Epicurus
Reasonable
"Ask us again in September.... welll NEXT September."
Democrats failing to pass anti-war bill
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
"Ask us again in September.... welll NEXT September."
Battleborne
Terminator
Really?...Please post a link with real stats showing this!...Like I said Congress/Senate responds to the wishes of the electorate...they do receive e-mails daily!
No, but if you think pulling the troops out tomorrow is not going to leave Iraq in a truly unstable, chaotic condition, you don't understand what's going on.
We need a timeline for withdrawal, to give the Iraq's notice and make as stable a transition as possible. Anyone who thinks getting out tomorrow accomplishes that is woefully irresponsible.
Epicurus
Reasonable
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"
.
Increase Same Number Decrease Remove All Unsure
% % % % %
9/14-16/07
6 21 39 29 5
Consistent with the anti-war rhetoric of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.[1]
Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%. [5]
Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[6]
From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"
.
Increase Same Number Decrease Remove All Unsure
% % % % %
9/14-16/07
6 21 39 29 5
Consistent with the anti-war rhetoric of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.[1]
Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%. [5]
Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[6]
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
I know it's going to leave Iraq in a chaotic state, it's inevitable whether we stay or leave or give them a timeline.... once we are gone, they are to fend for themselves and we have egg on our face.
Look, I agree that their chances are bleak either way. However, I think we at least owe it to them & their security forces to give them 3-6 months notice (at the very least), and help to make as good a transition as we possibly can.
That's nearly impossible with a cut-off of funding.
You're assuming that defunding the war would bring them home right away, and wouldn't lead to more of their deaths.
I'm not confident of that, by any means.
And you believe Dave, that if Congress votes to cut off funds today, that tomorrow bush gets on the phone and tells his generals to have the troops pack their bags and get home?
He's not bringing them home.
She thinks that Bush would leave them there, and then say, "The Democrats left our troops without bullets."
I think he'd bring them home saying the same thing and every associated death in Iraq after withdrawal would lie in the laps of those forcing "early withdrawal."
Both ways they are playing politics. It's a standoff, who is going to blink first?
I think that if Congress cut funding for the war , the troops would still stay. Let me tell you why.
There is no way logistically, to bring them all home right away. Of course, Congress would have to fund their safety until they are all withdrawn. So the troops themselves would continue to receive funding, there is no way around that.
You are assuming that Bush, the man who has never, ever, even once, done what he is told to do, would use that money allocated to bring the troops home, to bring them home.
He would not. The troops would stay, and they would die, and there would be no opposition party at all, rather than the pitiful one we have today, and come 08 the Republicans would win, and then we would escalate Iraq and we would have a war with Iran.
that's my opinion.
Yeah? Bring them home when Damo?
How long would it take to get all troops home if we started this week?
Epicurus
Reasonable
I think Iran would be an impossible sell after this disaster, no matter how it concludes.
But I'm sorry clearly I need to get my priorities back in order.
First comes the Democratic Party and their reputation and ability to win elections.
Considerably further down comes actually ending this war.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Reid is starting to sound very unsure of what they can do:
“A majority of the House and a majority of the Senate want to change the direction of the war in Iraq,” Mr. Reid said in a meeting with reporters beforehand. “We have voted accordingly on more than one occasion, in fact on many occasions. But the House having done their job, they come to the Senate and the Senate Republicans, the vast majority of them will not allow us to change the direction of the war in Iraq.”
Later in the article:
"But Democrats seemed resigned to having little chance of influencing the war strategy anytime soon."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20cnd-cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I won't quote the part where it says Republicans are celebrating because it sickens me as much as watching those Palestinians dance in the street after 9/11.
The Dem's gotta grow some backbone and demand an end to this, and the only thing they can do, unfortunatly, is cut off funding, or wait longer.
This war isn't going to end while George bush is in office. No matter what anyone does.
I came to understand that some time ago.
I also understand the ramifications of one party rule under the Republicans for the next 10 to 20 years.
I am not willing to accept them.
Probably six months. There is a natural bottleneck in the south. It depends on whether Saudi Arabia would let them leave through the Western border, if they all had to leave through the south it would take about six months.
All the time they were doing it there would be a pounding in the media about how the Ds forced retreat, gave al Qaeda the victory, and more. The worst will be how they "left them without bullets in a war zone". Bin Laden's new tape would come out crowing about their victory in Iraq and how the "holy" victory in Iraq was his thing... on and on it would go.
I don't think it would give the Ds much of a victory, true. However, if you believe our presence there is immoral there is only one real vote to make. Any other vote continues what you believe to be an immoral action.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Then they stay.... for good...
Battleborne
Terminator
It is not a matter of 'Backbone'...Politicians respond to the electorate in their districts...thus the 'majority' must have given them what they wanted via daily e-mails...we do not live in a Democratic society we live in a Republic...the 'minority' does not dictate the outcome...sorry but this is life!
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
They will... don't they always?