Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill

Powell is no longer in office but I think that he is correct in this case.
Err didn't the dems promise a differnt course of action rather then a withdrawl from Iraq ?

If the Islamic extremists were defending Iraq there primary target would be the US military and not innocent bystanders. You don't have to agree with my ideas concerning on how to deal with Iraq you just have to know what they are so you can stop jumping to conclusions.

Americans do not want defeat in Iraq. If this bill is supported widely by the U.S. people, why did Democrats had to be bribed, to the tune of $21 billion, to support it?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by RRconservative]

Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.

source

IMO the likes of the Saudi regime would be strong enough to crush or prevent the Iraq civil war from spilling over into other areas. In the process of doing this governments in the region would crack down further on peoples freedoms in the name of security. Of course I could be wrong and if that's the case then the conflict in Iraq will look quiet minor.

Originally posted by xpert11
Powell is no longer in office but I think that he is correct in this case.
Err didn't the dems promise a differnt course of action rather then a withdrawl from Iraq?

Powell wasn't my point. The President of the United States (or whom he directs in his cabinet), currently Bush, is supposed to be representing the American populous. President Bush has not "represented" the people of the United States. He has but only represented the agenda of a few "behind the scenes".

It doesn't matter what they promised or didn't promise. The American populous has spoken, and we want our troops home. Like it or not, that's the way this "democratic republic" works.

Originally posted by xpert11
If the Islamic extremists were defending Iraq there primary target would be the US military and not innocent bystanders. You don't have to agree with my ideas concerning on how to deal with Iraq you just have to know what they are so you can stop jumping to conclusions.

All the better reason to get our troops out of harms way.

As I pointed out, which you obviously can't grasp... 1). I do not agree with your ideas on how to deal with Iraq. 2). I do know/understand your ideas.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Americans do not want defeat in Iraq. If this bill is supported widely by the U.S. people, why did Democrats had to be bribed, to the tune of $21 billion, to support it?

Do you have a source to back up that claim? I'd be interested to see/read it.

Originally posted by xpert11
source

IMO the likes of the Saudi regime would be strong enough to crush or prevent the Iraq civil war from spilling over into other areas. In the process of doing this governments in the region would crack down further on peoples freedoms in the name of security. Of course I could be wrong and if that's the case then the conflict in Iraq will look quiet minor.

I think that would be great for those in the Middle East to be involved. It's their region. It's their people. Bring our troops home so the blood of our families stops running for the ability of a failed Government already established to start gaining some clout. The new Government in Iraq is going to have to grow a backbone and run their own country. I think enough is enough.

The truth that no one wants to face up to... not the pundits... not the generals... not the politicians... not the media...certainly not bush minor nor the people is that the bloodshed, the horror and the carnage that is Iraq today is of our own making. We chose to invade, unprovoked and on trumped up (and manufactured) charges. We were lied to, to get into this war and not one of the horrors that have happened over the past 4+ years would have happened if we had not invaded. We made this mess and it is beyond our control to clean it up even though we have a moral obligation to do so. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yes Saddam Hussein was a bloody bastard but he kept the country together and the extremists out. The country may very well have fallen apart like it has upon his death, but then if that had happened, the blood wouldn't be on our hands.

George W. Bush (minor) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfiwitz are war criminals and deserve to be tried... convicted and locked away for crimes against humanity.

Don't give me any bull hooey about the terrorists in their defense either. We can only be responsible for our own actions and these people have sullied the good name of the United States by their arrogance and hubris and squandered the good will felt towards us after 9/11. They are as much murderers as Osama Bin Laden and his ilk ever were.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Infoholic
As I pointed out, which you obviously can't grasp... 1). I do not agree with your ideas on how to deal with Iraq. 2). I do know/understand your ideas.

Well since you understand my point of view there isnt a problem in this regard.

I think that would be great for those in the Middle East to be involved. It's their region. It's their people. Bring our troops home so the blood of our families stops running for the ability of a failed Government already established to start gaining some clout.

What would be great about the Iraq conflict spilling over to the rest of the region ?
Either way if such a thing happens the outcome wont be good.
I agree with you concerning the Iraqi government but it wont happen any time soon.

Originally posted by xpert11
What would be great about the Iraq conflict spilling over to the rest of the region ?
Either way if such a thing happens the outcome wont be good.
I agree with you concerning the Iraqi government but it wont happen any time soon.

It would be great if they could settle their own problems without the US troops being used as police. It's the United States Armed Forces, you know. Not the United States Referee Forces.

I agree, either way it won't be pretty. I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to say that you and I agree whichever path is taken, things will be ugly. With that in mind, we all know Iraqis are going to kill Iraqis. It's been proven that nothing will stop that.

With the idea that their going to be killing themselves off... why would you want to add more to it? The US forces there now, have not been able to stop the violence, let alone make any region secure.

I'm glad we've finally found something we agree upon, however, how are they going to become self sufficient unless they are forced to do so? The Iraqi Government will never be able to govern their own people, unless they are left to do just that.

It's time to face the music.

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
This show that democrats don't care, don't have the balls, are sold. That democrats won't save the situation. Sorry but you hate Bush, and democrats front-runners are the same as Bush, they just don't have the same name.

- They like borders wide open
- They like war
- They like big government
- They like taking guns
- They like North American Union
- They like police state....

America, YOU NEED A THIRD PARTY.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
This show that democrats don't care, don't have the balls, are sold. That democrats won't save the situation.

I'm sorry to say, but this only shows...

...Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto...
source

By the numbers provided, that also shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted "yes" to override the veto, just not enough of them. They could only overrule the veto with two thirds vote. That would have required 30 more votes for the overruling to pass.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Sorry but you hate Bush, and democrats front-runners are the same as Bush, they just don't have the same name.

I despise the majority of the current Governmental bodies... both Democrat and Republican. And on the other hand, there's some Democrats and Republicans that I do like.

As for the third party... I'll stick to the next Republican... Senator Ron Paul.

Well even if my ideas went ahead the killing wouldn't stop overnight it would take time for new governments and security forces to be formed e.t.c and then we would start to see the effects.

By more US forces do you mean the troop surge or just the US presence in the area ?
Clearly I would prefer it if US forces were helping to put my ideas into action. Back in reality I am keeping an open mind when it come to the troop surge. Aside from the fact its over due the troop build up appears to be to slow which allows the enemy to adapted there tactics.

Even if the Iraqi government had the leaders and foundation in place to govern the security situation makes effective governance very difficult at best. There is the issue if any of Iraq's leaders know how to govern. Saddam regime wouldn't have been the best teacher. The people of Iraq are paying for a lack of competent coalition. civilian and military leadership.

The problem is that if regimes in the ME crack down on there local population to prevent the civil war in Iraq from spilling over to there borders is that any internal movements that are seeking democracy will have been set back for a very long time.

By the numbers provided, that also shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted "yes" to override the veto, just not enough of them. They could only overrule the veto with two thirds vote. That would have required 30 more votes for the overruling to pass.

Why do they back off then? They should send a message to Bush. The people of the US don't want this war anymore. We won't give you funds without a timetable, that's all. You'll have to sign it before the money runs out.

I despise the majority of the current Governmental bodies... both Democrat and Republican. And on the other hand, there's some Democrats and Republicans that I do like.

As for the third party... I'll stick to the next Republican... Senator Ron Paul.

Great choice. But could you give me a few democrats? Tom Tancredo looks good... If you looked at the news I've submit, you'll see that Ron Paul could be excluded from the GOP debate...this is totally off the charts... open censorship of the most loved candidate among freedom lovers...

[edit on 3-5-2007 by Vitchilo]