It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Iraq Pullout Voted Down By House of Representatives

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
yea well its talk of withdrawl in the coming years, not set in stone or determind. just like "yea they will get out of there sometime next year we hope..." come on i want a set date for the troops to start coming home. i want organized set dates for everything. everything must be executed by a certian time period. and if it isnt then we step it up, if we dont then some one gets fired for not reaching a reasonable deadline.

make a reasonable deadline so its offical. if those in charge cant reach these deadlines, put some one in charge who can. incompetence is not helping us.




posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
That is the way you plan vacations, grim, not wars. Do you think if we set up a timetable, we might be "telegraphing" some key information to the enemy? You do remember the enemy don't you!



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
That is the way you plan vacations, grim, not wars. Do you think if we set up a timetable, we might be "telegraphing" some key information to the enemy? You do remember the enemy don't you!


Last I checked, we didn't even know if #1 in Iraq was real or not...



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
whos the enemy again? im no longer sure anymore, o yea that right the world.

its america against the world, or any part that doesnt follow its rules at least.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Grady, yes the argument is weak. A person can support the troops by sending letters to their representatives asking for pressure on the Adminstration for a timetable or central guidelines that must be met before there is withdrawl from the conflict. In these same letters, the individual can make requests for better equipment for troops and better treatment for the veterans, both mentally and physically. This same person can even express concern that there should be accountability for the poor war intelligence and investigations into motivations for entering the war. And this same person can have the personal opinion that entering a war where there was no threat is a poor excuse for invasion. Oh, this person seems to be anti-war and supportive of the troops.

Telegraphing can be used as a good military tactic. Often in sports and chess a team or individual tricks the opposition into believing they will perform a certain action but have an alternative gameplan.

[edit for typos]

[edit on 11/19/2005 by swintersVT]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
[edited by dubiousone to remove double posting of the same message]

[edit on 11/19/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The resolution and vote were a transparent cynical sham, as already pointed out on this thread by other perceptive ATSNN members. It was transparently designed to create an opportunity to spin it to the unsuspecting masses as evidence that Congress is against pulling out of Iraq.

swintersVT is correct in stating that "the rhetoric that if you do not support the war you do not support the troops is a weak argument."

The statement that "if you do not support the war you do not support the troops" is repeated endlessly by those who support the war. It is a patently false statement. It is a display of contempt for those to whom the statement is made. It is a display of contempt by those who repeat that statement ad nauseum. The contempt is in their disrespect for the intelligence of those whom they expect will swallow that rubbish without question or a second thought.

The troops did not start the war, they did not choose to go to war, and they are not the ones choosing to remain in Iraq fighting this war. It is their superiors who make these choices. If we do not support the war, the ones whom we do not support are those who put our troops in harms way and who are choosing to keep them there.

The Vietnam war does not, by example, support our remaining in Iraq. As with Iraq, opposition to the war in Vietnam did not equate to lack of support for the troops. If you remember any of what occurred after the troops came back, you'll recall that our government, the very people who sent the troops to Vietnam, abandoned them after they returned home and left countless numbers of them, including the physically and psychologically an chemically maimed, to fend for themselves!



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
If you remember any of what occurred after the troops came back, you'll recall that our government, the very people who sent the troops to Vietnam, abandoned them after they returned home and left countless numbers of them, including the physically and psychologically an chemically maimed, to fend for themselves!


I would like to remind you that I am a veteran of the war in Vietnam and I would like to inform you that I owe my life, several times over, to the VA. I do remember that upon our return from the war, the VA had not caught up with all the realities of the war and that there was very much that needed to change. I also remember that there was massive changes made to the VA, especially in the eighties, and that I had a small role in effecting those changes. The VA will never be perfect. It will always be catching up with the new challenges that each war and its effects present, but because our government is of the people, by the people and for the people, changes can and will be made.

As for the support of the troops by the anti-war crowd, you can tell me nothing about this experience because I have lived it every day for more than thirty-five years. So, your opinion of these matter is of no concern to me at all. I know whereof I speak. You should take heed.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
The resolution and vote were a transparent cynical sham, as already pointed out on this thread by other perceptive ATSNN members. It was transparently designed to create an opportunity to spin it to the unsuspecting masses as evidence that Congress is against pulling out of Iraq.

It was meant as a vote of support for our troops in Iraq, not as a spin tactic for the masses.


swintersVT is correct in stating that "the rhetoric that if you do not support the war you do not support the troops is a weak argument."

True, but being against the war while supporting the troops means that you do not, in effect, tell them that everything they have done over there for the past 2+ years, and the 2000+ of them who gave their lives, was for naught. And that is exactly the message they will take away from what many of them would view as a forced surrender.

The troops did not start the war, they did not choose to go to war, and they are not the ones choosing to remain in Iraq fighting this war.

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you. The majority of the troops do not think it is a good idea to pull out now. Very few do. Unfortunately, it is the ones that do that get all the press.


The Vietnam war does not, by example, support our remaining in Iraq. As with Iraq, opposition to the war in Vietnam did not equate to lack of support for the troops.

dubiousone, you have a much different memory of troops returning from Vietnam than most people. The protestors treated the troops like garbage, spitting on them, calling them baby killers, burning the flag in front of them. Yeah, the gov't abandoned them, but they were not welcomed back with open arms. Those Americans that treated them like that should be shot.

I can tell you what the scene would be if the troops started to exit before they finished their mission: You would see dejected soldiers on Humvees trekking back to the base, and the streets would be wild with the picture of crazed insurgents and terrorists, happy beyond words, firing into the sky and burning everything in sight. They have won! They have outlasted the Americans. And bin Laden's prediction that we are paper tigers without the will to do what it takes to win will have come true. America will have lost the very last bit of respect from anyone.

And the really sick part will be that there will be Americans who will rejoice at the scene of us surrendering, all the while blaming it on the White House. And please - don't argue that it is not surrender. No amount of liberal lipstick can disguise that.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Grady wouldn't you say the anti war movement today is much different from the movement in during Vietnam?

Consider this, the movement during Vietnam was primary a group who was opposed to all war. Today's movement still has those people in it's ranks but also includes a very large percentage of people opposed to this war.

I am not opposed to all war. Sometimes war is necessary. Take Afghanistan for instance. The government that ran that country funded and supported attacks on our nation. I personally stood up and demanded action. Clearly not anti-war. What I do oppose is the war with Iraq, that war is one of choice. There was no clear evidence of an immediate need when we chose to attack Iraq. We did not have the support of the world, as we did with Afghanistan (unless you count like Bush does). We chose to go virtually alone and to go without a clear strategy to win.

My father is a highly decorated marine veteran of Vietnam. I turn to him often about what he went through returning home and how he feels about the current situation. He tells me today is very different from then. He believes we should not be in Iraq and that since congress did not declare war historically this is yet another "conflict". He is a lifelong republican and continued his military service beyond Vietnam until retirement. He voted Democrat for the first time in 2004. He has said the best thing I can do for the troops today is fight to bring them home. Get them the equipment and support they need while there, but get them home fast.

Just another perspective for you.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Grady wouldn't you say the anti war movement today is much different from the movement in during Vietnam?


No. There is no difference.

If you want to continue to persist and say that there is, let me give you what is the difference: During the Vietnam war, anti-protestors spit on, profaned those who served in the military, and generally did not support the troops or the mission in Vietnam [ie: you know--baby-killers, rapist, murderers, etc.]. My father is a three tour Vietnam vet and still recalls, as does my mother, being spit on a number of times when he returned home and then left to go back. The difference today in the anti-war movement is that they now profess to "support the troops" but demand, just as they did during the Vietnam war, that the troops be brought home immediately.





seekerof

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
There is no difference between the antiwar movements of Vietnam and Iraq. If you take a close look all the same players are still around, except the ones who've died. I can't account for nativeokie's father. He's entitled to his opinion, if he exists. It seems that when someone wants to add creedence to his position, he always has a friend or family member who is a highly decorated, career professional who holds the exact same view.

It's kind of like veteran wannabees. They never claim to have been cooks or clerks who never earned more than one stripe. Representative Murtha is a decorated former Marine Colonel and obviously he hasn't got his head screwed on right.


[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Murtha made the comment that people are coming from all over the world to join the insurgency with the purpose of killing Americans.



What Murtha didn't tell you was that foreign insurgents make up a very small minority of the terrorists facing the Coalition Forces.
Analysis suggests that there are only 3000 foriegn fighters in Iraq. A large number to be sure, but dwarfed by the number of homegrown Saddam supporters.

It's pretty deceptive to use the "Americans are targets for all Muslims" defence when the main problem is still the same one that we went to war over in the first place - Saddam's regime and supporters.

news.bbc.co.uk...

9 out of 10 insurgents are Iraqi. The vast majority of these are supporters of the Baath party and therefore the very thing that we wanted to change in the first place.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

I am also stunned that a former Marine Colonel would call for what amounts to a surrender in Iraq. This has to be one of the lowest moments in American history,


The past five years have been the lowest point in American history. We have seen the work of the worst president and the worst administration ever. He (George W.) undeniably stole his first election and won the second one on a non-issue, gay marriage. In his time in office we've had a terrorist attack (9/11) which all evidence points to government complicity if not an inside job, Trillion dollar tax cuts to the nation's most wealthy, the sqaundering of our surplus, the unconstitutional infringement of American civil liberties and our first steps into the realm of the police state, a failed hurricane response, and an unnecessary and unprovoked war of aggression which has ruined our global image.


Our enemies have gambled on America's reprising its actions in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. We must band together to send a resounding, "Never again."


Never again abandon our cowboy approach to geo-politics?

I for one disagree completely. The George W. Bush doctrine is one that only a crack addict (or cokehead) could have come up with. To think that in order to acheive stability in the world we need to pre-emptively invade other countries and set up "fledgling democracies" is well, in a word-



-whack.

And if you guys are going to bring Vietnam into the argument, then I think it's important to remember that our president George W. Bush who brought us into this conflict dodged the Vietnam draft. Like it or not we are in a new Vietnam and we need to end this war before more Americans die for Halliburton and the war profiteers that run this country.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The idea that the anti-war crowd is the exact same as it was in Vietnam seems unlikely for one big reason, 9-11, We where attacked! And I don’t know about you but when that happened I don’t remember talking to anyone against military action, (yes I know there where some but a very very small minority).
Military enlistment sky rocketed, and these troops where joining get those people who attacked us and fight for America, not Bush.
Now most of those troops are fighting and dying in Iraq. It is because of this that I believe the underlying feelings of this current anti-war (or I should say Anti-Iraq) crowd, is that our leaders betrayed the troops. Using there truly noble cause of serving and protecting America, and taking them into a poorly planned war with a county that didn’t attack us.
The men and women of uniform will always have my highest respect. It is because of that respect that I despise the current administration’s careless use of them.

Should we pull out of Iraq NO! not yet at least. This should be obvious to all with a little foresight. We can’t afforded to lose in Iraq, regardless of how we got in. The troops have my full support over there, but this administration should be held accountable for every American that comes back in a body bag because of their war.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
All this argument about pulling out and leaving Iraq to sink or swim is just that, talk. First, it won't happen, of course. Second, the GOP tried to portray Murtha's bill as something far more radical than it was. There is no sizeable consideration of immediate withdrawal on either side of the aisle, as we have seen.

There are of course those anti-Iraq-war people who believe an immediate withdrawal is necessary, but that is not the mainstream view held by the Democrats or the majority of Americans. The mainstream view is that we need a new strategy in Iraq and increased oversight by congress of the billions of dollars we are losing (and I'm talking about the dollars we are literally losing with no trace or explanation). Murtha's bill wanted a timetable as a means to that end.

George W. Bush himself asked for the same of President Clinton in 1999 during Kosovo. He said, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is," and later, "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to . . . when they will be withdrawn." (There are many sources, here's one: 9/27/05 Capital Times (Madison, WI) 8A). A timetable would force the administration to give the best minds in America a chance to debate what needs to be changed.

No one- at least no one rational- wants to tell the troops they fought for nothing. But the civilian leadership has a duty to give the troops the right mission, and that is what Murtha and the Democrats wanted. Current strategy is not working, as increasing numbers of innocent Iraqis and US troops are being killed each month- a far cry from the "sweets and flowers" the planners expected.

So debate protestors and anti-war sentiment all you want, it won't change the fact that we are on a losing course and the only people calling for change are being brushed as cowards and traitors, often by the very people who claim to "support the troops." They're not supporting the troops, though- they're trying to preserve the presidency.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 19-11-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
No one- at least no one rational- wants to tell the troops they fought for nothing.


You say that like it is a truism, which it is not. For more than thirty years the anti-war element has contually asserted that the Vietnam war was fought for nothing and therefore, those who fought it fought for nothing. You must also remember that those who are ostenisbly anti-war are in reality anti-America and they adopt the anti-war theme because it is just so "moral." You might fool the kids. You might encourage those who want to hear what they believe, but you won't fool those of us who have lived the experience.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
i dont understand why people would do such a thing during nam or any war for that matter, blame those for starting the war, not the ones fighting it.

the ones fighting it are doing what they are told to and nothing more. do you expect all of them to throw down their arms in a hot zone? i think not.

a plan would be nice though, even saying a deadline like. we must be out before december 31, 2008 at 11:59 pm. anytime within that range, we can leave by. just as long as we meet that deadline i would be like ok fine. im not asking for every detail under the sun, just a time which we should be gone.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
When a politician proposes an amendment, it is usually something they are in favor of and will vote for. The fact that the Republicans proposed this amendment and then voted against it is all that needs to be said. Pure political posturing and a complete disgrace to the US political process.

The crowing over this vote from certain right-wing members of the board is indicative of the desperation of the warhawks in this country in general. The situation in Iraq is beyond salvation, our military hardware is badly in need of repair and refurbishment, and I applaud Rep. Murtha for having the guts to stand up and say so. He didn't say bring the troops home, either, he said re-deploy them to neighboring countries where they could go back in if needed.

Nothing is ever going to make up for what happened to you when you (or your dad or your uncle or your grampa) came back from Vietnam. Get over it! How many more brave men and women of our armed forces have to sacrifice their lives for your bad memories before you figure that out?

This occupation of Iraq is not stopping terrorism, it is exacerbating it. Sooner or later, the terrorists will strike the US again, just like they struck Madrid and London. We keep giving them more justification all the time, with 'Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, etc. Its just a matter of time, and the policies of our government will only make the inevitable attack worse when it comes. Of course, the Republicans will then vote to broaden the 'war on terror', to teach those evildoers a lesson. See where this is heading?



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I don't understand your position.

So you think the Vietnam conflict was a good idea? Necessary?

I think it was an utter waste of 58,000 American and many, many times that in Vietnamese lives.

If your position is the: "if you dont support the war, you don't support the soldier" then by default you must have agreed with the Vietnam war, right?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join