403-3 Against Troop Pullout

RandFan said:
"Pull OUT?!! Doesn't sound Manly to me. I say live it in and get the job done" --George Carlin
Click to expand...

I remember when I was young and thought this would be an effective method of birth control.

After several experaments, I decided it wasn't for me.
 
WildCat said:
Throwing money and men at the problem is not a strategy, Joe. If it was, Vietnam would have been a cakewalk and the USSR would have pacified Afghanistan in no time at all.

The strategy now is working well. The insurgents/terrorists have been pushed back to the Syrian border, there are enough trained Iraqi troops now that this has been made possible. Last year we went on search and destroy missions, now we're doing clear and hold operations. Public opinion in Iraq for the insurgency is eroded w/ every suicide bomb going off in a mosque or market. In fact, there is now open warfare between Iraqi insurgents and Zarqawi's terrorists in many places.

There's more to military strategy than body counts, not that CNN et al would ever notice.

The insurgency a year ago controlled many towns in western Iraq, now they are reduced to a few backwater areas along the Syrian border, and those won't last much longer. The military situation of the insurgency is hopeless, they are putting their last resources (car bombs and other terrorist strikes of no military value) to try to win through propaganda (via the western media) what they can't win militarily. Thus, the increasingly desperate car bomb attacks against mosques, hotels, and markets.

Of course, this won't stop some US politicians from trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
Click to expand...


My interpretation of your argument is that the war (in Iraq) is almost won - so most of the troups will be coming home next year mitigating the need to Draft any more soldiers. Plus with most of the US soldiers coming home (next year), the requirement to purchase more equipment is not necessary (at least for the US soldiers). Isn't this almost exactly what Rep. Murtha was advocating in the original resolution?
 
Not his idea.

Seems Murtha didn't even vote for his own idea.

It wasn't what he was aiming for, as I have previously posted.

  • Rep. Murtha said that the President needed to declare an immediate termination of the War, and the language he used was redeployment at the earliest practicable date----- which is why the Republicans jumped up and said, NO!
    Let's change (parse) the language so that the resolution appears to be virtually the same as Murthas' intent, but actually says:
    the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

    I see the difference, and so did just about everyone in the House of Representatives, hence the vote results.

Anyway, the war is over, now it's just a matter of logistics.
 
Since Murtha called a press conference I can only believe he was prepared and said what he meant to say.
My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Murtha Press conference
Concern solely for troop safety seems to be what he means by "earliest practical date".

If some think differently, was Murtha lying about the meaning of his above statement?

Can someone legitimately make the case the troops might possibly be safer sticking around after announcing temination rather than leaving immediately?

Sure sounds to me like he means get out right now.

That tells me the resolutions are equivalent.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
The insurgency a year ago controlled many towns in western Iraq, now they are reduced to a few backwater areas along the Syrian border, and those won't last much longer. The military situation of the insurgency is hopeless, they are putting their last resources (car bombs and other terrorist strikes of no military value) to try to win through propaganda (via the western media) what they can't win militarily. Thus, the increasingly desperate car bomb attacks against mosques, hotels, and markets.

Of course, this won't stop some US politicians from trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
Click to expand...

So the resistance has been broken, the corner has been turned, the mission is nearly accomplished, the end is in sight... haven't we been hearing exactly this line of propaganda for years now?
 
quite different

BobK indicates:
Sure sounds to me like he (Murtha) means get out right now.

Of course, that is not what he was saying: (from the Washington POST article)
"Republican leaders wanted to force Democrats to take a stand on whether they endorsed Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John P. Murtha's Thursday proposal to begin a six-month withdrawal from Iraq."

I served in the IDF, during a time when Israel was sitting in a defensive position in the Southern Lebanon Security Zone. The only thing that mattered to us was not being the last one killed before the withdrawal took place ----- which was talked about all the time, and the Four Mothers Organization was protesting the absurd and deadly situation all along, whereby the IDf was under daily fire from RPG's and anti-tank weapons and roadside bombs and suicide bombers, and the government kept saying "we are there for security and will stay until the terrorists are defeated, blah blah blah"

One fine night, the order was given, the IDF packed up and left and that was that. Trust me, the American forces in Iraq are gonna leave in pretty much the same way, maybe not overnight, but Iraq will still be a mess and they'll just have to deal with that themselves. The US National Guard isn't gonna solve their problems.
 
CFLarsen said:
IIRC, there is now a democratically elected government.
Click to expand...

Yes, and one that is seen by many Iraqis as dangling from U.S. held strings. The Iraqis aren't stupid, they know our history and they've seen us dipose of one dictator to install our own. Besides, it's not really a Democracy if a large majority of the population boycotts the vote.
 
"I keep hearing people say we lose if we pull out. What do we lose?

zenith-nadir said:
Respect.
Click to expand...

I think we lost THAT when Dubya announced we were invading Iraq! I think we lost that when we got our panties in a ruffle because France was too chicken to fight in a useless war based on lies - we showed them though, you can't buy French Fries on Capital Hill anymore. We didn't want to anger Germany too much because our hospital bases (with major Iraq casualty influx) are located there.

Just look at Bush's trip around the world. Everywhere the man goes, he's greeted by thousands upon thousands of sometimes violent protestors. The world is NOT asleep and they've seen how this administration's vindictive attitudes have outed a CIA spy, lost key administrative personnel (disgruntled employees), completely ignored thousands of poor Americans in the time of disaster, making our public education a joking matter, turned a record financial surplus into a record deficit and put the U.S. into MORE FOREIGN DEBT than all other presidents COMBINED!

We're expecting the village idiot to garner the respect of the world when he's proven over and over that his only competancy lies in abandoning tasks that appear too difficult (unless someone else is actually doing the work - or the fighting).
 
"IIRC, there is now a democratically elected government."

So, what is the vote in December all about?
 
OIC, a new vote every year, that's excellent. How about if the USA stays there in force and supervises these annual votes for the next twenty years, just to make sure they have the concept down pat.
 
webfusion said:
So, what is the vote in December all about?
Click to expand...

Are you feigning ignorance, or are you actually unaware that a few weeks ago the Iraqis ratified a constitution democratically, and now must elect the government called for by that constition?


webfusion said:
OIC, a new vote every year, that's excellent.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do see.


To sum up:

In January the Iraqis elected a National Assembly which was tasked to draft a constitition. This National Assembly serves as the (democratically elected) interim government of Iraq.

In October the Iraqis held a referendum on the constitution that their National Assembly drafted, and the constitution was adopted.

In December, the Iraqis will elect the Council of Representatives called for by their constitution. The Council forms the permanent government and the members serve for a term of four years.

So no, no national elections next year since the permanent government will be established this year.
 
What I see is a lot of purple fingers.

And a lot of red blood, coming from guys who don't really need to be there very much longer, in harm's way.
 
webfusion said:
What I see is a lot of purple fingers.

And a lot of red blood, coming from guys who don't really need to be there very much longer, in harm's way.
Click to expand...


A lot more blood is being spilled by Iraqis than by Americans. If we were to leave, that would only increase.
 
Dude, the US forces are going to be leaving. That I guarantee you.

Maybe the 200,000-odd Iraqi recruits will then find a way to get out of bed and deal with their own mess.
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1282455&postcount=2
posted by WildCat --
  • On the same day the Senate passed the resolution rebuking Mr. Bush on the war, Martha Raddatz of ABC News reported that "only about 700 Iraqi troops" could operate independently of the U.S. military, 27,000 more could take a lead role in combat "only with strong support" from our forces and the rest of the 200,000-odd trainees suffered from a variety of problems, from equipment shortages to an inability "to wake up when told" or follow orders.
 
Mycroft said:
A lot more blood is being spilled by Iraqis than by Americans. If we were to leave, that would only increase.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they said about leaving Viet Nam. Who is now a valuable trading partner.

Hmmm...
 
Murtha seems a little too honest and plain spoken to be a politician. He's been in office HOW long? Must be some kinda mistake.

The 403-3 vote is probably one more example of the take no prisoners and leave no survivors pattern of the current administration toward erstwhile friends who become foes. I darkly admire their skill at slaughtering friends who become foes.

And I do agree that the Dems seem a bit ummm, cowardly. There was a guy (Dean?) once who said pretty much the same stuff before the war. Screwed that guy good. Not like all this is a new revelation.

Once upon a time our goal was to leave Iraq better than we found it... That seems to have shifted to a sort of weaselly promise of 'democratic elections'. Woohoo! Never mind leaving behind a religious government based on Islamic law, or lack of rights for women, or commonplace torture of political opponents. As long as we make sure it happens under a democratic system our fine work there is done. (Accompanied by the sights and sounds of washing blood off hands).

The simple truth that Murtha tried to express is that no matter how many more brave soldiers die, the outcome will be the same as if they did not. And if the survivors look back ten years after we are gone, will they see anything left that was worth us being there and dying for? If we keep lowering our expectations of what we expect from the Iraqi's our way out will become more clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom