WAR: Iraq Pullout Voted Down By House of Representatives

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
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?

Let me tell you something, Icarus. You find the first Vietnam veteran you can find and you tell him to "Get over it," then you report to this board what it feels like to be absent your front teeth.

Vietnam veterans don't need your good counsel or your know-it-all atitude. We've been there; we know. Apparently, you aren't going to serve your nation or sacrifice anything in the cause of freedom, so why don't you return to the peanut gallery and and enjoy the show in silence.

[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
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?

How bold of you.
Say that to most of those still alive Vietnam vets, Icarus Rising.
Furthermore, these brave men and women are not sacrificing their lives over my "bad memories", as you have so coined it.

You support the troops?
You are against this war?
If you answer 'yes' to both, then congratulations, you fit the definition I gave for the difference in the Vietnam war and this current war, in relation to the anti-war movement: support the troops, which did not happen in the Vietnam war, but bring them home now/immediately.

As did not happen in Vietnam, the troops should continue in Iraq till the 'job' is complete, period. Most of the troops currently serving in Iraq are saying the same thing. Should their voices be over-ridden or dismissed, as it was in Vietnam? Should there continued sacrifice, which most willingly accept, be dismissed as a waste, just so you can proclaim victory with your insistance that they be brought home immediately before their 'job' is complete in Iraq?

You see, up till the Republican's called the Democrats and anti-war movements bluff with this resolution situation last night, both [most] Democrats and anti-war proponents were screaming and hollering for the troops to be brought home now, immediately. Interesting that after last nights 'call your bluff' Republican move, the Democrats and anti-war movements and groups have now changed their tune.





seekerof

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Seekerof]

im with ya grady except for the fighting for freedom part.
i wouldnt sign up to fight either.

i would fight to protect freedom, that doesnt mean starting democracies on the other side of the globe. if they want a democracy that much they should have fought it themselves. even if they had to with sticks stone or w/e they could get their hands on. fight til all of them were dead, each and every one. either they died or their opposition died, nothing less. and if they win then they become their democracy, if not then well good luck to the remaining dictators there, because they would have no one to rule over.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

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.

I don't believe for a second that being anti-war makes one anti-America, although I accept that there are no doubt people who are anti-America who also are anti-war.

As for adopting an anti-war theme because it seems the moral thing to do when one really is motivated by an underlying dissatisfaction with or hatred of America, yes, this happens. The flip side of this is that there are people whose support of the war to bring democracy to Iraq masks some deeper, less pleasant motive. Self-delusion isn't something held by only one side.

I see a difference in saying a war was "fought for nothing" and saying a given amount of casualties in a war could have been avoided. Wars are fought for resources and/or ideals, in the case of Iraq and Vietnam, one of those ideals was democracy. Troops fell and are falling for democracy, not for "nothing." But perhaps some of those deaths could have been avoided all the same. There are people on all sides of the Iraq issue who don't see the difference, and that's unfortunate because it simplifies a complex issue.

As far as the vietnam analogy, the US stayed in Vietnam, with a draft in effect no less, taking on much much more casualities and questions than in Iraq. The US had something like 57,000 casualties and the like in Vietnam, according to this site, compared to around 2,000 for the Iraq war. Figuring for a high estimate of 1,000 a year, the US can tolerate a war in Iraq for something like another 50 years. obviously this isn't particularly realistic, but it shows that the public should be able to tolerate far more casualties, and also just puts the casualties in perspective (keeping in mind that the vietnam war is about 5 times as long also).

So a pullout, certainly if its based on a logic of the casualty count, completely fails.


ALSO

Keep the discussion limited to the facts of the article and situation, DO NOT DISCUSS OTHER POSTERS PERSONALLY

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Nygdan]

Okay my dad is very real, and in my opinion still a republican. He is just tired of the current administration and tells me often this war is wrong. He also thinks Vietnam was wrong, go figure. You don't have to believe me because it would matter little to me, but I hate when people present themselves the "voice" for veterans or any other group. You clearly are not, you have personal opinions which is fine but like mine, they are just that personal opinions.

Now on the topic at hand, many are saying you can't support the troops and be against the war. That is the most ignorant thing I have heard in years. As someone here stated I do not hate the troops, but I do hate the people who sent them to Iraq.

I believe the best way to support them is to send them the things they need most (armor and technology), take care of their families while they are gone and do everything I can to bring them home safely and soon.

What have you "pro-war" people done to help? Since the war began I send every penny of my budget for contributions to several veterans/Iraq widow organizations (just checked it is around $12,000 so far this year), I have helped with Christmas gifts for children of soldiers in Iraq, I have donated 4 laptops to servicemen deployed in Iraq (of which 3 are still there) and I have protested this war through marches, letters and my vote.

It might also surprise you that I am currently a "pen" pal with two soldiers deployed in Baghdad. I won't share our conversations since it seems some of you tend to distrust everyone but their comments drive me forward in what I am doing now.

How can that not be seen as supporting the troops?

[edit on 11/19/2005 by nativeokie]

How else can we support our troops? By not calling the war from our armchairs day after day. For example, if WP has been used in Fallujah, take a day or two and gather your questions and the real facts of the matter before shooting from the hip at our actions.

When you question our motives, deeds, or a particular course of action, take a moment to reflect upon what the troops are up against over there. I know that we should set our own high standards and follow them. But the enemy does not play by the same rules, and this is one of their greatest advantages over us. Think about how we handicap our troops by, for example, demanding no civilian deaths when the enemy uses civilians for shields. How can we advance our position when some civilians refuse to leave their homes, even with plenty of advanced warning? Take a moment or a day to think about what you are demanding of the troops before you start to blame them.

In other words, it is not necessary to vocalize your opinion on every matter. Sometimes, it's just prudent to keep silent and see what shakes out of the situation.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by nativeokie
...but I hate when people present themselves the "voice" for veterans or any other group. You clearly are not, you have personal opinions which is fine but like mine, they are just that personal opinions.

I speak for myself, but because of a shared experience and from my interaction with veterans, I know that my views are not extraordinary. Veterans fall into all areas of the political spectrum, but there are some things that we all have in common. One is "homecoming." Mine was not as traumatic as many, but I know what happened and I'm here to share it with the world, like it or not.

[edit on 2005/11/19 by GradyPhilpott]

What have we gained, or lost, in Iraq to date? I know many posters feel the war in Iraq is wrong now, was wrong to begin with and will still be wrong tomorrow. Others feel the war is righteous and should be pursued with vigor. Still others think we went in for bogus reasons, but we're there now and should stay to see the job done. While others just want to end it honorably and come home as soon as possible. There are champions for every single viewpoint, some quiet and some loud & obnoxious.

Step back for a second and look at what is happening in a broader context. What you are seeing is democracy in action and it happens all to rarely around the world. It's ok to be passionate about the issues of the day, but please remember we can do this because we are free and because we respect the rule of law and one another.

Now, pan over to Iraq and look at the situation there. Killings happen daily and generally by the gross. There are Shiites fighting Suniis both overtly and covertly, there are foreigners coming in to fight the devil Americans & coallition forces and there are terrorists trying to keep the trouble stirred up just as intensely as possible. And behind the scenes you have the so-called religious mullahs and clerics trying desperately to hold on to power. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Iraqis just want to get on with their lives in peace. It's quite a mess and almost unbelievable in it's complexity and it sure as hell isn't democracy.

It is; however, a large group of human beings gathered up in a fairly sensitive and strategic region of the world. What would the likely outcome be if we just walked away? Do not the people there deserve a future free of all that is currently going on just because they are humans too? Is it possible that if we stay we can help bring about that freedom? Or, are they simply not worth the life of one of our own? What do we risk losing by staying to help? What do we gain if we can end that mess?

In the end, you may come back to your original opinion and that is just fine, but really think about it for a bit. Not with just a part of yourself, but with both your minds and your hearts.

Remember our motto "e pluribus unum."

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Astronomer68]

It wasn't a 'call your bluff' move, it was a bluff, a sham vote, and a blatant display of hypocrisy, the one thing the Republicans seem to be truly good at these days. The Democrats, sans Rep. Murtha, aren't much better, either.

I'm not afraid to voice my opinion, whatever the consequences, and I defy anybody to try and knock my teeth out. I know many Vietnam and other vets, and most of them know what a raw deal they got, but they don't try to use that to justify the occupation of Iraq. They don't hide behind their military service to salve their consciences.

I will willingly take my place in the 'peanut gallery' rather than become another mouthpiece for this corrupt administration and its illegal occupation of Iraq.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Let us try to remember that when replying.

Originally posted by Ray Davies
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.

I'd have to disagree.
Take a look at the wider picture and the region as a whole.

By fighting against Communism in Vietnam, the US may just have stopped it from becoming the absolute in Asia. When you look at the other countries in the region you can see that they may all have become Communist regimes if there hadn't been the fallout from the Vietnam War. And even though the Communists "won" in Vietnam, look at the regime now. It is slowly modernising. Do you think that it could or would have done this without outside interference if the whole region was under the heel of Communism? And what about the political affects on neighbouring countries who might have been thinking of going down Vietnam's path? The region is far, far from perfect, but I sincerely believe that it could have turned out a whole lot worse. Both for us and for them. You only have to look at how this lost battle affected Cambodia and study Pol Pot's regime to see that this could have become so. Once this type of Communism gets established it can become the norm. Basically the US was fighting a domino war - push over one country and hopefully others will fall in the line. It didn't quite work with Vietnam - some dominoes remained standing, but others certainly did fall.

Don't look on Vietnam as a "War" - it was a battle. A conflict in a much wider theatre. Some battles are lost but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were a waste of time nor that they affect the outcome of the War detrimentally.

It's rather like the Cold War where instead of fighting the Russians on foreign soil by proxy of a native war, the US was fighting against Chinese influence in the region. Slowly and over a few decades, it is a war that is being won.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Leveller]

What you say is just plain true! We may not have "won" the Vietnam war but if we did not fight it, the region would be in the hands of our enemies.
Iraq is a must win situation, If we cut and run the result will be the end of the US having nothing left to do but take what the terrorists want to do to us and the rest of the world. That is also just plain true.
Murtha, Kennedy and the rest of the radical left are old and afraid. They would cut and run like the fools they are.
Murtha was a hero once and now he has become a coward and a traitor.
Marines don't cut and run, politians do.
It is simple. If we don't stand up and fight now there will be nothing left to fight for. We will stay home and watch the 9/11s roll on.

monk you stand for every person who is ignorant in this country.

you must have not kept up at all with current events.

if you had paid attention you would have noticed that murthas ideas werent even debated, the slanted bill from the republican side was the one debated. their plan worked in making people think we wanted an immediate withdrawl instead of a steady plan to withdrawl over time. ahh american politics.

Ignorant is as ignorant does,
If you have kept up with the war on terror you would not be saying what you saying. Your are a tool of the politians and the left wing machine. Just throw up your hands and join the cowards.
Murtha may be your hero, but I will back the Americans troops anytime.

dont ever judge me, i am not defending democrats. i am simply stating your ignorance as to the fact murthas ideas werent being discussed, some republican person ideas were. thats what they were debating and thats what 403 of them voted down. if you had watched youd know that an immediate pull out isnt wanted from either side, but a plan to withdrawl is.

if you refuse to read and watch, then i can help you in no way. as another member stated bush himself said you must have an exit plan which we show we dont currently have. this is what democrat murtha wanted to be discussed, what was discussed was a waste of time act on the republican part.

when the republicans propose it then all of them vote against it that says something. just open your eyes, democrats will fight for change til they mess up then republicans will do the same when democrats mess up. its a cycle which doesnt end. both parties are corrupt and screw up, then the other party capitalizes on it.

An Exit Plan that is out in the public domain is not necessarily a good idea. In fact it could be just plain dangerous.

When fighting a war, you never tell your enemy what your next manouevre is going to be - wether it is an attack or a retreat.
By creating an Exit Plan, you also head down the road of a timetable. If that isn't kept (and the situation in Iraq is very volatile) you leave yourself wide open to attacks from other avenues.

It would be great for Western public morale to be able to say that the troops are coming home and when they will do so, but equally it will be just as good for those who oppose democracy within Iraq.

Murtha is playing politics. He knows that the public would like to know how Iraq is going to pan out, but he is equally aware that the information he requires could cause more damage than good.

To be truthful, I would be very suprised if there isn't an Exit Plan. It's just that you and I aren't going to hear about it until the military is sure that it can be implemented.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
monk you stand for every person who is ignorant in this country.

you must have not kept up at all with current events.

if you had paid attention you would have noticed that murthas ideas werent even debated, the slanted bill from the republican side was the one debated. their plan worked in making people think we wanted an immediate withdrawl instead of a steady plan to withdrawl over time. ahh american politics.

Revisionist history much like Reuters.

First posted in this tread Friday 17th,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Using this link,

Alertnet, Reuters

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - A Democratic congressional leader on defense called on Thursday for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, increasing pressure for a change in Bush administration policy just days after the Senate asked for a plan to end the war.

Then there is the later added story addition by Charles Aldinger correcting the reporting to match the liberal spin,

He said he believed U.S. troops could be withdrawn within six months. There are 153,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, increased from the usual 138,000 to tighten security for elections in October and December. Another 22,000 troops from U.S. allies are also serving in Iraq.

Seems things can be made up as they go along to fit whatever situation comes up - Eh!

The media implied and proclaimed loudly that Murtha called for an immediate pullout incessantly Thursday and Friday - conveinentely by the time Friday nights vote outcome was apparent it became a Republican stunt whereby they changed Murthas message.

Dont'cha love it!


Yup, history molded to anything you want it to be never makes one wrong and always always agrees with ones view.

isnt the war officially over. now its all about meeting deadlines as far as setting up the government. once we set up there government and military, its no longer our problem. i stand by peoples opinions who say we arent the world police. nor are we the bodyguard for all those who have a democracy. we set a deadline to have the government set up, a deadline which the military and iraq police are set up and then a month or so later we start a withdrawl in which within the next few months of a stable government and military we are fully out of the country.

The politians you are talking about go the way the public polls go. Beyond the politians are the citizens like you who talk about what these fools are doing, not the right or wrong of what they are really doing. Get to the bottom line and you will see that the left wing are becoming American sappers. Let the politics be damned I still will back the American troops who are defending us all!