House passes bill to bring the troops home in 2008
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/...ote/index.html

The House of Representatives voted 223-201 Thursday to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.

Then they'll be like, APRIL FOOLS, THEY'RE NOT COMING HOME LOL.

Don't ask.

Muthafuckin VETO'D!

psycheyomind! even.

cant stay cant go.

Yeah, Bush will do that, it seems he is using that power now, more than before.

ahh hahahahahahahahahah

There was a quote on the TV news the other night that said that Bush's attitude was that even if his wife and dog were the only ones that agreed with him he would carry on vetoing any attempt at ending the war in Iraq before he's good and ready.

That quote alone, if true, should be enough to get him thrown out of office.

what I like is that Bush readily admits that Al-CIAda has taken over Iraq (although I doubt that)...in other words, Bush is responsible because he removed Saddam. There was no Al-CIAda in Iraq before the US invaded.

sounds like it's time to crack open the new-clear weapons!

Yeah, and then Bush will be all like, "Oh, no you don't! Veto!"

It's time to impeach Bush.

What I like about Bush is that he is such a liar and that he knows it, and he knows everybody knows it. Yet he just brazenly keeps on lying.

You have to admire that kind of devotion to deception.

Looks like April 1st 2008 will be a great day for political islam. Islamic Republic of Iraq, here we come. Clit-cutting, head-choppin' and queer-hanging included. Excellent! Go, dhimmicrats, go, if we'll be just nice to the terrorists and surrender, they will leave us alone and slaughter only their bretheren in the middle east. Isolationism it is. Fuck all those iraqis who believed in iraqi democracy. Their own fault they trusted the US and colaborated with the Great Satan, risking their lifes voting and shit. *sigh*

The old saying is true: America, harmless as an enemy, dangerous as a friend.

Thanks p-rk Bush can still veto this insanity. But for how long?
My only hope is that the democrats are only pressuring for withdrawl to win the 2008 elections and after that will still support Iraq's government in the struggle against Jihadism. We'll see..

That's strange, because I would think that a deadline for removing troops would encourage actual, real development in Iraq. Have a contractor build a house at an hourly wage without a deadline to finish, he's going to milk it for as long as he can (unless he's an idiot).

Just goes to show how the conservatives in power have become so far removed for conservativism. Bastian's fear-mongering logic won't last much longer as an excuse to fleece Iraq.

All politicians are far removed from reality. If their sons and daughters were over there in Iraq, you can be damned sure we would have been out of there two years ago. As long as the poor continue to fight the rich politicians' battles, there will be no real sense of urgency in bringing our troops home.

I'm in favor of reinstating the draft. Then we'll see how long it takes people to take to the streets over this senseless war.

And if the sons and daughters of those who want the withdrawl would have to live in Iraq, the troops would stay there for as long as it takes.

http://www.wadinet.de/wadiev/presse/...ntic-times.pdf
An article about the german NGO Wadi e.V., which helps people in northern iraq rebuild their country and reform their society by running campaigns against FGM and creating the first independent kurdish radio station in northern iraq.

so you're proposing the establishment of an American colony in Iraq? because that's what it would take-- permanent policing, a permanent American force to oversee the country for ever & ever. another Puerto Rico? it just wouldn't work.

you know last time we discussed this in a thread i heard out your arguments against the withdrawal, and they are good ones... but the error was already committed, namely, invading iraq. perpetuating the error will not make it better. it will make it worse, as it is happening.

now i think your concern with islamism taking over may arise from the situation in your own country. if that is the case, U.S. troops staying in Iraq protecting a lost cause won't save Europe. this is something that will have to be worked out inside Europe's borders, and I don't have an answer for that.

I support Bush vetoing the withdrawal. I'm with Bastian on this one. It's a no win either way but that's the price paid for the conflict. Morally and practically, the coalition simply can't withdraw until its sure that some form of order is in place. They can't leave a job half done. Iraq is now a breeding ground for Islamic extremism so, in a lot of ways, the initial coalition invasion was but a preface to the real conflict that they now find themselves in the middle of. It's going to take years, maybe even decades, to come to some resolution but until that happens, the troops can't withdraw.

yes, that's because the u.s. is there.

the longer the troops are there, the longer it "breeds".

--

now london is also a breeding ground for islamic extremist. should the u.s. invade london? :eek::confused:

So long as they bring pastrami and cheesesteaks I'm good with that.

It's true that extremism in Iraq is largely the result of our being there but to think that it'll simply disappear if we go is not realistic. We've created a situation and now we're bound to resolve it.

I wasn't in favour of the invasion from the beginning, and i'm still not. But now that it's happened we need to see things through, however long that takes and however many coalition lives are lost in the process. You play with fire you're gonna get burned, so to speak.

here's the way i see it:

"That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately," said Sen. John Warner, the influential former chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I absolutely agree with that.

Pull all the troops out, and let the Iraqis sort it out amongst themselves with liberal doses of interference from Syria and Iran

Even better, send all the politicians who voted to go to war over there and let them keep the peace

No, not a colony, and no permanent force. American troops should stay as long as the goverment of Iraq wishes and it's necessary. If the iraqi goverment says get out, they should leave as soon as possible. And that's exactly how it is. At the moment, the iraqi government wants american troops to stay, as american presence in iraq benefits iraqi stability while a withdrawl would lead to the collapse of iraq.


The error was already committed not with the invasion, but with the half-hearted invasion of 1991 which didn't topple the baathist government out of fear of instability. Or the error was baathist take-over in 1968. It's not like everything was working in the right direction prior to march 2003. Quit the contrary: Baathism would not have gone away by isolating Iraq for another decade or two, it would only have prolonged the desolate sitution created by Saddam's regime, which destroyed iraqi society.

The error of 1991 was that US politics in the region were aimed at keeping the status quo, i.e. "stability", no matter what that ment to the people living under this "stability - despotism. America's position at that time could be summed up as: As long as the oil flows, let those arabs live under dictators and despots, we don't care for their freedom.

That view had to be changed after 9/11 because in the post-911 world, the status quo works against the west. The despotic regimes of the middle east as well as non-state actors of those countries use anti-western, anti-jewish and islamist propaganda to focus the aggressive potential of their youth against America and her allies, which creates the current rise of terrorism.. The regimes to that to prevent arab youth to fight the facist goverments of their home countries. Non-state actors do it out of islamist supremacy ideology. They hate the kuffar west, they hate democracy and freedom, gay bars and religious tolerance, gender equality and ham sandwhiches, mixed school classes and everything else that is against their 632 A.D. version of Islam.

But in my opinion, religion plays only a minor role in this conflict. It's merely an excuse for killing. The source of the hatred lies not in the religion, but in the political, demographic and economic sitution in the countries of the middle east. The hatred against the west is a result of the desolate situation of their failed state home countries, which offer no positions in society to their angry youth. Islamic supremacy offers what they're looking for: An ideology which "explains" their suffering, by putting the blame on the jews and the west, which in this ideology have conspired against the world of islam and are keeping it down. Their ambition turns into violence, terrorism, and genocide, as happened before in other parts of the world.


Actually, I agree: an U.S. victory in Iraq, a successful, stable iraqi democracy won't do much to help the situation in Europe.

But it's the only hope for Iraq's population. And it's not a lost cause. That's pure defatism.

I disagree that the situation was created by us. Or only by us. The US surely did some stupid things after the successful invasion which didn't help, but extremism in Iraq is to a large part a result of the destruction of Iraqi society by Baathism, which is/was the arab version of National Socialism. The baathist regime terrorized iraqi population for decades. Sunni minority ruled the shia arabs with an iron fist, so no wonder there's a lot of animosity between those two sects. Saddam tortured and killed people in a way that makes the post-invasion Abu Gheirab torture scandal look like Disney Land. Pre-March 2003 Iraq was a totalitarian police state that used terror and torture to control every aspect of people's life. Everyone had to live in constant fear, and one wrong word you utered could lead to being visited at night by secret police and taken away, than being tortured to death. But not only you, but your whole family could be slaughtered for one wrong or suspicious action by a member of the family.


I wasn't neither, but back then, I didn't know much about Iraq anyways. I was just following an uneducated reflex..