Murtha and parliament

[andy]

well it's official, we are not going to cut and run from iraq. anybody notice how similar the proceedings were to parliament? the shouting and such?

 

[mantis]

well it's official, we are not going to cut and run from iraq. anybody notice how similar the proceedings were to parliament? the shouting and such?

well the idea of proposing this by the republicans and rejecting it is to stop all official voice calling for this propositions
3 more years dude.. 3 more years
it's not gonna happen before
oh, that doesnt mean it will happen afterwards necessarily

 

[andy]

come to think of it what was micheal moore doing there?

 

[michaeledward]

This from the President.

"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."

Here, the President is mis-representing Congressman Murtha's statement.

Congressman Murtha did not call for 'the immediate withdrawal' of anyone from anywhere.

He did call to 'immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S forces'.

There is a difference.

 

[Makalakumu]

"I like guys who've never been there who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done."

Cheney avoided military service during the 1960's Vietnam era with a series of draft deferments, and Bush served stateside in the National Guard during Vietnam.

Murtha was wounded twice in Vietnam.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/

Pointing out Cheney and Bush's record and comparing to Murtha's as an example of who is right in this debate is a bit disingenuous. Murtha served, Clinton dodged, Cheney and Bush avoided, there are lots of politicians on both sides of this issue who "weren't there". The democrats have never had a problem supporting draft dodgers when it served their purpose, now they've decided war heros must lead the way. They weren't nearly so kind to Bob Dole. It also never stopped them from considering Bill Clinton a valid decision maker in foreign policy. It all sounds so staged..."When I was on a swift-boat in Vietnam".

All that aside, it's a mistake to believe the carrier of the message is the most valid decider of the rightness or wrongness of the message.

 

[arnisador]

We can't just pull out now. It doesn't matter why we're there--we can't leave Iraq in such a state.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We can't just pull out now. It doesn't matter why we're there--we can't leave Iraq in such a state.

You're right on a multitude of levels. Unfortunately, too many people have invested themselves in the belief that they will settle for nothing more than a "Fall of Saigon" conclusion to this whole situation in Iraq.

 

[michaeledward]

We can't just pull out now. It doesn't matter why we're there--we can't leave Iraq in such a state.

Why not?

And what do you mean when you say 'pull out now'? Are you talking about:

1 - redeployment of US Forces consistent with their safety?
2 - creating quick reaction forces based in Kuwait & Turkey?
3 - creating an over-the-horizon Marine presence?
4 - diplomatically persuing Iraqi stabalization and security
​

What is the worst that can happen?

Is it happening already?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Why not?


And what do you mean when you say 'pull out now'? Are you talking about:

1 - redeployment of US Forces consistent with their safety?
2 - creating quick reaction forces based in Kuwait & Turkey?
3 - creating an over-the-horizon Marine presence?
4 - diplomatically persuing Iraqi stabalization and security

​

What is the worst that can happen?

Is it happening already?

The worst that can happen, certainly hasn't by any stretch of the imagination. But if some people keep trying, it just might.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

We can't just pull out now. It doesn't matter why we're there--we can't leave Iraq in such a state.

You're right. However, we cannot continue with the same Pollyana viewpoint the current Administration takes. I honestly don't know what the solution is. Perhaps some sort of partition a la Yugoslavia? We certainly cannot leave it like a Beirut, Lebanon, circa 1982.

 

[arnisador]

I'd like to see Kurdistan given a chunk of land. Of course they can't get their share ofTurkey out of the deal, but they deserve an independent country.

 

[arnisador]

What is the worst that can happen?

Africa. That's the worst that can happen. We pull out quickly, leave a power vacuum in a nation with poor infrastructure (in many senses), and get a series of dictators and corrupt govts. We made ourselves the (short-term?) colonial power in Iraq--we have to leave it in a strong position. It's the right thing to do.

The "Fall of Saigon" comment is haunting. My hope is that we install a reasonable government, give it a chance to gain acceptance, help it find security, and then pull out.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Africa. That's the worst that can happen. We pull out quickly, leave a power vacuum in a nation with poor infrastructure (in many senses), and get a series of dictators and corrupt govts. We made ourselves the (short-term?) colonial power in Iraq--we have to leave it in a strong position. It's the right thing to do.

The "Fall of Saigon" comment is haunting. My hope is that we install a reasonable government, give it a chance to gain acceptance, help it find security, and then pull out.

Agreed.

From a purely selfish point of view, we've already won. There was never a need to bring democracy to Iraq, if what we wanted was to ensure they wouldn't be in a WMD arms race. A strategic victory would be a destablized Iraq without a strong central leader. We could have declared that a month after the invasion, and simply pulled out. An Iraq in the mode of sub-saharan africa is not a threat to it's neighbors, much less to us. We could have settled for that. In fact, there were a lot of conservatives pulling for just that thing. It certainly would not have hurt Bush's popularity as much as actually attempting to do the right thing. If he wanted a quickie victory, that's all he would have needed to do. I don't think it was malevalence that brought us to the current situation, but good intentions. But what do they say about the path to hell....

Frankly, though, I don't feel that was the right thing to do.

 

[Marginal]

Agreed.

From a purely selfish point of view, we've already won. There was never a need to bring democracy to Iraq, if what we wanted was to ensure they wouldn't be in a WMD arms race. A strategic victory would be a destablized Iraq without a strong central leader. We could have declared that a month after the invasion, and simply pulled out. An Iraq in the mode of sub-saharan africa is not a threat to it's neighbors, much less to us.

That kinda depends on which revision of the war w're talking about historically. (I think you're on 1.5) Wasn't this supposed to fall under the war on terror umbrella? If so, and it wasn't just random nationbuilding mixed in with marginal fears of Saddam having WMD's, leaving the nation destabilized would foster terrorism.

 

[michaeledward]

Africa. That's the worst that can happen. We pull out quickly, leave a power vacuum in a nation with poor infrastructure (in many senses), and get a series of dictators and corrupt govts. We made ourselves the (short-term?) colonial power in Iraq--we have to leave it in a strong position. It's the right thing to do.

The "Fall of Saigon" comment is haunting. My hope is that we install a reasonable government, give it a chance to gain acceptance, help it find security, and then pull out.

A power vacuum is not the problem facing Iraq. There are several leaders in Iraq ready to step-in and take control; al-Sistani, al-Sadr, Jafari, Chalabi are just a few off the top of my head.

The problem is the civil war. This is a war we can not stop, and can not prevent. The population of Iraq is 20% Sunni - 20% Kurd - 60% Shi'ite. The last election was 80% in favor / 20% opposed. That 20% opposed is the Sunni minority. As longs as they feel their rights are not going to be protected under the 'New Iraq', they are going to fight.

The only way to prevent this, is for the United States to flip sides, and start defending the 'dead-enders', the 'Saddam Loyalists', the 'last throes'.

It is a lose, lose scenario. We aren't willing to play the part of a 'Colonial Power' - dictating the government structure, strength and authority. We weren't sold this war on 'Colonial Power'. We were told the 'Iraqi's can govern themselves'. There is no good solution.

There are no plausible, desireable outcomes. Iran is going to control the levers of power in Baghdad, and the oil fields in the South ... The Kurds will continue to pretend they are independent ... and The Sunni's are going to fight like hell, because they have nothing (no oil - no political voice) to lose.

What is the 'least bad', bad outcome?

 

[andy]

interesting viewpoints from everyone. half i seem to disagree with-but thx.

I have to say again though. Why did the floor appear to mimic parliament?And what was micheal Moore the cut and splice king doing there?

scratching head

 

[sgtmac_46]

That kinda depends on which revision of the war w're talking about historically. (I think you're on 1.5) Wasn't this supposed to fall under the war on terror umbrella? If so, and it wasn't just random nationbuilding mixed in with marginal fears of Saddam having WMD's, leaving the nation destabilized would foster terrorism.

If we're talking revision, then you've obviously got the corner on that. The assertion that the ultimate goal was anything but the removal of Saddam is a miscatagorization of the events leading us to where we are. The idea to build a democracy was a tack on.

This had to do with the War on Terror simply as a result of the fear that Saddam Hussein would continue research in WMD and , given the opportunity, would covertly arm terrorist organizations to attack the US with. That was only ONE of the scenarios visualized as a result of leaving Saddam in power. That threat is now over. The idea that Iraq has somehow become some super-producer of terrorists is absurd.

WORST case scenario is that Iraq degenerates in to a civil war. Well, folks, people fighting civil wars don't have the time and man power to attack others outside the country. Even on the worst case scenario, we pull out and Iraqis start fighting each other, we've accomplished the mission. We're only staying now, because we'd like to see a better outcome.

But there is no doomsday scenario for us, folks. We've accomplished to key component of the mission....Remove Saddam and eliminate Iraq as a threatening power in the middle east. The attempt on the part of some to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is 3 years too late.

 

[michaeledward]

I found out there is a rule in the House of Representatives about naming a colleague on the House floor. I've always recognized the clever phrases used for addressing each other ... never realized it was because you couldn't name another Rep.

The Distinguished Gentleman
My colleague from Massachusetts
The gentlelady from Washington.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I found out there is a rule in the House of Representatives about naming a colleague on the House floor. I've always recognized the clever phrases used for addressing each other ... never realized it was because you couldn't name another Rep.

The Distinguished Gentleman
My colleague from Massachusetts
The gentlelady from Washington.

Lately it's been more like "Can the clown from California please pipe down!"