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.

 

Breaking News-Vote slams Bush's Iraq plan

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I would like to think this is a good thing.
On the other hand,non binding,means little.
Good to know people are trying to do something other than sending more troops to die.But this is just another thing Bush will pay no attention too.


(CNN)-The House of Representatives easily passed 246-182 a non-binding resolution Friday rejecting President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. "This will signal a change in direction that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. Republicans battled to the end against the measure, saying resolve is more important than resolutions.



Mod Edit:CAPS

[edit on 2/16/2007 by kinglizard]




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I'm sure Al-Queda is hoping this passes the Senate also.

A non-binding resolution? Sounds like something the UN does, not the United States of America. Democrats should be ashamed.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
I'm sure Al-Queda is hoping this passes the Senate also.

A non-binding resolution? Sounds like something the UN does, not the United States of America. Democrats should be ashamed.



No republicans should be ashamed. They lack forsight.

Dems (seemingly) smart enough to know that ZERO plan will work in Iraq at the hands of Americans. If we sweep their towns looking for them, they will just leave. Then come back. OVER & OVER until all the troops are dead.

Do you not account for the certainty of this? US Sweeps. Insurgents hide. OVER & OVER.

This is the only reality.

Answer please.

AAC



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
You won't like this answer.

We need more troops to prevent your senario from happening. What we were doing before is cleaning out an area of insurgents. We did that, then after awhile they would come back. That is exactly why we need more troops! To have enough to leave behind to secure the area/

My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly? Al-Queda wants the U.S. out of Iraq so they can claim victory, and laugh at a U.S. defeat. Is this the same thing Democrats want?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
You won't like this answer.

We need more troops to prevent your senario from happening. What we were doing before is cleaning out an area of insurgents. We did that, then after awhile they would come back. That is exactly why we need more troops! To have enough to leave behind to secure the area/

My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly? Al-Queda wants the U.S. out of Iraq so they can claim victory, and laugh at a U.S. defeat. Is this the same thing Democrats want?


You are right in some ways. I am right in some ways. This is complicated, I agree. But more troops is almost an impossibility without a draft. In 1999, during a Pentagon War Games excercise, the program stated that 400,000 troops would be needed to secure Iraq (and it still revealed uncertainty).

Also, the GOP says that if we leave, they will come here. That is bullcrap. If they wanted to come here, they will come here no matter what! That would be ideal for them. But, so says the National Guard, we are leaving our borders less secure by our overused military in Iraq.

Doesn't something smell fishing here? It doesn;t make any sense. It is illogical. We spend 250,000,000 dollars a DAY on Iraq and Afghanistan, yet out borders remain unsecure. With that trillion dollars used here, imagine how safe and technologically advanced our homeland would be?

Also, it isn;t even our region of the world to worry about. If it was Mexico or Canada, sure. But let China, Russia, EU worry about what will happen there. It's not like they like us anyway.

All these fishy scenarios point at nefarious intentions. You woulnd't agree?

AAC

[edit on 16-2-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
@ AnAbsoluteCreation

The troop surge has already been accomplished. No need for a draft.

If we do not fight terrorist abroad they will come here. It's been 5+ years since the 9/11 attacks. There hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since. There has got to be a reason for that.

I agree with you on border security. National Guard Units need to be deployed on our borders. That, or a massive recruitment effort of border patrol agents.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
This non-binding resolution was just a show. Congress wants the people (that's us) to think they're doing something useful. All they're doing is telling Bush, "We don't approve of what you're doing." And we all know how much that matters to him... They might as well have taken the week off.

I'm glad to see it passed, but it just doesn't mean anything. It might as well have been a bowl of grapes.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
@ AnAbsoluteCreation

The troop surge has already been accomplished. No need for a draft.


Accomplished? This troop surge is not enough to accomplish every city in Iraq where the insurgents are hiding. Did you not just hear me say, 400,000 troops still couldn't do the job?

And it was 8 years before 9/11 where there was ZERO terror plots. This argument is really ridiculous. Fighting there doesn't keep them there. if they were smart (as 9/11 supposedly revealed they were) they would come get us here while we were there. No?

I really believe you are in "wishful thinking" mode. Your scenario is not likely. We've had 5 troop surges in the past in Iraq and NONE worked.

AAC


df1

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
We need more troops to prevent your senario from happening.

Go sign up. Get all of your relatives to sign to sign up. Too old? This isn't an obstacle, you can go to work for a contractor if you want to kill insurgents. However you really don't want to do any of those things. What you want is to put other people's lives on the line while you play armchair Rambo. Hope to be hearing from you at the Iraqi front real soon. Do keep us posted.



My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly?

Seventy percent of the American people want us out of Iraq because they are freaking tired of dead American troops, they are freaking tired of billions upon billions of our tax dollars being flushed down the Iraq toilet, they are freaking tired of our rights being stripped one by one and they are freaking tired of a foreign policy based on deceit & fed by fear. The Democrats kicked the Republicans butt in November because the American people want us out of Iraq. If the Democrats don't get the job done they can be replaced just like their predecessors.

As for me, if I'm expected to live out my life in the Bush43 house of horrors then let Al Queda come kill me now, because this would be existing, not living.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1



My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly?

Seventy percent of the American people want us out of Iraq because they are freaking tired of dead American troops,



When asked of the American people if they want defeat in Iraq that percentage drops into the low 20's. Polls are weird like that. It's all in the wording.

BTW I did my time in the Army. Now I support our troops by supporting their leader!



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by RRconservative
(...)
My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly? Al-Queda wants the U.S. out of Iraq so they can claim victory, and laugh at a U.S. defeat. Is this the same thing Democrats want?


You are right in some ways. I am right in some ways. This is complicated, I agree. But more troops is almost an impossibility without a draft. In 1999, during a Pentagon War Games excercise, the program stated that 400,000 troops would be needed to secure Iraq (and it still revealed uncertainty).

Also, the GOP says that if we leave, they will come here. That is bullcrap. If they wanted to come here, they will come here no matter what! (...)

That's exactly what it is, AAC, a true statement, thanks for that.

As for the crap, RR, that old GOP lie don't work no more. Al Qaeda will do anything to keep the troops engaged. The last thing they want is them to leave. Then theier cause all would be over, no more free promoting by world media. Wouldn't be good, wuddit?

Their strategy is to keep the war going and any tactic is in support of that. If you DID go home, there wouldn't be no more war on terror. No good, eh?

If you want proof of this, the intercepted Zawahiri letter gives it. It is long and written in a corny style, but it's translated into English. And don't worry, it's from uscentcom.mil ... the real unbiased thing.

If you want a more easy readable account, I can only offer you this heavily biased article by Robert Perry, Bush & His Dangerous Delusions.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Sometimes I feel like it is the pure pride lovers of the (old) america which was great, and was rightous, and was a liberator. Things have perversed, so we must reognize without our stubborn bias.

A true patriot tells it like it is. RR, I respect your position, you love america as do I, but america is slipping. We need to right it quickly before we become the Romans.

AAC



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
It's obvious that America is slipping, when we can't even support a mission that our military was sent to do.

When we spend weeks arguing about a resolution that has NO teeth.
Then passing it! for what? to say nyah nyah?
There was no point to this waste of time. Except to undermine the will of the people we sent to accomplish a mission.


df1

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
When asked of the American people if they want defeat in Iraq that percentage drops into the low 20's. Polls are weird like that. It's all in the wording.

You can weigh & compare poll statistics till your hearts content. The only poll that is relevant right now is the one that sent droves of Republicans home to find honest work. If the RNC leadership is equally as blind, the Democrats will have an unstoppable majority in the US Senate after the 2008 elections. Elections are weird like that.



BTW I did my time in the Army.

I'm sure they will welcome you back with open arms.



Now I support our troops by supporting their leader!

So being the patriot that you claim, we can assume that you would give President Hillary your unfettered support should she become their leader. Are you the good patriot or the partisan mouth piece? My gut tells me you are the later.


Originally posted by spacedoubt
When we spend weeks arguing about a resolution that has NO teeth.
Then passing it! for what? to say nyah nyah?
There was no point to this waste of time.

Political masturbation. It felt good, but didn't accomplish squat.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by RRconservative
@ AnAbsoluteCreation

The troop surge has already been accomplished. No need for a draft.


Accomplished? This troop surge is not enough to accomplish every city in Iraq where the insurgents are hiding. Did you not just hear me say, 400,000 troops still couldn't do the job?

I really believe you are in "wishful thinking" mode. Your scenario is not likely. We've had 5 troop surges in the past in Iraq and NONE worked.

AAC

The difference is that in the past, we had to do it all alone. The scenario is different now, as there are now trained Iraqi troops who can stay behind and protect the areas that have been secured.

It is already showing results. Mookie al-Sadr had fled to Iran, and the number of civilian attacks in the past week has shown a drastic drop.

Edit to add: Also, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was wounded/captured this week, and his top aide was killed.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
We need more troops to prevent your senario from happening. What we were doing before is cleaning out an area of insurgents. We did that, then after awhile they would come back. That is exactly why we need more troops! To have enough to leave behind to secure the area/


While that is true shouldn't the local Iraqi security forces be taking on the role rather then US troops ?
Bush is using twenty one thousand as political pawns he is using the troop surge to divet calls for a withdrawl from Iraq. If the troop surge was about providing security it would have taken place around three years ago instead of now.

As for the resolution passing its really just a case of politicians wasting time in order to highlight the stance that the Dems have taken , as if people didn't know already.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Jbecky, glad to see you here.

Now I don't want to be mistaken for the people that actually want us to fail. I do want victory, I just see it as unlikely.

Yes, attacks have slowed, and sinister generals have fled, but it is their strategy to hide. They leave, take stock, then strike back. What is going to keep them from coming back?

AAC



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
This is a really big case of C.Y.A. These people don't have the power to do anything but show the rest of the world that we aren't united.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Something that you "pro-pullout" people don't seem to understand is that we're not discussing a pullout. That option isn't even on the table. The argument here is that either there's going to be a troop surge or there isn't going to be a troop surge. You claim to love the soldiers so much and you're angry because so many are dying. By opposing the troop surge, you are likely condemning more of them to die. An army with a lack of reinforcements and lack of gear (this is coming too, cutting off the funds will be next) will be slaughtered.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Something that you "pro-pullout" people don't seem to understand is that we're not discussing a pullout. That option isn't even on the table. The argument here is that either there's going to be a troop surge or there isn't going to be a troop surge. You claim to love the soldiers so much and you're angry because so many are dying. By opposing the troop surge, you are likely condemning more of them to die. An army with a lack of reinforcements and lack of gear (this is coming too, cutting off the funds will be next) will be slaughtered.


Nope. I'll say it again, anything less than 400,000 troops mean nothing. The insurgents will hide till we move on. Simple as that. Oh, then they come back and start terror all over again. Why don't you tell me how you willl eliminate that?

AAC




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join