something that Doesn't take Effort, and most of all, DOESN'T REQUIRE RESULTS: Hating George Bush. It's the one thing ALL Democrats agree on, because they CAN'T fuck it up because, again...it doesn't require results. You should be embarassed, yet you feel empowered. Astonishing. Disgusting.

Your Forsight is based on Conspiracy Theories regarding oil (because Democrats don't NEED oil, they need AL GORE. Republicans have this CRAZY idea that A) Inhabitants must conform to the Earth, instead of vice versa, and B) The Economy WILL collapse WITHOUT OIL, which is apparently patently absurd to Democrats) and Present theories are all based on Hindsight and Armchair Quarterbacking.

But PLANS? IDEAS? I have heard 'Lets Quit by Monday', and not a lot else. Well folks...SOME crazy folks prescribe to the ideas above on the message it sends to 'crazy people that are attacking out soil', but you valiently resist this...you just do so without options or plans of your own. Other than quitting.


I think you dipshits will win, actually. I thing the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups WILL win out, and you'll succeed in driving this country into Martial Law if we don't crush our economy first--and we'll go back to justifying sending troops into Afghanistan--or will it be Atlanta?--and fire hoses into crowds and mass dententions to quell the unrest because folks are hungry because the semi's have no fuel to run on, or can't afford it, and the occasional bombings will go from being planned by outside forces to inside militias. IF we continue with 'your' course of cutting and running.

Things worthwile require blood. Sometimes lots. 'Sacrifice' is never easy, but often worth it, and the guys ont he ground over there know it. The guys on the ground here know it too. It's why most military men and police officers are rarely liberals--we 'do' things, see blood, shed it, ours and others. But Jane Fonda? Sean Penn? Yourself? Shit...you have OPINIONS and believe that TALKING fixes things! You've never met anyone, hand to hand, that WON'T talk and will take the teeth from your head to prove it. Can't wrap your brain around someone willing to DIE for something--like killing you--because YOU sure as hell can't. I used to think you were a majority...but we'll see. The next Presidential election will decide this. And if the Liberals win? We all lose. If the Conservatives pull it off? Shit Hell, at least I can buy long-term CD's for another few years.

Don't worry though. Lots of people like to quit, don't believe in fighting for anything, and have no plans to back things up/do them better/solve anything, so you're not alone. But HELLS BELLS..someone has to run for office, and bring me my fries.

I just hope I can keep ordering them for a few more years, depending on how this 'inconvenient' thing draws to a close.