House passes resolution criticizing Bush's Iraq policy

Now this would have worked, and Bush rejected it out of hand. The latest plan by Al Maliki would have had US troops withdraw from Baghdad and move out to encircle the city and free up US troops to handle Al Qaeda strongholds and the border regions..Bush rejected it for some unknown reason. This would have been a smart step in beginning to withdraw. If the Iraqis could have handled Baghdad, we could have taken another step back after that. In military terms its called a fighting retreat.

Bu2 wrote:

Barack Obama did not vote to go to war.

Thats because he was still working on state road legislation in 2003. Thats going to be his strong point? He was not qualified to render a vote in 2003 nor was he in position too. If he's going to run on what he woulda done, that crap wont fly. If he were in Congress in 03 I have NO DOUBT, especially with his political ambitions, and his dodgy Muslim background he most certainly would have voted with Hillary Clinton and John Kerry FOR the war. Thats an easy one,

ALO: Tell us how Lincoln responded to British support for the Confederate war effort?

Dean Mahin: Arms and supplies brought from Britain by the blockade runners sustained the Confederate war effort for one to two years longer than would have been possible without this support. The majority of the ships were British-built, British-owned, and British-manned, and carried cargoes from Britain. I cite various evidence of Lincoln's involvement with the decisions to establish and maintain the blockade and his frustration at the inability of the blockading squadrons to prevent the arrival of large quantities of arms and supplies for the Confederacy. The first item on Lincoln's list of military priorities after the first debacle at Bull Run was "Let the plan for making the blockade effective be pushed forward with all possible dispatch."

But there was little else that Lincoln could do about this British contribution to the Confederate war effort. International law allowed any ship to attempt to evade the blockade; if a ship was caught, the ship and cargo were forfeited. The British government insisted that this "neutral trade" by the British private sector did not violate official British neutrality. The dominant British role in the blockade running system was rarely mentioned in the diplomatic correspondence with Britain. Neither the British nor the U.S. government wanted to establish any precedent which would limit the rights of future governments in future wars to establish blockades or attempt to evade them.

chiefojibwa wrote:

don't you think it's gonna happen anyway? how long do you propose we stay. oh, let me guess, until the "job is done"

bush and co WILL cut and run. and they will blame anyone who opposed their current "plan". it's a classic case of having your cake and eating it too.

Well considering we still have troops on the ground in the Balkans and boots hit the ground there in 98, and considering the scope of this mission compared to that. Yeah I think we will have an American military presence there for many years.

NCfan wrote:

The bottom line is this venture in Iraq is a performance-based issue. If we were succeeding, Democrats and anit-war citizens would be praising it as hard as they could - or at least they would shut the fuck up...

Becuase we are not succeeding, the argument that what we are doing there is wrong - gains traction and holds water for many. If we were succeeding, the argument would be weak and many wouldn't buy into it.

You guys need to understand that opinions are arbitrary and change constantly. All of this mess if George W Bush's fault. I agree 100%. But it's not his fault becuase what we're doing is wrong. It's his fault becuase he is not doing it properly.

Most Iraqi's want us out of Iraq huh? Who gives a shit, seriously... Most Iraqi's wanted us there right after we kicked Saddam's ass out of power.

The bottom line is why aren't we succeeding?