Senate backs March 08 Iraq pullout

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Senate backs March 08 Iraq pullout


www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate’s most forceful challenge to date of the administration’s handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
story.news.yahoo.com




posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Is a year enough time for the Iraqi government to get things in check if the coalition withdraws by March, 2008?

With a full fledged civil war underlying already frequent violence and daily reports of civilian casualties, I don't see it happening.

No doubt somehow the UN is going to have to get involved, and provide a substantial peacekeeping force, or that place is going to explode.

Bush is doing war manuevers in the Gulf, showing off the wares, while directly below him the floor is dropping out. I hope Dubya can swim.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
While I am 100% against the war and I want our troops to be withdrawn asap, I cant help but worry about the state of the country after we pull out - hopefully this will inspire the Iraqi's to take charge of their country. This war was botched from the get go, and I fear the people who are responsible will never be forced to face the consequences of their actions. At this point, I don't see how we can achieve the victory we are looking for there....Saddam/ al Quaida link; WMD's; removal of a viscious dictator; instill democracy and power to the people......

There was not link to al quaida, there were now WMD's (at least none other than the rusted remains of the ones we sold them back in the 80's), we removed Saddam from power and he has been executed, but this has seemed to cause more problems than anyone cared to invision during the onset of the invasion. Now, exactly what is our mission? Instill democracy and power to the people.... must they not want this though, wouldn't the people need to stand up to accept this? I dont know if that country has the mindset to operate democratically as is, let alone within the next couple of years.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It's non-binding, this means nothing.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeAndAllSeeing
It's non-binding, this means nothing.


If it meant nothing, it wouldn't be mainstream news. But it is. And it DOES mean something.

It means something all the way down the line to the people who voted majority opposition to the war into Congress.

The fact that a lame duck president is still able to sit there and continue to kill people from afar without having to see it in his own backyard perhaps is the bigger problem. And it needs fixing, cuz it's broke.

These are people's lives we are talking about here. Every minute- another extinguished. There is urgency.

And much more so urgent than your feeble attempt to make it seem like the United States Senate voting to withdraw troops in 3/08 means nothing. Maybe not to you. It does to me. And I doubt that I am alone in that sentiment.

And when you consider the House's recently passed bill on a deadline of September, 2008 for troop withdrawls, this Senate decision applies further pressure. It reduces the amount of time by 6 months, for both Bush and the Iraqi government.

How much longer Bush can withstand this extreme pressure from Congress and the American people is questionable.

But maybe even more interesting are the implications of a withdrawl from Iraq on Bush's cravings for Iran. After he begins attacking Iran, what's he going to say? "Well everyone wanted us out of Iraq, so...?"

Funny how we're paying Congress to sit up there and make non-binding legislation. :shk:

[edit on 27-3-2007 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeAndAllSeeing
It's non-binding, this means nothing.



No, it is not, it is part of the war spending, that requires troops to be
home by the set date.

Bush will vetoe it though.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
The Senate Version is NON-BINDING
It is meaningless. The Senate Version is the Version that Bush will or will not sign. I think he signs it , and the media pretends it meant something.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Look, I'm not saying this because I like the guy, or think he was a good leader, but when Saddam was in power, people had jobs, and food and running water.

Now, there are families with little children who have no running water, or even a home to live in anymore and there is the constant hail of bullets, mortars and missiles and all sorts of chem and bio weapons being thrown around.
Children are starving, I mean, the children not being killed by soldiers (from both sides) or being pressed into service by "patriotic nationals".

This whole thing was nuts from the get go, and we all know that there was never an exit strategy to begin with.

To me, it's all just about people.
There are real people getting killed.
Yes, we've lost over three thousand of our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and cousins, with countless thousands permanently injured.
And across the world, they've lost tens of thousands of theirs.
People are dying...and for what?
Really, what?

We need to step up and say "We f#*ked up! We F#^ked up royally! And we're sorry!"



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Sooo ... what happens if we pull out.. and all hell breaks loose?

And our international relations suffer...

And thousands die...

And we end up having to go back in...

Are Dems going to foot the blame?


Edn

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
That depends, no major country can attack Iraq if we leave, it would basically be an invitation for war, that just leaves the militia, hired gunmen and whoever else is there generally just to stir things up, if the Iraqi government can get there act together and no one goes into a civil war over some stupid difference of opinion in religious beliefs (Shi‘ite and Sunni thing) then its not likely to get to much worse than it already is.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
yeah, shouldn't there be...oh...I don't know...some international community that should, perhaps, lend some help to the citizens of Iraq (and by help, I don't mean people with guns shooting at other people that may or may not actually have guns) and get them food, water, electricity, shelter and maybe, just maybe help enrich the farmlands so that these people can start growing some food.

But, I'm just some guy, what do I know?



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hi wu,


Originally posted by wu kung
Look, I'm not saying this because I like the guy, or think he was a good leader, but when Saddam was in power, people had jobs, and food and running water.


A point noticed around ATS many times before, but still welcome nonetheless.
It never hurts to review a straight on analogy:

Are things "better" now than before for the Iraqi people? Was imposing a right to vote on the Iraqi people and wiping out their military more important than the death that has ensued? Was it?
More important to who?

Given the choice of death or Saddam, one must question the arrogance of an administration that would take it upon themselves to make that decision for millions of Iraqi people that have had to suffer the consequences, of OUR decision! BS. That ain't the kind of American I want to be.

What in the hell gives us the right to make those decisions? Nuclear bombs? Hadn't enough blood been had in Afghanistan in retribution for 9/11?? Why Iraq. Why not North Korea? Or hell, for that matter, Russia or China?

As for me, I'd kinda rather wish that someone in government would work towards getting me out from under the possibility that a nuke of any kind, from anywhere, could kill me at any moment. Do that first, and then let's worry bout the little stuff.

And that means pursuing nuclear disarmament, and new world weapons conventions, that forbid WMD of any kind over an agreed upon yield and threat limit. If we could just get the world back to that, as lofty a goal as that is, humanity just might stand a chance.


We need to step up and say "We f#*ked up! We F#^ked up royally! And we're sorry!"


Yep, shoulda happened the minute evidence was overwhelming that we were sold a war on exaggeration.

If America would have come clean then and made reparations, we mighta gotten some forgiveness from an enraged world that supposedly dare not face the Elephant with extra sharp ivorytusks.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hi wu,


A point noticed around ATS many times before, but still welcome nonetheless.
It never hurts to review a straight on analogy:


Thanx, that's very much appreciated!




Are things "better" now than before for the Iraqi people? Was imposing a right to vote on the Iraqi people and wiping out their military more important than the death that has ensued? Was it?
More important to who?

Given the choice of death or Saddam, one must question the arrogance of an administration that would take it upon themselves to make that decision for millions of Iraqi people that have had to suffer the consequences, of OUR decision! BS. That ain't the kind of American I want to be.


I couldn't have said it better myself.


What in the hell gives us the right to make those decisions? Nuclear bombs? Hadn't enough blood been had in Afghanistan in retribution for 9/11?? Why Iraq. Why not North Korea? Or hell, for that matter, Russia or China?


Unfortunately, our vast arsenal is what most people think gives us the right.


As for me, I'd kinda rather wish that someone in government would work towards getting me out from under the possibility that a nuke of any kind, from anywhere, could kill me at any moment. Do that first, and then let's worry bout the little stuff.

And that means pursuing nuclear disarmament, and new world weapons conventions, that forbid WMD of any kind over an agreed upon yield and threat limit. If we could just get the world back to that, as lofty a goal as that is, humanity just might stand a chance.


It's just too bad that those calling the shots don't see it that way. For some reason, they seem totally unaffected by the possibility that this whole planet can be completely swept clean of all life.



If America would have come clean then and made reparations, we mighta gotten some forgiveness from an enraged world that supposedly dare not face the Elephant with extra sharp ivorytusks.


But then they would've had to admit that they were wrong, and that's not an option. "Nope. We're right! We're stronger than you! We're the Americans! And that's all the reason we need!"

Jeez, if and when I ever travel abroad, I might have to say that I'm Canadian, just so I don't get killed.

It hurts, knowing that people are dying for no good reason.
I'm not a soldier, and luckily, none of my loved ones are over there fighting, but I can only imagine how hard it must be for those people who's loved ones are.

Look, humans fight, and we kill, that's not what I have a problem with, as long as there is a good reason.
But this, this is just one huge fiasco, and a lot of people don't even care that they were lied to.
I just don't get it.
It boggles my mind....



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Sooo ... what happens if we pull out.. and all hell breaks loose?


So how far does a country have to be into civil war before you define it as "all hell breaking loose?"

All hell is ALREADY loose. And what they want is foreign militaries off their soil. Any long term solution is going to have to start there, or there will never be peace in Iraq again.

When you've got the king of Saudi Arabia calling the US occupation "illegitimate," you know even the staunchest of US allies are breaking ranks. But that really has been an alliance of convenience and hypocrisy anyway.

Anyone suppose Canada and Mexico can double their oil exports to the US, so we can lose the dependency on Saudi and Venezuelan oil? Cause Abdullah and Chavez don't wanna play no mo.


And our international relations suffer...


Now that's a laugh. How in the hell can our international relations suffer any worse than they already have? Oh yeah, I forgot. Iran.


And thousands die...


Hundreds of thousands already have. What's a few more thousand lives? :shk: Besides, the US must keep up with its reputation for starting wars and leaving places in chaos!

Let them fight it out however it will fall, and may the best Muslim win against his own brother. I'm sure we'll find a way to slap around the resulting dictator, and siphon oil quite nicely for more profits.


And we end up having to go back in...


If anyone's likely to go back in, it would be probably a UN peacekeeping force composed of more palatable nations to the middle east.


Are Dems going to foot the blame?


Nuh uh. Don't even try to lay this on the Dems. In no way, shape, or form. Ok, if you want to fault them for trusting US intelligence, or trusting the Bush administration to deliver unexaggerated, solid evidence that people's lives depended upon, I suppose you could fault them for that.

This was a Bush cabal war, plain and simple, with maybe a few exceptions such as the war bitch Diane Feinstein and her grubby little hands securing contracts for her husband's companies in a horrible display of conflicting interest. But by enlarge, it was Bush that sold us this war, and the American people want their money back.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by TrueAmerican]





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join