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.
(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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by RRconservative
@ AnAbsoluteCreation
The troop surge has already been accomplished. No need for a draft.
Originally posted by RRconservative
We need more troops to prevent your senario from happening.
My question is...Why do Democrats and Al-Queda want the U.S. out of Iraq so quickly?
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,
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! (...)
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.
BTW I did my time in the Army.
Now I support our troops by supporting their leader!
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.
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
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/
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.