What is the argument on the war? It's a democracy and most americans want a withdraw.

I really don't understand why the demacratic congress doesn't continue to reiterate OVER & OVER that their war position reflects that of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Given a choice of policy options going forward, 68% endorse proposals to withdraw most combat troops, either within a year or no later than August 31, 2008, while just 28% say troops should stay in the country "as long as needed until the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves."

The GOP continues to make statements concerning the economy and how bad it would be if we left Iraq. I'm sure the American people see the truth. Iraq is on the other side of the world, entrenched in Middle East chaos, why not let the region there worry about the issues. Is it becuase if they leave all the american contracts thta they went there in the first place to get will be flushed down the toilet?

Bottom line Bush, you are a representation of your voters. Your voter say withdraw the troops by 2008. Enough said!

TIME's Polls & Artical

AAC

[edit on 29-3-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Sorry, but you need to understand that a poll can be written so that you can get any answer you want. You can't base government policy on some random poll that says 68% of Americans want this or that.

Any poll that asks Americans if they want to bring the troops home is going to get high numbers. However, if you ask Americans if they want to bring the troops home knowing that the terrorists we leave in the ME might come to our country and start blowing up our schools and killing our children the answer would be quite different.

With respect, America isn't a true democracy - it is a republic. We elect people such as Congress and the President to run the country FOR us. We entrust them with powers and expect them to be intelligent and informed and to do the RIGHT thing. The right thing may not be the popular thing. If we, as an electorate, decide we don't like what our representatives are doing we replace them at the next election. That is the only poll that matters.

Thanks for the reply. I do however disagree with the arguement that terrorist would come here. If they could come here they would no matter if there is american troops in ME or not. This would be prestine for them. The smart thing for them would be to come here while all of our troops are there.

But they don't because for the most part they just want us off their holy land.

It's not like they're killing hundreds of american each day. They're killing themselves.

So my belief is that if we leave (stop spending 250,000,000 a DAY on both wars) they will hash it out there for control and we can use that money to protect our homefront.

Makes sense...

AAC

Assuming the "it" residing within your thread title refers to the current form of U.S. government.... we are a REPUBLIC.... not a democracy.
Neither Bush nor any other elected representative is required to make decisions based on opinions whether majority or minority within their jurisdictions.
The means by which the populace makes their priorities best know and felt is at the ballot box, not through opinion polls.

None of the above is an attempt to minimize the value of the thoughts expressed within the thread... just the foundation on which it is based.

Ask Americans if they want defeat in Iraq and a majority will say no! Polls like that have been taken, but are usually ignored by the pro-defeat media.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Thanks for the reply. I do however disagree with the arguement that terrorist would come here. If they could come here they would no matter if there is american troops in ME or not. This would be prestine for them. The smart thing for them would be to come here while all of our troops are there.

But they don't because for the most part they just want us off their holy land.

It's not like they're killing hundreds of american each day. They're killing themselves.

So my belief is that if we leave (stop spending 250,000,000 a DAY on both wars) they will hash it out there for control and we can use that money to protect our homefront.

Makes sense...

AAC

Here's the problem with your stance on the war. The reason we say that we are keeping them from coming over here is simple. They are too busy defending their own country to bring the fight to us in the US. If we do indeed pull out of Iraq in 08 then they will simply have to wait it out. Once we are gone they can topple their newly formed government and their is not a thing anyone can do about it.

Once they have control of Iraq then they will have a home-base to do whatever they want. What you don't understand is that they aren't just defending their country from foreign invaders. These people have a deep-rooted hatred towards us and believe their god wants all of us dead.

Maybe they will come over here, maybe they won't. What would your reaction be though if they did come over here and begin killing people? Would you blame our government for allowing the troops to leave? Of course people would blame the government and we would lose even more freedom to make us "safe".

Either way I look forward to see what will unfold.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Ask Americans if they want defeat in Iraq and a majority will say no! Polls like that have been taken, but are usually ignored by the pro-defeat media.

...there's no way to win iraq. there's no way to lose iraq.

we went into iraq to find weapons of mass destruction, we failed there
we went into iraq because of ties to al-qaeda, there were no ties and that was a failure (though al-qaeda does have support there since we got in)

we went in to get rid of saddam.. ok, we did that one.

but RR, how are we going to win in iraq?
how is a withdrawl of US military forces in an independent state a failure?
wouldn't an international peacekeeping force do a better job?

but RR, how are we going to win in iraq?

Let's see - this is a difficult one - we win in Iraq by not giving up and going home until the job is done. And what is the job to be done? Sticking with our new ally until they can overcome the terrorist forces within their country and achive a stable government. How long will it take? A long time. How long did we keep our military in Germany and Japan?

how is a withdrawl of US military forces in an independent state a failure?
wouldn't an international peacekeeping force do a better job?

Umm - this is another tough one - if we withdraw the bad guys win. It doesn't matter if you call it a "redeployment" or a "change in tactics" or whatever. If we quit and leave, we lose. Is that what you really want?

As for an international peacekeeping force, I wish with all of my heart that something like that could work. I wish the UN wasn't a worthless debate club that spends a lot of money for nothing. The League of Nations was a failure and the United Nations is a failure. Maybe the "third time is a charm" and we can create something in the future that actually works.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I really don't understand why the demacratic congress doesn't continue to reiterate OVER & OVER that their war position reflects that of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

sure, the people have finally got awake.
but after 9-11, the people wanted the congress/senate to grant
GWB the war powers he said we needed for the threat that was there
in Afghanistan then in Iraq...
the people wanted war, and congress passed it...
It just isn't possible to dis-engage immediately, when it took about 2 years
of buildup in the first place.

pressure congress to recind the war-powers given to GWBush,
pressure congress to vote down war spending
and then in a 2+ year wind-down the US can be outta there as long as is all coordinated with the allies & NATO & coalition troops caught up in the mess over there!
We, You, Congress should have weighed the decision to attack in two theatres of operation with greater care in the first place !!!

In a perfect world, 50% + has the final say. And at the moment 50%+ say end the war.

Unfortunately, the entire American population only amounts to 49.9% of the vote.

When you allowed a corporation to take power in the whitehouse, you allowed an entity that has all of mans rights, with no responsibility, to make the final say.

That fake entity, 'corporations', is what tipped the scales in their favour, in everything.

Now, no matter what the people want.. it never amounts to enough, to stop what ever 'they' want.



[edit on 31-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by itguysrule
we win in Iraq

What do you plan to 'win'?

Originally posted by itguysrule
if we withdraw the bad guys win.

What 'bad guys' are you refering to?

Originally posted by itguysrule
If we quit and leave, we lose.

What are 'we' afraid of 'losing'?


It may help the discussion and your case if you define these concepts.

Thanks.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Once they have control of Iraq then they will have a home-base to do whatever they want. What you don't understand is that they aren't just defending their country from foreign invaders. These people have a deep-rooted hatred towards us and believe their god wants all of us dead.

Maybe they will come over here, maybe they won't. What would your reaction be though if they did come over here and begin killing people? Would you blame our government for allowing the troops to leave? Of course people would blame the government and we would lose even more freedom to make us "safe".

Either way I look forward to see what will unfold.

Define the "They" please.. Because, well.. who *should* be in control of Iraq but iraquis? Iraquis SHOULD have a home base in Iraq, it's THEIR COUNTRY, THEIR home, and we do NOT have the right to take it away from them simply because we believe we are *right*.

"Their god"? Again, define, please. If you mean the Allah of Islam, perhaps reading this link might educate you a little.

Yes, extremists can misinterpret the koran, just as christian extremists can choose to misinterpret the bible, but if taken as a whole, both books consider life to be sacred, and murder to be wrong.

I sincerely doubt the entire country of Iraq is filled with 100% religious extremists who wish to destroy the US.. though I can't think that our continued occupation makes them LESS likely to hate.. Sadaam is gone, his regime is destroyed, it is up to the people of Iraq to decide their own future. War is not a contraceptive measure.

Originally posted by Inannamute

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Once they have control of Iraq then they will have a home-base to do whatever they want. What you don't understand is that they aren't just defending their country from foreign invaders. These people have a deep-rooted hatred towards us and believe their god wants all of us dead.

Maybe they will come over here, maybe they won't. What would your reaction be though if they did come over here and begin killing people? Would you blame our government for allowing the troops to leave? Of course people would blame the government and we would lose even more freedom to make us "safe".

Either way I look forward to see what will unfold.

Define the "They" please.. Because, well.. who *should* be in control of Iraq but iraquis? Iraquis SHOULD have a home base in Iraq, it's THEIR COUNTRY, THEIR home, and we do NOT have the right to take it away from them simply because we believe we are *right*.

"Their god"? Again, define, please. If you mean the Allah of Islam, perhaps reading this link might educate you a little.

Yes, extremists can misinterpret the koran, just as christian extremists can choose to misinterpret the bible, but if taken as a whole, both books consider life to be sacred, and murder to be wrong.

I sincerely doubt the entire country of Iraq is filled with 100% religious extremists who wish to destroy the US.. though I can't think that our continued occupation makes them LESS likely to hate.. Sadaam is gone, his regime is destroyed, it is up to the people of Iraq to decide their own future. War is not a contraceptive measure.

Last I checked we are at war with the extremist population in iraq...not the typical Iraqi citizen. What you fail to realize is that there isn't just one sect of people in Iraq. There are many different groups that all want control of the country. Do you really think we are trying to "take" Iraq from anyone? Once it's stabalized we are out.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
What is the argument on the war? It's a democracy and most americans want a withdraw.

Wrong! It's a republic, not a democracy. Democracies are evil forms of government.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Originally posted by Inannamute

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Once they have control of Iraq then they will have a home-base to do whatever they want. What you don't understand is that they aren't just defending their country from foreign invaders. These people have a deep-rooted hatred towards us and believe their god wants all of us dead.

Maybe they will come over here, maybe they won't. What would your reaction be though if they did come over here and begin killing people? Would you blame our government for allowing the troops to leave? Of course people would blame the government and we would lose even more freedom to make us "safe".

Either way I look forward to see what will unfold.

Define the "They" please.. Because, well.. who *should* be in control of Iraq but iraquis? Iraquis SHOULD have a home base in Iraq, it's THEIR COUNTRY, THEIR home, and we do NOT have the right to take it away from them simply because we believe we are *right*.

"Their god"? Again, define, please. If you mean the Allah of Islam, perhaps reading this link might educate you a little.

Yes, extremists can misinterpret the koran, just as christian extremists can choose to misinterpret the bible, but if taken as a whole, both books consider life to be sacred, and murder to be wrong.

I sincerely doubt the entire country of Iraq is filled with 100% religious extremists who wish to destroy the US.. though I can't think that our continued occupation makes them LESS likely to hate.. Sadaam is gone, his regime is destroyed, it is up to the people of Iraq to decide their own future. War is not a contraceptive measure.

Last I checked we are at war with the extremist population in iraq...not the typical Iraqi citizen. What you fail to realize is that there isn't just one sect of people in Iraq. There are many different groups that all want control of the country. Do you really think we are trying to "take" Iraq from anyone? Once it's stabalized we are out.

In my opinion, that's where you have made your mistake. The 'typical Iraqi citizen' along with the US military are fighting for their lives. The Iraqi's are also fighting for their country, which is under occupation. The 'enemy' is undefinable and that's why the 'war/occupation' will never succeed.

THe best thing that can be done is to rebuild the infrastructure using the local male population, not foreign corporations. This will result in getting the men of the streets and start the stabilisation process. Until the citizens have the most basic of necessities such as clean water, food and a safe place to live - chaos will reign.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst


Last I checked we are at war with the extremist population in iraq...not the typical Iraqi citizen. What you fail to realize is that there isn't just one sect of people in Iraq. There are many different groups that all want control of the country. Do you really think we are trying to "take" Iraq from anyone? Once it's stabalized we are out.

Occupation by foreign invaders is inherently a destabilizing force, and I'm not failing to realize anything, I was asking you to define what you meant by "they" since it's a non-specific term.

Why should the US get to choose who's in control of the country anyway? There would have been far better choices for people to oversee the rebuilding of iraq - people who understood the Iraq people, rather than simply choosing to foist our own version of government upon them.

It's arrogance of an extreme degree to assume that the US knows what's best for everyone, especially considering the outcome of this war, which looks likely not to end for quite some time..

The US presence in Iraq is certainly not going to bring stability to them. In fact, it is acting more as a catalyst for violence.

I agree, it will appear as though the United States has lost. But after looking at the situation for some time now, I can only conclude that the United States has indeed already lost. (If there was anything to lose in the first place.)

The real mistake here is calling it a war. It's not a war, it's an occupation. There is no actual enemy, the people you are fighting are the civillians who have been through too much, and have decided to take their agression out on the only military force present.
If it is indeed a war, then it's a war against the people. In such a war, the only way to win is either through absolute opression, or absolute annhialation. Neither of which is an acceptable outcome.

The green zone is extremely tiny. It's the only place where foreigners can be without being taken hostage, or just shot on sight. Outside of the green zone, it is said that you would survive no longer than 20 minutes, unless you get captured of course.
Considering the absolute miniscule size of the green zone, and the intense disorientation outside of that green zone, I often get an image of one of the old fire-bases back in vietnam. A simple clearing in the woods, with a wall around it from which to hold out as long as possible. Thats exactly what the green zone reminds me of.
Ask yourself, do you actually envision that wall getting any larger? Do you really think that they will be able to push forward through so much chaos?
And if they did push forward... how do you think the rest of the country would take to that? The iraqi people would most likely view an advancement of US forces as a sign of further opression.

The only answer any more is withdrawl. The only question is how.
Staying there is simply a matter of pride. It's not helping anyone, it's only causing more issues in the region. We need to set aside that pride and do what we all know has to be done.

It doesnt matter how much you dislike it, the Iraqis are going to have to determine their own fate.

Here is the aspect of it all that chaps my hide... I keep hearing this nonsense about how "Congress can't do anything about stopping the war except through the purse-strings."

I respectfully disagree. That statement, I believe, is inaccurate:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power ...
To declare War,...

And by extension, to declare the absence of war.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

US Constitution

Now assume that Congress passed legislation that declared explicitely that the United States is not at war with the nation of Iraq.

Given that law, the Commander in Chief of the military would, in order to comply with the law (something the current CinC has a poor record of doing), be required to withdraw all military personnel from Iraq, because we are not at war with Iraq, by order of Congress. And in fact, the President would not be Commander in Chief at that moment, because the Army, Navy and Militia would not be called into the actual Service of the United States. By order of Congress declaring we are not at war with Iraq.

So all this talk about power of the purse as the only way to stop this is pure smoke and mirrors, to keep Congress from being pressured by their employers (that would be the Citizens of the United States) to put a stop to it.

The fact that they have failed to do so clearly indicates to me that they have no interest in doing so, despite all the hand-wringing. And people appear to be buying the propaganda being pushed on this aspect.

open_minded skeptic - We are not in a "war" with Iraq. That type of resolution would not do anything. If you recall, when we entered Afghanistan, Congress did not declare war. Bush used his "Commander in Chief" power to enter the country without any Congressional approval. I believe that legislation as you describe it would have no effect, and the Bush administration would easily (and illegally) bypass it as they have hundreds of other laws already on the books. Not to mention Bush could easily veto the legislation and continue his war.

By linking withdrawl with a funding bill, it puts Bush in a position to either fund the troops and withdraw, or withdraw due to lack of funding. The troops are being forced to withdraw either way, which is good.

Our military action in Iraq is not a war. Force was authorized by...you guessed it! Congress! The same congress that turned against him as soon as public opinion went against the way.