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.

 

H.R. 2237 Doesn't pass the House - Troops stay in Iraq

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
H.R. 2237: To provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq

Ayes: 171
Nays: 255

59 Democrats and 196 Republicans voted against this bill.


Text of Legislation

See how your Congressman voted

How much longer is Congress going to let this corrupt war continue?




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
A Bill to alert our enemies of our departure? No wonder the Democrat controlled Congress has a 14% approval rating.

Not only are anti-war(American) protesters mad, but so is Al-Queda.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Not only are anti-war(American) protesters mad, but so is Al-Queda.


Being against the war means you are anti-American?




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien42

Originally posted by RRconservative
Not only are anti-war(American) protesters mad, but so is Al-Queda.


Being against the war means you are anti-American?



anti = against

If you want America to lose the war in Iraq then you are anti-American.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Nobody wants to see America lose the war, but there is one small problem...

WE WON THE WAR!

We invaded Iraq, destroyed their military, removed their government, held elections, and executed the former leader.

What's left?

[edit on 7/20/2007 by Alien42]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This is not war, it's reconstruction. I am anti-policing the reconstruction.

And yes, we did win the war. It's over. I think your point is a moot one RR, however I think it's telling how many Dems voted nay.

60



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
If we pull out of Iraq, leave them unstable, and Al-Queda takes over. Is that still a win?

Al-Queda's screams of victory are sure to drown out ours, add the Democrats screams of Bush's lost war, and you will hear nothing of victory.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This is not war, it's reconstruction. I am anti-policing the reconstruction.


Well that's what we did for a very long time in both Europe and Japan following WWII, and it came out quite successfully.

There are other factors here yes, and I'm not sure it would work, but I think we should at least try.


ape

posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
If we pull out of Iraq, leave them unstable, and Al-Queda takes over. Is that still a win?

Al-Queda's screams of victory are sure to drown out ours, add the Democrats screams of Bush's lost war, and you will hear nothing of victory.


you are using the same talking points bush is using, he is an incompetent leader.

al qaeda would get wiped out by the iraqis, they have already lost the trust of many sunni iraqi religious leaders. How do you think Al qaeda can survive in a shia majority if we leave?. Al qaeda looks for sympathy from people in iraq who despise the US presence in their country, once that's gone they become irrelevant and hunted in that country. You say they will take over if we leave? well that means all out civil war and I'm pretty sure the shias will clean house. It's inevitable, that government cannot function and is already boycotting itself, it's not even political differences it's more religious and that's something we cannot even begin to fathom with regards to the muslims. With a government that can't function I can see that country splitting up, and the US going north to stay with the kurds. Iraq is a ' Democracy ' now right? well then they have a right to choose the path of their own country, and majority rules. If violence erupts then it shouldn't be a suprise.


what we are doing now is nation building, the war was already won and the leader executed as previously pointed out. We should focus all attention and resources on getting UBL ( and no that doesn't mean going around nation building ).

let al qaeda scream all they want.. you're telling me a country like ours can't find some cave dwelling village hopper? please, give me a break.

Americans want to see UBLs head, I'm pretty sure the democrats won't sit very well in the eyes of most americans if they don't go after UBL. Infact if they actually do go after UBL, kill him, and use our resources like they should be used they will be hailed as heros. Republicans can't have that now can they?





[edit on 21-7-2007 by ape]


ape

posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This is not war, it's reconstruction. I am anti-policing the reconstruction.


Well that's what we did for a very long time in both Europe and Japan following WWII, and it came out quite successfully.

There are other factors here yes, and I'm not sure it would work, but I think we should at least try.


europe was destroyed by war, the people were worn out and wanted to rebuild, huge difference.

Japan got nuked twice, we also used their emperor very well to our advantage, they went along with everything.

the middle east is an enigma and we should have learned this in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by ape]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape

Originally posted by RRconservative
If we pull out of Iraq, leave them unstable, and Al-Queda takes over. Is that still a win?

Al-Queda's screams of victory are sure to drown out ours, add the Democrats screams of Bush's lost war, and you will hear nothing of victory.



let al qaeda scream all they want.. you're telling me a country like ours can't find some cave dwelling village hopper? please, give me a break.

Americans want to see UBLs head, I'm pretty sure the democrats won't sit very well in the eyes of most americans if they don't go after UBL. Infact if they actually do go after UBL, kill him, and use our resources like they should be used they will be hailed as heros. Republicans can't have that now can they?

[edit on 21-7-2007 by ape]


I guess you're under the assumption that UBL is alive? I think this guy has been pushing up poppy plants for years now.


ape

posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I haven't seen or heard anything that suggests otherwise.. Infact it was laid out in the NIE report, released just a few days ago, that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were in Pakistan, were emboldened, had rebuilt and were looking for biological and chemical weapons to attack us with. Of course as we speak our country is using massive amounts of resources policing a country who's government is taking a vacation.. I guess nation building / policing is more of a priority now.



[edit on 21-7-2007 by ape]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Well thank the Lord and pass the ammunition...

The Dems actually did something right for once...

I applaud the Democrats that did not cave to pressure from radical uninformed groups and have allowed our brave men and women to finish what was started...

The cowardly cut and run group is still there, but maybe some few will come to their senses...

OUTSTANDING

Semper



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I'm betwixt and between on whether we should be in Iraq or not. I'm all for providing people with a choice on what government they want and of Hussein's guilt there is no doubt but I have a problem with how this action is being handled.

I spoke to my brother who is currently "training up" to go back over with the National Guard; the equipment they are receiving is sub-par. For example; he wears a size large gas mask he was issued a small because they don't have enough. Likewise the training is being rushed; a train-up that should be 90 days is being condensed into 40. They are an MP unit but they aren't being issued side arms. This isn't right.

If we are going to continue this action then the troops should; no must be provided the equipment and training necessary to complete the mission. It appears to me that no one has figured out that war is expensive and are trying to fight on a budget.

Either provide the troops with what they need or get them out of there. The sad part is I could get him a gas mask but I can't send it to him because it is a sensitive item and can't be mailed. Go figure.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by gallopinghordes]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join