Marijuana.com

S2

Well the Republicans have forced the Dems to put their money where their mouths are-- lets see who wants to cut and run and let Zarkhawi have Iraq-- and put it on record. quick be heard- call your senator and congressman!

Murtha's call for a pull out was, after all the lead story on Al Jezeera today.

I just heard Charlie Rangel get asked how he is going to vote. His reply:
"I am going to vote for any approach other than the approach of fighting until we win"

 

Buzzby

The way I see it, we have a choice. We can leave now and Iraq will fall into an inevitable civil war. Or, we can leave in ten years and Iraq will fall into an inevitable civil war.

Trying to impose democratic government on Iraq is like trying to teach a horse to sing. They're just not equipped to learn what you're trying to teach. You can't go directly from a tribal society to a democratically governed civil society.


Al Queda is a pimple in Iraq. The real contenders are, as always, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, and the various tribal groups within those larger aggregations. Al Queda is the boogeyman that the current regime in Washington uses to scare us into allowing it to continue to waste our men and our treasure on GWB's personal grudge fight.

__________________

Murdock

Also, it should be noted that the House isn't going to be voting on Murtha's resolution, but instead one submited by Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter.

S2

I think its a stunt along the lines of the recent closed door session

HappyMan

We need at least another year at the current force level followed by a three year draw down. Iraq needs more time to build a 'civil' structure.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

 

Niteshift

The vote was 403-3 against it.

The 3 were all Democrats: Cynthia McKinney D-GA (she'll be looking for a new job), Jose Serrano D-NY (the Bronx) and Robert Wexler D-FL.

At least those 3 stood up for themselves. 6 other Democrats simply replied "present" when their vote was called for.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

S2

Murtha's resolution (the one not voted on) wanted withdrawl "as soon as is praticable" -- thats already the plan- the stunt aspect of his resolution was all the BS whereas's that precede that statement that those voting would be agreeing to.

Herb Ninja

Our interventionism in Iraq like most intervention by the government is not achieving what is supposed to and in many ways is exacerbating the problem. Our country has suffered great economic losses... thousands of our countrymen have been killed or wounded. Now it appears we are in an everlasting quagmire. Bringing our troops home isn't a perfect solution, but I think its better then the alternative...

__________________
Ron Paul for the Long Haul

S2

I dunno HN, seems to be accomplishing what was intended to me

Saddam out of power

Free elections, constitution in Afghnaistan and Iraq

Terrorists are focused on our military not our civillians

Thousands of terroists being killed

Pressure on mideast governments as Iraq's people achieve freedoms not available in nearby countries

Signs of desparation on the part of AQ with the attack in Jordan pulled off by senior iraq AQ insider on a suicide mission

Absolute knowlege of the presence or absence of WMDs in IRAQ and guaratee that further development and/or transfer to terroristss isn't occuring

The war was brought on, in my view, by the radical Islamists and Baathists who had fostered a cult of global indiscriminate killing of innocents and suicide. The true strategic goal of a war borught on by such opponents can only be to discourage and defeat that movement. The goal is to cause people all over the Muslim world to abandon the cult of mass death and suicide. What would be a complete victory? The rise of liberal societies and liberal ideas. That is because the opposite of totalitarianism is liberalism. So our goal has had to be: to damage and discourage the Muslim totalitarians and to encourage and aid the Muslim liberals.

On Sept. 10, 2001, the totalitarian wave in the Muslim world appeared to be at high tide. In quite a few countries, the most gruesome tyrannies were in power, in the name of various versions of the totalitarian ideology. There seemed to be no prospect of seeing those tyrannies overthrown.

And today? The larger totalitarian movement in the Muslim world has been dealt two major blows. The Taliban no longer rules Afghanistan and has been reduced to a guerrilla insurgency. The Baath in Iraq has lalso been reduced to a guerrilla insurgency. Some 56 million Afghanis and Iraqis, who had previously been confined to the lowest ranks of hell, are now engaged in a very tough fight—a fight in which there is at least a plausible hope of achieving a better society, motivated by liberal values in an appropriately Muslim version. Their fight includes significant wins in the form of successful democratic elections.

On Sept. 10, 2001 freedom-minded people in those two countries had no reason to think that life would ever be better. Today the freedom-minded Afghanis and Iraqis have been given a shaky boost which can only encourage their fellow free-thinkers in other parts of the Muslim world. Desired objectives? These are the desired objectives.

Why don't people understand these goals and accomplishments- or at least acknoledge they have existed all along? And why don't they lend their support, which is desperately needed, if only to undo the American blunders that have occured? The blame, a lot of it, does fall on Bush, who, in addition to his other errors, has given a very muddy picture of the reasons for war and its goals, sometimes making one argument, sometimes a contradictory argument. Really, the man has a lot to answer for.

But some of the blame falls as well on the anti-Bushies who pretend not to hear when anyone speaks about the larger reasons and goals—the people who pretend that WMD and non-existent conspiracies were the only reasons for war and pretend that the only serious goals were the arrests of a couple of men, or the achieving of a magical utopia tomorrow, and pretend that we have gotten nowhere at all. Democratic leaders know damn well the difference between civil policy debate and making public statements that irresponsibly lead the enemy to hang tough in the hopes that America loses its resolve in the fight.-- And they regularly cross that line, with no qualification.

It's true that better leaders could have made better plans, and the French and the Germans and the United Nations--not to mention the US minority party-- could help even now, if only they would.

Niteshift

Very well said S2. (Damn thing won't let me give you +K again).

Murtha's resolution (the one not voted on) wanted withdrawl "as soon as is praticable" -- thats already the plan- the stunt aspect of his resolution was all the BS whereas's that precede that statement that those voting would be agreeing to.

Both resolutions were worthless. As you said, that was already the plan.

Common sense says that if we give some specific date that says "we'll leave by......" the terrorists will simply scale back and marshal their resources for a huge push the day after we leave.

Leaving before the terrorist element is under control would be foolish, it would force us to either go back in (which would be more difficult) or ignore it, which would make the 2,000 US deaths pointless.