Dems control senate/house, when will they end the war?

musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
Now, or at least when they take office in january, dems can no longer claim they have no power and are a minority. They have both the house and the senate.

They have the power to investigate the lies we were told to send our troops to war. My guess is that such an investigation would rival watergate. It would be huge. HUGE.

Secondly, they have the power to demand bush withdraw troops, demand that Bush end the war and demand that we cut off funding to the war.

I am so sick of this goddamn war that has claimed the lives of 2800 soldiers my age.

Its time to end the war, and bring them home.

The country obviously wants this, polls show this.

The question remains, will dems be the same spineless wimps they always have been and not do anything? Or will they end the war.


BRING THEM HOME!
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • It has been scientifically proven that testosterone levels in American men have fallen significantly over the past 30 years.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • i think they will end the war.....

    right after they free charles manson..........

    hehehe............
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • It has been scientifically proven that testosterone levels in American men have fallen significantly over the past 30 years.

    so what does that have to do with withdrawing troops? like it or not, there are going to be some changes in tactics in the war in iraq.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • so what does that have to do with withdrawing troops?


    Nothing.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • EbizzieEbizzie Posts: 240
    I don't think you'll see a pullout of troops at all. I think you'll actually see another 200,000 troops (American or International) sent to Iraq to quell the violence and provide enough security to allow a government to get off the ground.

    It's too late, we can't just walk out of Iraq with it being in the condition it's in. Although some may see a huge troop increase as an act of escalation, it would actually be quite the opposite as it serves to de-escalate the insurgency and provide stability. Would you rather have another iran on our hands, an indefinite occupation with heavy American casualties, or a massive 2 year buildup which results in a stable, non-theocratic Iraqi government?

    If the dems are smart, they'll take the advice of those in the field and in intelligence and do this right.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • Purple HawkPurple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    Ebizzie wrote:
    I don't think you'll see a pullout of troops at all. I think you'll actually see another 200,000 troops (American or International) sent to Iraq to quell the violence and provide enough security to allow a government to get off the ground.

    It's too late, we can't just walk out of Iraq with it being in the condition it's in. Although some may see a huge troop increase as an act of escalation, it would actually be quite the opposite as it serves to de-escalate the insurgency and provide stability. Would you rather have another iran on our hands, an indefinite occupation with heavy American casualties, or a massive 2 year buildup which results in a stable, non-theocratic Iraqi government?

    If the dems are smart, they'll take the advice of those in the field and in intelligence and do this right.

    If I ever make a wise ass remark towards you, kick me in the ass and refer to this post, because you get it :)
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • Ebizzie wrote:
    I don't think you'll see a pullout of troops at all. I think you'll actually see another 200,000 troops (American or International) sent to Iraq to quell the violence and provide enough security to allow a government to get off the ground.

    It's too late, we can't just walk out of Iraq with it being in the condition it's in. Although some may see a huge troop increase as an act of escalation, it would actually be quite the opposite as it serves to de-escalate the insurgency and provide stability. Would you rather have another iran on our hands, an indefinite occupation with heavy American casualties, or a massive 2 year buildup which results in a stable, non-theocratic Iraqi government?

    If the dems are smart, they'll take the advice of those in the field and in intelligence and do this right.


    Are you suggesting that the Democrats should begin trusting intelligence now that they are in power?

    If we would have fought this war like we fought WWII, it would have been over long ago (Gulf War 1 anyone?). Of course if you're referring to fighting a nation with a uniformed force being war, as stated by the Geneva Convention, that ended May 1st, 2003.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • EbizzieEbizzie Posts: 240
    Are you suggesting that the Democrats should begin trusting intelligence now that they are in power?

    If we would have fought this war like we fought WWII, it would have been over long ago (Gulf War 1 anyone?). Of course if you're referring to fighting a nation with a uniformed force being war, as stated by the Geneva Convention, that ended May 1st, 2003.


    I'm arguing that the military personnel, the CIA which can't establish an Iraqi intelligence agency due to security, and the Iraqi government as a whole are not able to make any progress towards stability in the current environment. Security is the key to stability.

    After the initial raid on Baghdad Americans on the ground insisted that the Iraqi army and police be kept together to provide security. They also insisted that more American boots be put on the ground to assist the Iraqis, looking for a total of about 500,000 troops. Bremer and Rumsfeld wouldnt' send more troops AND formally disbanded the Iraqi army and security forces. Since that decision, the insurgency has strengthened. It is THE mistake that was made in post-war Iraq that has hindered progress. If the dems in Congress, Bush, or Gates (if he's confirmed) want an end to this conflict, they MUST rectify the mistakes made by their predecessors (Bush's former trust in Rummy and Cheney being his predecessing character).

    You watch the news, do you really think we can just leave that country right now?
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • drew0drew0 Posts: 943
    As soon as we start making significant progress, as soon as Iraq can stand on their own two feet, and as soon as we're ready. No more arrogant Bush ideology anymore, thank God.
    Pittsburgh 6/23/06
    Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
  • Ebizzie wrote:
    I'm arguing that the military personnel, the CIA which can't establish an Iraqi intelligence agency due to security, and the Iraqi government as a whole are not able to make any progress towards stability in the current environment. Security is the key to stability.

    After the initial raid on Baghdad Americans on the ground insisted that the Iraqi army and police be kept together to provide security. They also insisted that more American boots be put on the ground to assist the Iraqis, looking for a total of about 500,000 troops. Bremer and Rumsfeld wouldnt' send more troops AND formally disbanded the Iraqi army and security forces. Since that decision, the insurgency has strengthened. It is THE mistake that was made in post-war Iraq that has hindered progress. If the dems in Congress, Bush, or Gates (if he's confirmed) want an end to this conflict, they MUST rectify the mistakes made by their predecessors (Bush's former trust in Rummy and Cheney being his predecessing character).

    You watch the news, do you really think we can just leave that country right now?


    Thank you for clarifying. That I agree with. More aptly the post-war decisions.
    "Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"

    "What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."

    Camden 5-28-06
    Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
  • Ebizzie wrote:
    I'm arguing that the military personnel, the CIA which can't establish an Iraqi intelligence agency due to security, and the Iraqi government as a whole are not able to make any progress towards stability in the current environment. Security is the key to stability.

    After the initial raid on Baghdad Americans on the ground insisted that the Iraqi army and police be kept together to provide security. They also insisted that more American boots be put on the ground to assist the Iraqis, looking for a total of about 500,000 troops. Bremer and Rumsfeld wouldnt' send more troops AND formally disbanded the Iraqi army and security forces. Since that decision, the insurgency has strengthened. It is THE mistake that was made in post-war Iraq that has hindered progress. If the dems in Congress, Bush, or Gates (if he's confirmed) want an end to this conflict, they MUST rectify the mistakes made by their predecessors (Bush's former trust in Rummy and Cheney being his predecessing character).

    You watch the news, do you really think we can just leave that country right now?
    How can you be sure that the Iraqi army would've just 'switched sides' after the regime fell?
  • EbizzieEbizzie Posts: 240
    John Budge wrote:
    How can you be sure that the Iraqi army would've just 'switched sides' after the regime fell?


    Ask yourself which decision you'd make:

    a.) continue on in your old job working for a new boss and bringing home a paycheck to support your family.

    or

    b.) pass on the paycheck and decide your loyalty to saddam's principles are more important than your family. join an insurgency movement and live in squalor.


    When we first invaded the # of attacks from "insurgents" was very low. After the military was disbanded the attacks rose exponentially with a majority of the weapons used against Americans coming from the Iraqi military cache.

    From what I've read, the American leadership on the ground in Baghdad wanted to only dismiss the top tier or two of Iraqi leadership in all facets of government (military, ministries, etc.) being they would hold the greatest "loyalty" to Saddam. Rummy, his staff, and Bremer (upon his arrival in Iraq) insisted that the ENTIRE infrastructure must be dismissed being even the lowest tiers would have fierce loyalty to Saddam. I think that this thinking, even on the surface, was majorly flawed. In my example above, the lower people on the totem pole tend to really not care who in the hell they're working for, as long as they're getting paid. It's those at the top, those who hold power only beacuse of who they're working for, that don't want to see changes in leadership.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • i dont think it is going to happen. they cant all the sudden pull the troops out. we will have to get something more accomplished done over there for this to happen
    Oh he fills it up with the love of a girl...
  • Solat13Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    Is there really a Democratic majority in the Senate right now when it comes to the war?

    There are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, 1 Independent from Vermont who sides with the Democrats since leaving the Republican party and Joe Lieberman who has stated he wants to be known as an Independent Democrat and sides with the Republicans regarding the war. Well that to me seems likes a 50-50 split if everyone votes party lines with Vice President Cheney casting the tie-braking vote.
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • chromiamchromiam Posts: 4,114
    Solat13 wrote:
    Is there really a Democratic majority in the Senate right now when it comes to the war?

    There are 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, 1 Independent from Vermont who sides with the Democrats since leaving the Republican party and Joe Lieberman who has stated he wants to be known as an Independent Democrat and sides with the Republicans regarding the war. Well that to me seems likes a 50-50 split if everyone votes party lines with Vice President Cheney casting the tie-braking vote.

    Stop with the logical argument ;)
    This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.

    Admin

    Social awareness does not equal political activism!

    5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
  • I think real problem is that the US is occupying a nation that is content with blowing itself up. When the US occupied Germany following WW2 you didn't see any Nazi sympathizers blowing up fellow countrymen. Likewise the Japanese didn't start attacking public spaces during the occupation of that country (which actually continues, more or less, to this day).

    We now have a very unique situation where Iraqi insurgents are not only attacking US soldiers but also and to even a larger degree their own people with the sole purpose of creating chaos and instability in their own country.

    That, to me, is a whole new level of evil.
    So this life is sacrifice...
    6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
  • Staceb10Staceb10 Posts: 675
    They aren't going anywhere. I agree with Ebizzie..if anything they should send in more troops to help stabilize the country so we can actually get out of there eventually.
Sign In or Register to comment.