I just copied the headline from Digg.com.

Link

Yeah, pretty much.

So what @ OP. It will go down. Why is this news? Besides, with the dems in control it's a no brainer. It's their general short-term sort-sighted way of approaching problems.

^^ We either need a completely new strategy or just nix the whole sodding thing. The status quo of running this is NOT working ^^

It will be vetoed. I don't think there aren't enough for 2/3 vote to overturn veto.

.

Ok, I agree with that 100%, as far as new strategy. But withdrawal... yeeech. We screwed a country for no apparent reason, and now we're going to leave it still on the verge of implosion. That seems really quite bad. Iraq is our responsibility, we have to stay there until it's reasonably stable. Hey, it may not be easy, but then again, it's 100% our fault.

I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that if we leave Iraq will be in state of chaos only seen by some of the worse off african nations. Plus with Turkey, Iran, and Israel all with their own interests... yeah, not good stuff for the poor Iraqi's for the foreseeable future.

Not enough by far for the 2/3'rds

this one barley passed...

If you seriously think Iraq's current condition is the fault or responsibility of America then you aren't paying enough attention.

I think it is awesome how everyone here and the insurgents both want us out ASAP, but now the Iraqi government is saying that they want us to stay to prevent a full on civil war. Oh what a twisted situation.

There's always the "nuclear solution" for a clean slate and a brighter future (post-fallout).

(:rolleyes:)

I dunno, we sorta invaded them. Are you saying they'd be in the same situation if we say, invaded Iran instead? Last time I checked, while things weren't peachy keen in Iraq under Saddam, they weren't getting blown up in the 100's with single attacks. Are you saying we had no bearing on the current situation, and they'd be in this state of almost anarchy, with even basic infrastructure in a horrid state? That they'd suffer the huge brain drain and exodus that they experienced?

Also, if you want to go further back, we also supported Saddam Hussein a decent amount. I don't know how we are completely clean in the past either.

So, educate me if you'd be so kind.

Bush will be gone within a year. So within a year, hopefully whoever is leading this country will make some rational decisions.

The pseudo-stability Saddam Hussein brought was temporary and unstable. The racial tensions (yes, they are racial in spite of the 'sectarian' label the media has applied to them) have existed for thousands of years. The only thing that was needed for the powderkeg to explode was an opportunity. The United States did not cause the current situation, they simply moved up the schedule.

The problem existed long before we strangled their despot.

It was going to continue long after he died of even natural causes.



It isn't our fault that they can't figure their own **** out, however at the same time I'd feel really guilty not trying to help.

Saddam's regime wasn't stable anyway. Sooner or later there would have been embargos, his oil-for-food-food-for-guns scheme would have fallen apart and his regime would have gone with it. Even if Saddam had lived long enough to die of natural causes, his sons were sociopaths who would have ethnically purged the country.

So no, it's not America's fault. Your president was just stupid enough to inherit someone elses' problem.

I don't know if "Getting out of there" is such a good idea. I mean, getting out is all fine and good, but this seems like more of a poorly planed knee-jerk reaction than anything. We don't want to make things significantly worse than they are because we didn't bother to think this through. I mean, granted we want to leave, but there's such a things as poor execution, and it doesn't sound like most politicians or Americans are very mindful of that.

Yeah, a year. Teehee.

Americans didn't vote for the war but we're taxed for it.

That logic is retarded.

I get taxed for alot of things I didn't vote for. Thats life.

But a war is definitely something that should be voted on.. because it costs ****-loads of money, and because it severely tarnishes our reputation.

I think a president respecting the spirit of the constitution and allowing congress to vote would be far more productive than a referrendum.

What, you think Israel would invade Iraq or something like that? Are you out of your mind? The only country that would benefit from an abandoned and chaotic Iraq is Iran - controlling Iraq would help them tighten their grip on the region,

You (and Rob) are obviously correct in that there was a background to this current situation that would have probably wound up the same, I acknowledge that. But we did accelerate the process, and we did a horrible job at stabilizing the country to boot.

Put it this way: say there is a sandcastle on the beach. Eventually it's going to be washed away by the waves. That doesn't make it anyone's right to go take dump on it even though its fate is sealed.

Even then, in this case who knows how the situation in Iraq would have turn out had the US not have invaded. Your scenario is the most likely one, but there were possibilities for some sort of popular revolution that would not end in this sort of civil war. While it makes sense to say that yeah, it would have wound up like this, we accelerated the issue to the worst possible conclusion, not anyone else.

Yeah, we've inherited this problem, and abandoning it right now in the long run won't help us one iota, because to the rest of the world we were the bad guys.



Of course not to the first point, and the second point you make shows why Israel has a vested interest in the fate Iraq. That was my point. They are going to be active in the future of Iraq, to say the least. Maybe not invade, but Mossad is good at what they do if you get what I mean.

im actually interested (in a morbid sort of way) to see what will happen if a democrat is elected president and this war is still going on.

and along with quite a few others here i agree, there is no way this will not get vetoed.

I think this is the fourth time the House has voted for a troop withdrawal. You can bet this is going to end the same as the other three.

I glimpsed at the title and I thought of Hugh Laurie.

Me too.

Hey, at least while congress is futilely passing all of these troop withdrawal bills they aren't fixing* the rest of the country.

*messing up

cue eff tee

Look at it this way, hopefully after the 2008 election we'll have a president that actually pays attention to other elected officials, instead of simply agreeing with all of his appointed advisors and cabinet members to push a destructive agenda.