House Approves Bill Opposing Troop Surge

[Marnie]

The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

Pathetic.

[apothanein kerdos]

Sending more troops only makes sense if you have a workable strategy to:

1) Locate your enemy

2) Eradicate your enemy (not just pacify him or subdue him)

3) Work toward an absolute victory goal, at which point you can remove your troops without worry of destabilization the region

If at least these three components are not in place, then it's nothing more than more boots on the ground to add to a growing problem.

[sweetycakes]

But what else can be done except send in more troops to try and finish the job to the best of our abilities?

I wasn't in favour of invading Iraq in the first place, but, having done so, I think it would be catastrophic, both for Iraq, and for our image around the world, if we were to leave with the job half done.

Think how the armies of islam would be emboldened if they perceived our retreat as a victory for themselves.

In the Israel/Lebanon war, Israel's retreat was spouted as a major victory for islam all round the muslim world, and a great many actually believe that. How much more would that be the case if the muslims could now say that they defeated 'the Great Satan' of the west, in the wake of our withdrawal?

As has been said, I believe that this is the 'final' push for our troops. It's 'make or break' time. We can't afford to fail, and leave Iraq a failed state. We've surely got to do all we can, and that, in my opinion, means rooting out as many insurgents as possible in the coming days and weeks, and restoring something of a self-governing body to Iraq and it's people.

I think I'd rather see 80,000 than 20,000, in order to get the job done.

[Axxman]

While Bill Clinton was President there were 7500 active duty deaths in the military. This is according to the Dept of Defense Manpower Data Center. This was during a time of "peace."

There have been Approx. 9000 deaths under President Bush (sorry no "real" stats after 2004 so I'm kinda adding in my head the last two years)..and we've liberated Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do we REALLY want the democrats in charge of what happens to our troops? They have shown NO ability to care for, or provide for, our troops in the past. While the media makes us think the American holocaust is happening to our troops in Iraq, we need to look at how well the troops have been managed by the President so far. The President is right. More troops on the ground eases the tensions and provides a higher level of security and provides more downtime for recharging.

The democrats want to lose the war for political gain and they are willing to put American troops in harms way to accomplish that goal.

[georgesbluegirl]

How do you finish the job when the enemy is "terror?" Honestly, we've just dug ourselves a deeper hole here...the situation in Iraq is tied to so many other things going on in the Middle East. I don't think there is a military solution for something like this.

PS: Chris Hill spoke at my school today after flying straight in from Beijing and the six party talks. The man LITERALLY just solved the North Korea nuke problem...as far as it can be solved at the moment anyway. Apparently he mentioned in his talk (I couldn't go, unfortunately) that he thinks a similar strategy could be effective with Iran. See? Diplomacy can work!

[sweetycakes]

How do you finish the job when the enemy is "terror?" Honestly, we've just dug ourselves a deeper hole here...the situation in Iraq is tied to so many other things going on in the Middle East. I don't think there is a military solution for something like this.

PS: Chris Hill spoke at my school today after flying straight in from Beijing and the six party talks. The man LITERALLY just solved the North Korea nuke problem...as far as it can be solved at the moment anyway. Apparently he mentioned in his talk (I couldn't go, unfortunately) that he thinks a similar strategy could be effective with Iran. See? Diplomacy can work!

I agree. Diplomacy can work. I was glad to hear of the progress on North Korea, as I was glad to hear about the turnaround of Colonel Gaddafi a few years back.

But how do you engage in dialogue with certain groups that want nothing less than our destruction, in the name of their religion?

Korea and Gaddafi have expressed a desire to talk out their differences with the west. As far as I know, muslim extremists have not

[sweetycakes]

This is what I can't understand about some people, and also why I was reluctant to support the invasion in the first place.

If you're going to attack somebody, whether a country or an individual, you had better make sure that you intend to stay the distance and see it through, or you're in serious trouble. You can't just launch an initial attack and then say 'Oh, I think I've had enough for now, and want to sit down and take it easy for a while.'

War is a deadly serious game. That is why I said I was opposed to it at first. But now that we have gone in, we had better make darned sure that we finish the job, or we're all in trouble, somewhere down the road.

Not only would our enemies become emboldened, but pulling out now would leave Iraq as a failed state.

It seems that a lot of people who were initially for the war, are now having second thoughts. But people just can't do that where war is concerned. It's all or nothing, at least until one side surrenders or agrees to negotiate peace-terms.

[georgesbluegirl]

Multilateral talks including more western-sympathetic or neutral nations? I mean, I'm interested in foreign relations but I don't know. Quite honestly I haven't been following our relationship with Iran as rigorously as I should be. I'm not wholly equating the two situations (N. Korea and Iran) - that would be stupid. Clearly the Middle East has the element of extreme religious tension to make things much more difficult. I just know there has to be a better way than blindly piling troops into one of the most volatile regions in the world.

[nebula]

PS: Chris Hill spoke at my school today after flying straight in from Beijing and the six party talks. The man LITERALLY just solved the North Korea nuke problem...as far as it can be solved at the moment anyway. Apparently he mentioned in his talk (I couldn't go, unfortunately) that he thinks a similar strategy could be effective with Iran. See? Diplomacy can work!

I'm holding my breath on North Korea.

As for Iran - the leader of the country has declared his intentions to bring chaos to the world in order for the Mhadi (sp?) to rise from the well. How do you hold diplomatic relations with such an individual?

[ted]

How do you finish the job when the enemy is "terror?" Honestly, we've just dug ourselves a deeper hole here...the situation in Iraq is tied to so many other things going on in the Middle East. I don't think there is a military solution for something like this.

PS: Chris Hill spoke at my school today after flying straight in from Beijing and the six party talks. The man LITERALLY just solved the North Korea nuke problem...as far as it can be solved at the moment anyway. Apparently he mentioned in his talk (I couldn't go, unfortunately) that he thinks a similar strategy could be effective with Iran. See? Diplomacy can work!

You do realize that, in the case of NK, "diplomacy" is nothing more than paying them money? Is that the cure for all forms of terrorism, simply pay them not to kill us?

I'm still not convinced that paying terrorists not to use terrorism is the best way out of the danger. In fact, I can't think of an instance where it has worked in the long term.

As to this complete waste of time, energy, and money in Washington this past week or two, I don't think there's one person in the country who doesn't understand that the Democrats are against the war. They have been ever since shortly after it kicked off. Once they knew Bush was going forward with it, they naturally took the opposite side as a means to oppose him in future elections.

Why are they wasting all of this time on the Hill with a nonsensical, idiotic vote that shows that they are against the war? It makes no sense to me at all. In the mean time, our people are dying, and all they can do is waste a few weeks talking about something which is already a given.

Democrats have done this sort of thing for way too long now. Every time they come up with some plan, Bush initiates it, and then the Dems oppose the very same plan they cried for.

Homeland Security Office? Yup, that was initially a Democratic plan, and now they oppose it and call it corrupt.

More troops to battle? I remember quite well how Democrats were calling for more troops when Bush and Rumsfeld said that there were enough there already. Now, Bush goes ahead with more troops in a plan, and of course, the Dems oppose it.

This whole business of their crying, whining ways used to be sort of funny, now it's just plain old. Each and every time that Bush gives them what they cry for, they turn right around and then oppose the plan.

Now Murtha is out there scheming to introduce a bill that would "ensure all troops going overseas will be properly trained and equipped". Sounds like a good idea, until you read his intentions for doing it. He wants to make these people go through a year of "training" before they are sent, thereby effectively killing any "surge" that Bush proposes!

I got news for you, folks. Our troops train on a regular basis anyway!

At this point, I'm almost opposed to any war the US may fight in for ever more. Not because a war may be wrong or right, and not because people may die, but because our leaders in Congress have shown themselves to be completely inept and lacking the proper mental tools to fight ever again. They have shown themselves to be, at best, cowardly, and at worst, willing to use my life in a political game designed to make Bush pay for his sin of actually winning two elections. Why should I encourage anyone to come into the service if all they will be subject to is a non-stop series of idiotic games?

I'm almost to the point of saying "why bother" now.

And in one more piece of irony: I am willing to bet that these same idiotic Democrats, liberals, and weak-kneed Republicans will use the military in the same exact fashion one day when they are in power. They will use the same exact arguments for going to war, too, and they will demand that "their" war is just.

How could I possibly believe them at this point? Within two years, this country is going to be stupid enough to put a Democrat in office, so when that person calls me to deploy, should I oppose them like they are opposing me now?

Anyone want to answer that one? Trust me, I'm keeping track of who is saying what in these war threads, and I guarantee that some of you will be flip-flopping around like fish out of water once a Democratic President calls troops to war in the future.

I can also promise that I will take some of you to task on your past words, and how they will contradict what I know you will say in the future concerning newer wars.

It would actually be fun if it wasn't such a tragic situation.

To our leaders in Congress who voted to send me to some of these places: Stop playing your idiotic games and give us what we need to finish this thing once and for all. Victory is not going to be measured by us stopping the very last terrorist. That's simply never going to happen. But, we can secure the place long enough to build up that place and make it strong enough to feel comfortable in leaving. If they blow themselves up after we go, so be it, but don't cut out now. If you do, the United States will never win another war again in it's future, and will lose any hope of remaining a strong country in the global setting. I know that some of you like that idea, but it will do nothing but to seal our existence.

t.