/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Congress begins acting to get America out of Iraq.



Woodrow
01-17-2007, 11:13 PM
The people are speaking and our elected Lawmakers in Washington are begining to listen.

Now is the time for all Americans to send letters of support to Those who are voicing opposistion to policy in the mid-east and now is the time that we remember those who are not acting in our best interest and remove them from office as fast as possible.

We need to take back control of the government. At the moment we seem to have too many in Washington that have forgotten that Our government works for us, we don't work for it.

There is a reason why our founders placed in the constitution that it is :

"A Government of the People, by the People and for the People."

We can not let people forget that once they are elected to Washington.




Lawmakers draft anti-Bush Iraq resolution
Democrats, leading Republican, say more troops not in 'national interest' NBC VIDEO


• Bipartisan resolution opposes Iraq war
Jan. 17: Senators hold a news conference to announce a bipartisan resolution opposing the war in Iraq. NBC's Mike Viquiera reports.
MSNBC


Updated: 2 hours, 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A group of senators including a Republican war critic announced agreement Wednesday on a resolution opposing President Bush's 21,500 troop build up in Iraq, setting their marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.
The non-binding resolution, which was also gaining interest from a second key Republican, would symbolically put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress.

"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it Wednesday night," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, who joined Democrats at a press conference on the resolution.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
01-17-2007, 11:26 PM
In a related story. The shift in power is taking shape. The voices of the people have been heard and now is not the time for us to be quiet.


Levin focuses ahead on Iraq

Hearings will be his first chance to use Dems' control of Congress to help shape Iraq policy.

Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Advertisement


Get free headlines by e-mail
NEW! Get text alerts on your cell phone


Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is choosing to move forward with Iraq policy rather than analyze past mistakes. See full image



Printer friendly version
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Carl Levin's first hearings as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee will question administration officials and outside experts about possible new strategies in Iraq -- and not about possible mistakes in conduct of the war.
Source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...612300354/1022
Reply

snakelegs
01-18-2007, 12:53 AM
it's high time. i was against the u.s. invasion of afghanistan and the u.s. invasion of iraq.
some are just for cashing in on the politically popular - get the troops out.
i think it would be wrong to just get the troops out and not take any responsibility for the situation we have brought about in iraq.
Reply

Count DeSheep
01-18-2007, 01:37 AM
Me thinks that this is a good thing. The U.S. is like that over-enthusiastic guy that always tries to help, but only makes more problems. True, the Americans HAVE gotten Saddam out of the way...But didn't they kill him on a Sunni holiday? Me no know whether or not to believe the news...XP

What do you guys think will happen with America's approval rating in the Middle East? Will more and more people think that America is Demonsville, or will they come to accept America? Me wonders...

I do hate to sound like an American, but this DOES look like the Vietnam situation, doesn't it? The tactics of the apparent winners are the same, are they not? No huge battles, but they DO manage to kill a lot of Americans...And the media plays right into it, too. Notice how, even though there are casualties on both sides and those numbers are aired on the news daily, the media only bothers to mention when 2,000 AMERICANS have died. Never, "The 2,000 terrorist was killed in Iraq today..." Always something to make it seem as if the American soldiers are standing around in line, waiting to be shot. Odd, isn't it?

The Democrats were praised by people opposed to American presence in Iraq, weren't they? They were exalted by the enemy for their anti-war efforts. Doesn't that mean that they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy? *cough*TREASON*cough*

Hmm...Funny how history really DOES repeat itself...
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
north_malaysian
01-18-2007, 01:50 AM
There's some speculations in Malaysian newspapers that USA will attack Iran this year.... I hope, the congress can stop this from happening...
Reply

Count DeSheep
01-18-2007, 01:55 AM
America attacking Iran? Tch. They'd have Israel, and maybe Britain and Austalia. But who else? I can't name many that would support the U.S. in this effort, can you? A couple of nations against almost everyone else...that is not a risk the Americans would take after taking a chance with Iraq. America will not attack Iran. Not soon, anyway. Years from now, maybe. But not within the decade.
Reply

snakelegs
01-18-2007, 01:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Count DeSheep
Me thinks that this is a good thing. The U.S. is like that over-enthusiastic guy that always tries to help, but only makes more problems. True, the Americans HAVE gotten Saddam out of the way...But didn't they kill him on a Sunni holiday? Me no know whether or not to believe the news...XP

What do you guys think will happen with America's approval rating in the Middle East? Will more and more people think that America is Demonsville, or will they come to accept America? Me wonders...

I do hate to sound like an American, but this DOES look like the Vietnam situation, doesn't it? The tactics of the apparent winners are the same, are they not? No huge battles, but they DO manage to kill a lot of Americans...And the media plays right into it, too. Notice how, even though there are casualties on both sides and those numbers are aired on the news daily, the media only bothers to mention when 2,000 AMERICANS have died. Never, "The 2,000 terrorist was killed in Iraq today..." Always something to make it seem as if the American soldiers are standing around in line, waiting to be shot. Odd, isn't it?

The Democrats were praised by people opposed to American presence in Iraq, weren't they? They were exalted by the enemy for their anti-war efforts. Doesn't that mean that they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy? *cough*TREASON*cough*

Hmm...Funny how history really DOES repeat itself...
in some ways the democrats are worse than the republicans cuz they're more hypocritical. they have never been antiwar and i don't think they are now.
no, of course the u.s. will not get approval in the mideast - why shoud they??? the u.s. didn't care about getting rid of saddam - we have no problems with dictators.
Reply

snakelegs
01-18-2007, 02:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Count DeSheep
America attacking Iran? Tch. They'd have Israel, and maybe Britain and Austalia. But who else? I can't name many that would support the U.S. in this effort, can you? A couple of nations against almost everyone else...that is not a risk the Americans would take after taking a chance with Iraq. America will not attack Iran. Not soon, anyway. Years from now, maybe. But not within the decade.
the u.s. had no real support for its attack on iraq either, but did that stop it?
i pray that we will not be so insane as to attack iran, but i am not overly optimistic, as i think much of what we have done is not only wrong, but irrational.
Reply

Goku
01-18-2007, 02:10 AM
I'm glad to see that the US congress is starting to head in th right direction, it proved to be a world disaster that Bush got elected in 2000 even though Al Gore had half a million more votes.

As for attacking Iran, i really hope they dont. Israel and the Jewish lobby may press the US to but the US has to look out for its own interests too, attacking Iran will not only affect innocent civilians, Iran can counter attack and cause losses to the US in Iraq which could escalate things even more. Basically attacking Iran is a recipe for disaster in an already war torn area. Lets move forward for peace.
Reply

Woodrow
01-18-2007, 02:14 AM
The rolling ball is gaining momentum.

WASHINGTON - A second Republican signed onto a Senate resolution on Wednesday opposing President Bush’s 21,500-troop buildup in Iraq, setting a marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate from Maine, said she would support the nonbinding resolution, which would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq can be sustained only with support from the American public and Congress.

Snowe’s decision to join the effort came as the White House and GOP leaders struggled to keep Republicans from endorsing the resolution, and raised questions about how many more defections there might be.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/
Reply

snakelegs
01-18-2007, 02:16 AM
again, i hope that whatever finally passes that it does not simply bring home the troops but make the u.s. take responsibility for the hell it has unleashed.
Reply

Woodrow
01-18-2007, 02:22 AM
That is a big question. Although this is a step in the right direction. We need to face up to our obligations to restore Iraq.

However, us just getting out would be beneficial to both us and Iraq.

I do believe that any restoration will have to come from neutral sources as American presence will only lead to more bloodshed. But, I believe we should pay our share of the restoration costs.
Reply

north_malaysian
01-18-2007, 02:25 AM
From what I've seen that the Iran gains the most benefits for American occupation of Iraq.

If that crazy bush attacked Iran, Iraq will be Iranian first alliance...
Reply

snakelegs
01-18-2007, 02:27 AM
i would like to see the u.s. spend the same amount of money it is spending now, on reparations and no contracts to u.s. companies.
i think there is a real danger that this issue (u.s. responsibility) will be overlooked, if it is not coupled with the call for troop withdrawal.
Reply

Woodrow
01-18-2007, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
From what I've seen that the Iran gains the most benefits for American occupation of Iraq.

If that crazy bush attacked Iran, Iraq will be Iranian first alliance...
True, and in the past Iraq was always our strongest allie against Iran.
Reply

Woodrow
01-18-2007, 03:29 AM
This seems to be getting to be a very hot topic on Capitol Hill.

WASHINGTON - The United States should cap the number of troops in Iraq, while increasing American forces in Afghanistan, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.

Clinton, the expected front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, was quick to seize the spotlight the day after Illinois Sen. Barack Obama took a major step toward entering the race.

Appearing on network television and radio shows to discuss her recent trip to Iraq, the New York senator said she opposes President Bush's plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq and favors redeploying troops out of Baghdad and eventually Iraq. She said she also favors conditioning economic aid to the Iraqi government's progress in meeting certain political goals.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16669005/



Updated: 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Senate resolution opposing President Bush’s war plan on Iraq put the White House and Republican leaders on the defensive Wednesday as they scurried to prevent a trickle of GOP support for the measure from swelling into a deluge.

Eager to avoid an embarrassing congressional rebuke of the president’s new war strategy, the administration seemed to hint that the effort — led chiefly by Democrats — might somehow be of assistance to terrorists. They also herded GOP skeptics to the White House, where they tried to allay the concerns of Republican lawmakers including Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/
Reply

north_malaysian
01-18-2007, 03:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
This seems to be getting to be a very hot topic on Capitol Hill.
If it's a very hot topic in America, it'll be a very hot topic worldwide too.... we as outsiders are watching closely...:)
Reply

Woodrow
01-18-2007, 04:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
If it's a very hot topic in America, it'll be a very hot topic worldwide too.... we as outsiders are watching closely...:)
Which is only right. The leaders of the World's Nations no longer have responsibility to just the people under their jurisdiction. The decisions any national leader makes will affect every human on earth over time.

Although we act like each country is affected only by the decisions made within our own countries, The truth is every decision made by every politician affects each and every one of us.

We may be made up of many nations, but we are all residents of the same world. Each and every decision must be made in the best interest of all of Earth's inhabitants and not just to enrich a few.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
01-18-2007, 04:40 AM
good news:D
Reply

Woodrow
01-18-2007, 05:52 AM
Not totaly related to the topic but is an indication of the changes now taking place in Washington.
More good news if this goes through:


Updated: 7:01 p.m. CT Jan 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government’s controversial domestic spying program, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps placed on people with suspected terror links.

“Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” Gonzales wrote in the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.



“Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” the attorney general wrote.

The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/
Reply

Keltoi
01-19-2007, 01:29 AM
The problem with Iraq now are the regional ramifications if the U.S. was to leave prematurely. Iran has the most to gain from this, and the most to lose if the U.S. doesn't leave. The Iranian regime doesn't want a pluralist democratic government as a neighbor. It might embolden the reformists inside Iran and weaken the power of theocracy.

Leaving Iraq might seem attractive to many people, but I would bet a large sum of money that the U.S. will be criticized even more heavily by the armchair generals if Iran's influence in the region grows because of the chaos in Iraq.
Reply

Woodrow
01-19-2007, 01:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The problem with Iraq now are the regional ramifications if the U.S. was to leave prematurely. Iran has the most to gain from this, and the most to lose if the U.S. doesn't leave. The Iranian regime doesn't want a pluralist democratic government as a neighbor. It might embolden the reformists inside Iran and weaken the power of theocracy.

Leaving Iraq might seem attractive to many people, but I would bet a large sum of money that the U.S. will be criticized even more heavily by the armchair generals if Iran's influence in the region grows because of the chaos in Iraq.
We are in a loose-loose situation. The only option is to take the road that results in the smallest loss of life.


Leaving Iraq might seem attractive to many people, but I would bet a large sum of money that the U.S. will be criticized even more heavily by the armchair generals if Iran's influence in the region grows because of the chaos in Iraq
That is almost a guaranteed happening. Iran wants Iraq bad, and we have in effect given Iran the opportunity to gain control of Iraq.

Arm Chair Generals are always right. Decisons are always easy to make when
based on hindsight.
Reply

north_malaysian
01-19-2007, 04:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
we have in effect given Iran the opportunity to gain control of Iraq.
Iran already controlling Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.... I think Ahmidenajad might belongs to a mahdic group which have to secure easier way to conquer Jerusalem... by controlling Iraq, syria and lebanon it's easier to do so...
Reply

Trumble
01-19-2007, 04:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Iran already controlling Iraq, Syria and Lebanon....
Do you want to tell Bashar al-Assad, or shall I? :D
Reply

north_malaysian
01-19-2007, 04:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Do you want to tell Bashar al-Assad, or shall I? :D
and either of us being tortured by his secret police... dont mind to tell him..:exhausted
Reply

Eric H
01-19-2007, 05:59 AM
Greetings and peace be with you north_malaysian;

I heard an interview on one of the news channels that when America sends the extra twenty one thousand troops to Iraq, they will also be sending patriot missiles too. Apparently these missiles would have no benefit for street fighting in Iraq, they would only be needed to intercept missiles from Iran.

The implications of these missiles seems like the Bush administration is looking at Iran now, that is a terrifying prospect.

In the spirit of praying for peace

Eric
Reply

north_malaysian
01-19-2007, 06:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you north_malaysian;

I heard an interview on one of the news channels that when America sends the extra twenty one thousand troops to Iraq, they will also be sending patriot missiles too. Apparently these missiles would have no benefit for street fighting in Iraq, they would only be needed to intercept missiles from Iran.

The implications of these missiles seems like the Bush administration is looking at Iran now, that is a terrifying prospect.

In the spirit of praying for peace

Eric
Hi Eric,

It's already been speculated in melaysian newspaper 1 day after Bush announced it.... I'm not surprised.

But, the Saddam's beheading clip shows who REALLY running the show in Iraq... "Muqtada Muqtada Muqtada" which is supported by whom?
Reply

Keltoi
01-19-2007, 01:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Hi Eric,

It's already been speculated in melaysian newspaper 1 day after Bush announced it.... I'm not surprised.

But, the Saddam's beheading clip shows who REALLY running the show in Iraq... "Muqtada Muqtada Muqtada" which is supported by whom?
That is very true, and seldom talked about. Although when I was reading the news this morning it said that one of Muqtada's aids was arrested in Baghdad. Perhaps Maliki is actually serious about cracking down on the Shia militia.
Reply

Count DeSheep
01-19-2007, 01:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
the u.s. had no real support for its attack on iraq either, but did that stop it?
i pray that we will not be so insane as to attack iran, but i am not overly optimistic, as i think much of what we have done is not only wrong, but irrational.
The invasion of Iraq was also a factor I listed that would make an attack on Iran highly unlikely. The U.S. can get away with it once--but only once. America is hurting too bad to strike again. I tell you, it will not happen any time soon.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-19-2007, 02:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i would like to see the u.s. spend the same amount of money it is spending now, on reparations and no contracts to u.s. companies.
i think there is a real danger that this issue (u.s. responsibility) will be overlooked, if it is not coupled with the call for troop withdrawal.
Oh I think that's a given.

You'd have to be mighty naive to expect the US to actually care about fixing things. They invaded to attempt to establish a greater foothold in the middle east, for security of Israel and to fight terrorism (though really they just created more) and go for oil.

Once they've got what they wanted or realize that they are spending more than they are gaining (in both money and soldiers' lives), don't expect them to stick around, and don't expect them to care terribly about the aftermath once they are out.
Reply

Joan of Arc
01-19-2007, 03:08 PM
But, the Saddam's beheading clip shows who REALLY running the show in Iraq... "Muqtada Muqtada Muqtada" which is supported by whom?
Well Al-Sadr is in a little trouble now:

Main aide of Muqtada al-Sadr arrested By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago



U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's top aides Friday in Baghdad, his office said, as pressure increased on the radical Shiite cleric's militia ahead of a planned security crackdown in the capital.

Al-Sadr said in an interview with an Italian newspaper published Friday that the crackdown had already begun and that 400 of his men had been arrested. La Repubblica also quoted him as saying he fears for his life and stays constantly on the move.

The raid came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates began his second trip to Iraq in less than a month, arriving in the southern city of Basra to consult with British and other allied commanders.

Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, al-Sadr's media director in Baghdad, was captured and his personal guard was killed, according to another senior al-Sadr aide.

"We strongly condemn this cowardly act," said Sheik Abdul-Zahra al-Suweiadi.

The U.S. military said special Iraqi army forces operating with coalition advisers captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader in Baladiyat, an eastern neighborhood near al-Sadr's stronghold. It did not identify the detainee, but said two other suspects were detained by Iraqi forces for further questioning.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged to crack down on Shiite militias as well as Sunni insurgents in a planned security operation. His reluctance to confront the Mahdi Army of al-Sadr, his political backer, has led to the failure of previous efforts to stem sectarian violence in Baghdad.

In the interview with La Repubblica, al-Sadr said his militias would not fight back during the Muslim holy month of Muharram, saying it was against the faith to kill at that time.

"Let them kill us. For a true believer there is no better moment than this to die: Heaven is ensured," he was quoted as saying. "After Muharram, we'll see."

The Muharram starts Friday for Sunnis and Saturday for Shiites.

Al-Sadr said he is being targeted.

"For this reason, I have moved my family to a secure location. I even have had a will drawn up, and I move continuously in a way that only few can know where I am," he was quoted as saying by Repubblica.

Militia commanders have said the Shiite prime minister has stopped protecting the fighters under pressure from Washington and have described pinpoint raids in which at least five top commanders of similar standing were captured or killed in recent months.

The U.S. military accused the main suspect captured Friday of having ties with the commanders of so-called death squads, which have been blamed for many of the killings that have left dozens of bodies, often showing signs of torture, on the streets of Baghdad.

The suspect was detained "based on credible intelligence that he is the leader of illegal armed group punishment committee activity, involving the organized kidnapping, torture and murder of Iraqi civilians," according to the military statement.

It also said he was reportedly involved in the assassination of numerous Iraqi security forces and government officials.

"The suspect allegedly leads various illegal armed group operations and is affiliated with illegal armed group cells targeting Iraqi civilians for sectarian attacks and violence," the statement read, adding he was believed to be affiliated with Baghdad death squad commanders, including Abu Diraa, a Shiite militia leader who has gained a reputation for his brutality.

Al-Suweiadi did not give more details, but another official in al-Sadr's office said al-Darraji was captured during a 2 a.m. raid on a mosque in Baladiyat, less than a mile from a U.S. base.

The official and an Iraqi police officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, also said one of the mosque's guards was killed in a firefight during the raid that damaged the mosque walls, while four other people who were with the sheik were arrested.

Abdul-Razzaq al-Nidawi, an al-Sadr aide in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, demanded that al-Darraji and other detainees from the cleric's movement, be released and called for demonstrations after the weekly Friday prayer services.

"America is playing with fire and our patience is beginning to fade," he said. "This savage barbarian act will not pass peacefully."

Gates, who met earlier with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said they had expressed concern about whether al-Maliki can deliver on his promises to rein in the violence and "quite frankly, these are reservations that have been expressed in Washington, and we will be watching."

Highlighting the challenges, a rocket struck a British military base late Thursday in Basra, wounding six soldiers, spokeswoman Capt. Katie Brown said, hours before Gates arrived.

British military spokesman Maj. Chris Ormond-King told reporters that no "hard evidence" had been obtained of Iranian arms, money or weapons technology entering southern Iraq, but he added, "As a gut feeling we know there is Iranian influence" here. The predominantly Shiite Muslim areas of southern Iraq have historic ties to Iran, which is a predominantly Shiite nation.

The Bush administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

Ormond-King, also said it was possible that Basra province, which includes the city of the same name, could be turned over to full Iraqi government control by this spring. He said there is no firm timetable. Basra is Iraq's second-largest city after Baghdad.

Britain, which has the largest troop contingent among the U.S. allies, with about 7,000 soldiers in the Basra area, is planning to withdraw a large portion of them this year.

A roadside bomb killed one U.S. soldier and wounded three others in an attack against a patrol that was escorting a convoy in northwestern Baghdad, the military said Friday.

U.S. and Iraqi forces are gearing up for a major neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweep to quell the spiraling violence in the capital.

At least 3,030 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

___
They are also saying that Iraqi and American forces now have the Mahdi Militia under seige and there have been 500 arrests.
Reply

KAding
01-19-2007, 04:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i would like to see the u.s. spend the same amount of money it is spending now, on reparations and no contracts to u.s. companies.
i think there is a real danger that this issue (u.s. responsibility) will be overlooked, if it is not coupled with the call for troop withdrawal.
But what does 'taking responsibility' entail in your view? Apparently Bush thinks it means sending more troops to secure at least Baghdad.
Reply

SolveEtCoagula
01-19-2007, 05:03 PM
Woolsey takes up President Bush's Challenge on Iraq
January 17, 2007, Washington , DC

Introduces H. R. 508 -- comprehensive alternative to escalation: plan would bring all US troops home within 6-months

Joined by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA), Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today introduced the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007, sweeping legislation, which would establish a 6-month timeframe for withdrawal for all US military forces from Iraq, provide a framework for bringing stability back to Iraq, and fully fund the VA health care system. The proposal is a direct response to President Bush's challenge over the weekend for those who oppose his planed escalation to put forth a plan of their own. Woolsey introduced the bill during a press conference held this afternoon in the Capitol. Below are her remarks, as prepared for delivery:

"Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.

"The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act is the first comprehensive legislative proposal to end the occupation and provide a framework to help bring stability back to Iraq.

"Last Wednesday night, President Bush demonstrated to the world that he continues to remain blind to the realities on the ground in Iraq. Instead of putting forth a plan that would withdraw our troops, the President is increasing our military presence, by escalating the number of troops by over twenty thousand. What President Bush fails to grasp is that our military presence is only fueling the insurgency, plunging Iraq further into chaos and civil war.

"The November elections showed just how fed up the American public is with the President's failed Iraq policy. It is time to honor that mandate. It is now up to the Congress to catch up with the will of the American public.

"During his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Bush challenged those of us who disagree with him to offer a plan of our own. Today, we stand before you, and the American public, to take up his challenge.

"The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families. Our bill would do exactly that.

"Our plan will also...

Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.
Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces.
Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.
Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.
Guarantee full health care funding, including mental health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts.
Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq.
Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country.
Finally, we believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Once the oil is in the international market, the U.S. will certainly have access to our share. That's why our bill ensures that the U.S. has no long-term control over Iraqi oil.

"Our plan, with the exception of Veterans' benefits, will cost the American people pennies on the dollar as compared to continuing the occupation for two more years. It will save lives, bodies, and minds, and it will give Iraq back to the Iraqis. It is an important step in regaining our credibility in the region and throughout the world, and provides the President, and this Congress, with a comprehensive way to respond to the majority of Americans who want our troops to come home."

This bill is co-sponsored by: Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Diane Watson (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Donald Payne (D-NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).

Take Action Now!

Tell your member of Congress to support H. R. 508, and
Tell Speaker Pelosi to get us out of Iraq.

http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2...20-47-news.php
Reply

snakelegs
01-19-2007, 08:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Count DeSheep
The invasion of Iraq was also a factor I listed that would make an attack on Iran highly unlikely. The U.S. can get away with it once--but only once. America is hurting too bad to strike again. I tell you, it will not happen any time soon.
yes, it would make no sense - but it made no sense to invade iraq in the first place, so it wouldn't surprise me at all. worries me, tho.
Reply

Asvi
01-19-2007, 09:05 PM
finally, its bout time.
Reply

snakelegs
01-19-2007, 09:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
But what does 'taking responsibility' entail in your view? Apparently Bush thinks it means sending more troops to secure at least Baghdad.
in all honesty, i don't know. how can we undo this hell we've unleashed, which could easily become regional (and which was quite predictable)?
in any case, we should pay for the rebuilding of everything we've destroyed. how and when, i don't know.
we can never really compensate for what we've done.
i hold the u.s. responsible for creating the circumstances that make all this sectarian killing possible.
to just bring home the troops is not going far enough, tho i guess it would satisfy those who only care about american blood. but it is good as a first step.
if the troops suddenly left, what would happen?
on a side note, our invasion of iraq has, if anything, made a terrorist attack on the u.s. more likely than it was before, not less.
Reply

Keltoi
01-19-2007, 11:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
in all honesty, i don't know. how can we undo this hell we've unleashed, which could easily become regional (and which was quite predictable)?
in any case, we should pay for the rebuilding of everything we've destroyed. how and when, i don't know.
we can never really compensate for what we've done.
i hold the u.s. responsible for creating the circumstances that make all this sectarian killing possible.
to just bring home the troops is not going far enough, tho i guess it would satisfy those who only care about american blood. but it is good as a first step.
if the troops suddenly left, what would happen?
on a side note, our invasion of iraq has, if anything, made a terrorist attack on the u.s. more likely than it was before, not less.
How much more "likely" does it need to be after 9-11? That was a rhetorical question. I get your point, and I agree that the War in Iraq will probably increase the possibility of future terrorist attacks, but I think the U.S. was obviously under threat of future terrorist attacks already. If it wasn't Iraq it would have been Afghanistan, and I don't believe anyone seriously concerned with American security could oppose the War in Afghanistan. Perhaps you do, but the vast majority of Americans supported and still support the mission there. It is Iraq that has divided us.
Reply

snakelegs
01-20-2007, 01:29 AM
i am concerned about american security, but i was opposed to our attack on afghanistan. but you're right, most supported it. i don't think afghanistan raised (or lowered) the threat of a terrorist attack, but iraq increased it for sure.
Reply

Agnostic
01-20-2007, 02:14 AM
I believe America had to go into Afghanistan, It was basically a safe haven and a training ground for the people that plotted 9-11. However Iraq was a huge mistake in my opinion, not just in the act of the invasion but the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't listen to there own generals and sent a force of 140,000 when the military wanted to send almost 500,000 troups. This led to the looting (in the beginning) and the sectarian violence we have today, there is no way the smaller force could provide security for an entire nation.
Now we dont know how to get out.
Reply

Keltoi
01-20-2007, 03:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Agnostic
I believe America had to go into Afghanistan, It was basically a safe haven and a training ground for the people that plotted 9-11. However Iraq was a huge mistake in my opinion, not just in the act of the invasion but the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't listen to there own generals and sent a force of 140,000 when the military wanted to send almost 500,000 troups. This led to the looting (in the beginning) and the sectarian violence we have today, there is no way the smaller force could provide security for an entire nation.
Now we dont know how to get out.
Good point. Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the Cold War era U.S. military into a "mobile and versatile" force is all well and good for taking down a regime, but to provide security for a country requires massive troops levels. Personally, I don't think Donald Rumsfeld actually intended to stay in Iraq for an extended period of time. Rummy is a scapegoat on many levels.
Reply

Eric H
01-20-2007, 04:14 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

and I don't believe anyone seriously concerned with American security could oppose the War in Afghanistan.
I have huge problems with American security, what about the security of Afghanistan?

How many thousands of innocent Afghans have died who had nothing to do with 9 / 11?

The working man in Afghanistan and Iraq deserves peace and security just like anyone else; yet America and Britain seem to ignore this.

In the spirit of striving to live at peace with our neighbour and our enemy,

Eric
Reply

Agnostic
01-20-2007, 04:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Good point. Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the Cold War era U.S. military into a "mobile and versatile" force is all well and good for taking down a regime, but to provide security for a country requires massive troops levels. Personally, I don't think Donald Rumsfeld actually intended to stay in Iraq for an extended period of time. Rummy is a scapegoat on many levels.
I really don't think he is a scapegoat in the sense that he must have seen that his trimmed down version of the American military wasn't working very early on. However the buck really stops with Bush as he is the commander and chief, he should have listened to the military and not a armchair warrior. (but I guess he had to listen to somebody as Bush couldn't plan a tea party) the plan to send in more troops now is really hindsight and I don't believe 20,000 will be enough to stop the sectarian violence or instill any kind of security as the Mahdi militia reportedly has more than 60,000 members, not really sure how many Sunni there are, not to mention the forces from both sides that are fighting the US as well
Reply

north_malaysian
01-20-2007, 05:20 PM
Conclusion - all of us agreed that Bush Jr. is one crazy president...:D
Reply

Woodrow
01-20-2007, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Conclusion - all of us agreed that Bush Jr. is one crazy president...:D
Don't blame us Texans all we wanted to do was get him out of Texas. We never suspected that the Yankees would elect him President.


We were thinking more in terms of getting him a job in the White House that was within his abilities. But, the guy who cleans the toilets didn't retire.
Reply

Akil
01-20-2007, 10:05 PM
I wrote this sometime ago and here is as good as any place to put it:

If the killing would stop I would say yes, pull my follow soldiers out of harms way right now. But if the US pulls out 27 million Iraqi lives are in jeopardy.

Our greatest victory in Iraq was also our greatest injustice.

In toppling the Iraqi Baath party we have created a power vacuum in one of the most strategic countries in the Middle East.

Saddam was the biggest bully on the playground and hundreds of thousands (from murder), millions (from war with Iran) of dead can attest to this. Now that he is gone all the lesser bullies have come out and want to play, want to try and take the biggest bullies place.

I guaranty if we pull out of Iraq the Kurds claim independence, I also guaranty that Turkey will start a war that will destroy both countries.

I guaranty the threatened Sunni minority would get the support from the Salafi infrastructure of Saudi Arabia. Eventually Egypt, still vying for badass of the Sunni Nations would lend their support. I guaranty the Arab Shia majority would then be forced to look to Iran for support.

Then what happens is a full on proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia or maybe even Iran and the entire Sunni world. In a war like this ethnic and religious minorities such as the Assyrians will simply be killed in the crossfire.

What if the entire Middle East becomes destabilized ?

What if the entire Middle East is destabilized and then the battle spills over into Europe, Asia, and Africa ?

What if other powers become involved out of greed or necessity ?

How many will die then ?

I’m not going to spend a lot of time defending the US’s actions or arguing about why or why we shouldn’t be in Iraq. I just wanted to throw in my two cents.
Reply

Woodrow
01-20-2007, 10:16 PM
Very heavy 2 cents you tossed in. You just raised some very good points that need to be taken into consideration. We can not go back and undo what was done. The problem now is how to save lives and have all people treated fairly.

Although we in the US have to accept much responsibility for the mess, it is clear we can not fix the damage by ourselves. This is going to take a group effort and a very difficult group effort as the needed cooperation is going to have to be between nations that do not trust, and fear each other.
Reply

Keltoi
01-20-2007, 11:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;



I have huge problems with American security, what about the security of Afghanistan?

How many thousands of innocent Afghans have died who had nothing to do with 9 / 11?

The working man in Afghanistan and Iraq deserves peace and security just like anyone else; yet America and Britain seem to ignore this.

In the spirit of striving to live at peace with our neighbour and our enemy,

Eric
Yes, in a perfect world there would be no Taliban, no Al-Qaeda training camps, no safe haven. Of course we all know these existed in Afghanistan, and any responsible leader of the U.S. could not allow that situation to continue. I agree that the people of Afghanistan suffered because of the war, but the primary responsibility for this falls to the Taliban itself. I sympathize with the issues you raised, believe me I do, but no matter the number of prayers or good wishes one heaps on a situation, you would still have people plotting to kill Americans. That cannot be ignored.
Reply

Eric H
01-21-2007, 04:19 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

I wonder how America and Britain have benefited by invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

Was it the right thing to do for a long term solution?

I sympathize with the issues you raised, believe me I do, but no matter the number of prayers or good wishes one heaps on a situation.
I wonder why Jesus said to love and pray for your enemy, would the world be a better place today if we had prayed for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq instead of invading them.

Should we really trust God to solve injustice, or do we have to take the law into our own hands?

In the spirit of seeking justice for the oppressed

Eric
Reply

Keltoi
01-21-2007, 05:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

I wonder how America and Britain have benefited by invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

Was it the right thing to do for a long term solution?



I wonder why Jesus said to love and pray for your enemy, would the world be a better place today if we had prayed for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq instead of invading them.

Should we really trust God to solve injustice, or do we have to take the law into our own hands?

In the spirit of seeking justice for the oppressed

Eric
God helps those who help themselves. Do you think by praying for Iraq and Afghanistan that was going to stop more Americans from being targeted? Perhaps you are right, but something tells me you aren't. Any president who just watched 3,000 people die from a terrorist attack that was planned and funded from Afghanistan, and chose to pray on national television and trust God to sort it all out would be flogged from the White House. Rightfully so. Not all Americans are religious, but all Americans expect their government to protect them from foreign enemies. That is the job of the government. If one wishes to pray on their own time for God to bring justice and peace, that is great. Governments do not have that luxury.
Reply

Eric H
01-22-2007, 12:59 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

God helps those who help themselves.
About a billion people on this planet earn less than a dollar a day, these people are not in a position to help themselves. Half the people on earth earn less than two dollars a day, there is not much these people can do to help themselves. If you earn over five thousand dollars a year you become one of the top ten percent of the richest people on Earth. I wonder how many Americans would bother getting out of bed to earn that amount of money

I wonder if God really abandons the poor in order to help the rich.

The people who can help themselves are the rich and they do. It is the way that the rich exploit the world resources that probably drives people to do desperate things like 9 / 11.

If people can’t help themselves it kind of suggests that it is ok to bomb them because they can’t help themselves against this kind of warfare.

In the spirit of seeking peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2007, 01:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;



About a billion people on this planet earn less than a dollar a day, these people are not in a position to help themselves. Half the people on earth earn less than two dollars a day, there is not much these people can do to help themselves. If you earn over five thousand dollars a year you become one of the top ten percent of the richest people on Earth. I wonder how many Americans would bother getting out of bed to earn that amount of money

I wonder if God really abandons the poor in order to help the rich.

The people who can help themselves are the rich and they do. It is the way that the rich exploit the world resources that probably drives people to do desperate things like 9 / 11.

If people can’t help themselves it kind of suggests that it is ok to bomb them because they can’t help themselves against this kind of warfare.

In the spirit of seeking peace on Earth

Eric
Being poor had nothing to do with 9-11. The people that committed that atrocity came from well off families. I'm not trying to attack you, who could attack a message such as yours, but you jumped off point fairly quickly. The point was whether "praying for Afghanistan" was enough to protect the people of the United States. Perhaps you believe that it is, but that reminds me of people praying for Hitler to stop, or praying for Stalin. The Taliban were definitely of that ilk.
Reply

Eric H
01-22-2007, 02:18 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi; and thanks for your reply,

I wasn’t trying to avoid your question but you did make a couple of points in your last post, one of which was that God helps those who help themselves.

9 / 11 has happened and there is nothing we can do to change that, but there were a number of choices open to how America could react.

We have the privilege of hindsight now and we can look back on the president’s decision to invade two countries. Thousands of Americans and others have died and there does not appear to be any end to hostilities.

Now Mr Bush prayed that God would be on his side when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, so he is not against prayer.

Now I ask you to consider another option open to the president, he could have prayed for peace and reconciliation instead.

Would the world be a safer place, would there be more stability in the Middle East? Would America have more allies, would they be safer from further acts of terrorism?

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

Keltoi
01-22-2007, 08:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi; and thanks for your reply,

I wasn’t trying to avoid your question but you did make a couple of points in your last post, one of which was that God helps those who help themselves.

9 / 11 has happened and there is nothing we can do to change that, but there were a number of choices open to how America could react.

We have the privilege of hindsight now and we can look back on the president’s decision to invade two countries. Thousands of Americans and others have died and there does not appear to be any end to hostilities.

Now Mr Bush prayed that God would be on his side when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, so he is not against prayer.

Now I ask you to consider another option open to the president, he could have prayed for peace and reconciliation instead.

Would the world be a safer place, would there be more stability in the Middle East? Would America have more allies, would they be safer from further acts of terrorism?

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
I understand what you mean, but do you truly believe that would stop Al-Qaeda and like minded groups from targeting Americans? Would anything short of a war have stopped Al-Qaeda from training in Afghanistan? Inaction is percieved as weakness. It's a difficult philosophical question, and I'm trying to get away from philosophy and deal with the concrete realities.
Reply

Eric H
01-23-2007, 07:14 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

What would motivate educated young people to fly a plane into a building? Something must have been desperately wrong, they did not seem to be doing this for themselves, rather they seemed to be standing up for others. Those terrorists must have been standing up for something so powerful that it compelled them to end their lives.

9 / 11 was wrong, but in order to try and stop any future terrorism there is the need to try and find out why it happened. In order to pray for peace there is also the need to try and resolve those problems as part of the solution.

Praying for peace is not for our benefit, rather we are seeking peace for our children and grandchildren. It feels that we have to sacrifice our own desire for justice through retaliation.

I can remember some years back when a bomb went off in a passenger plane and it crashed into Lockerbie in Scotland; killing about two hundred people. It took years of investigation but they eventually found the people responsible. It would have been wrong at the time to say Libya is responsible, lets invade the country.

If we had invaded Libya thousands more would have died and all their families would want justice and retaliation.

In the spirit of seeking alternatives to war,

Eric
Reply

Keltoi
01-23-2007, 01:22 PM
[QUOTE=Eric H;634171]Greetings and peace be with you Keltoi;

What would motivate educated young people to fly a plane into a building? Something must have been desperately wrong, they did not seem to be doing this for themselves, rather they seemed to be standing up for others. Those terrorists must have been standing up for something so powerful that it compelled them to end their lives.

9 / 11 was wrong, but in order to try and stop any future terrorism there is the need to try and find out why it happened. In order to pray for peace there is also the need to try and resolve those problems as part of the solution.

Praying for peace is not for our benefit, rather we are seeking peace for our children and grandchildren. It feels that we have to sacrifice our own desire for justice through retaliation.

I can remember some years back when a bomb went off in a passenger plane and it crashed into Lockerbie in Scotland; killing about two hundred people. It took years of investigation but they eventually found the people responsible. It would have been wrong at the time to say Libya is responsible, lets invade the country.

If we had invaded Libya thousands more would have died and all their families would want justice and retaliation.

In the spirit of seeking alternatives to war,

Eric[/QUOTE

With all due respect, that is a recipe for more death. I understand you are pacifist, and in that respect perhaps you are a better Christian than I am. While you are concerned with what "motivates" a terrorist and blaming the U.S. for it, I'm concerned with protecting Americans. I agree, peace and understanding is a worthy goal. However, peace and understanding are pretty hard to come by when planes fall from the sky and 3,000 people are wiped off this earth. On American soil I might add. Call me old-fashioned, but I'm still concerned with defending America and its people from their enemies.
Reply

shible
01-31-2007, 03:40 PM
:sl:

The United States faces a Soviet-style humiliation in Afghanistan, a fugitive Afghan warlord claimed in a video message while taunting Pakistan for aiding U.S.-led counterterrorism operations.

In a recording obtained by The Associated Press in Pakistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar also accused Washington of fomenting conflict among Afghan ethnic groups on a scale comparable with the strife in Iraq.

"Everyone knows that the American aggressors are faced with defeat in every part of the country," Hekmatyar said. "They were unable to achieve their goals by bombing innocent Afghans, their villages and homes. They are preparing to leave like the Soviet troops."



here is the source


U.S. facing Soviet-style defeat in Afghanistan


:sl:
Reply

Keltoi
01-31-2007, 05:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by shible
:sl:

The United States faces a Soviet-style humiliation in Afghanistan, a fugitive Afghan warlord claimed in a video message while taunting Pakistan for aiding U.S.-led counterterrorism operations.

In a recording obtained by The Associated Press in Pakistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar also accused Washington of fomenting conflict among Afghan ethnic groups on a scale comparable with the strife in Iraq.

"Everyone knows that the American aggressors are faced with defeat in every part of the country," Hekmatyar said. "They were unable to achieve their goals by bombing innocent Afghans, their villages and homes. They are preparing to leave like the Soviet troops."



here is the source


U.S. facing Soviet-style defeat in Afghanistan


:sl:
lol...wow, some Taliban propaganda. Thanks for this bit of hard hitting information. :rolleyes:
Reply

starfortress
01-31-2007, 06:58 PM
:sl:

I wouldn't say anything about humiliation or Soviet defeating styles,but somehow there are truth about the text,something like unchanged or impossible to change situation like, still Al-Qaeda in the main frames,still videos tape massage annoying in TV.One thing the U.S and Soviet have shared in common are,the more you release the fire,the more you'll get blame,and it's fit in Iraq too.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-28-2013, 08:06 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2010, 12:09 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 09:35 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 12:13 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-01-2006, 04:05 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!