US Troops in Iraq

[Hobbit]

The [A href="vny!://www.virtualvancouver.com/news/news-26.html"]US Senate couldn't pass a vote[/A] to pull out US troops. I think it's very wrong that soldiers have to suffer and be put at risk b/c of political fighting. If the majority of Americans wants to bring their troops home then the governing body should comply with their wishes.

[Sportsdude]

You need 60 votes, Democrats only have 49 (one senator had a stroke).
Plus they don't have enough votes in the House either to override a veto.
It's what the founding fathers wanted. They wanted gridlock so they made up a system that did that. Problem is it's impossible to pass anything.
 

[PostMonkee @(^_^)@]

The dems don't particularly want the war to end before the election.

They just want to give the appearance of trying to end it without having to take the blame for losing the war, which could hurt Hillary's chances.

Politics is the art of giving the appearance of activity while doing as little of substance as possible.

[Hobbit]

That's an ingenious argument which the Republicans came up with - if the Democrats end the war then it's the Democrats fault that the US lost as they didn't let Bush carry out his plans.

 PostMonkee @(^_^)@ wrote:


 The dems don't particularly want the war to end before the election.

They just want to give the appearance of trying to end it without having to take the blame for losing the war, which could hurt Hillary's chances.

Politics is the art of giving the appearance of activity while doing as little of substance as possible.
 

[Sportsdude]

well ever since LBJ democrats have been sissies and scared to do anything drastic. So people voted for them thinking they'd end the war, but they forgot the democrats can't end the war without a certain number of votes. They don't have fillibuster breaking votes. (2/3 majority) they only have a slight majority.
Therefore when they came into power they couldn't technically end the war. Bush would veto and then they couldn't override it because they didn't have the 2/3rds in each the house or the senate. American public probably don't realize this or they simply forgot their civics class they slept through in high school thinking it was boring, stupid and futile.

Since the democrats take a tiny little step at a time because they're scared. (long are the days of FDR/JFK/LBJ)
So they went from 'time tables' to 'end dates' and now 'reduction'. They'll progress slowly enough that by the time next year rolls around they'll say 'complete withdrawl'.

They're a bit slow to say the least but they're powerless until republicans start getting scared and jump ship, they can't do it on their own.

 

[PostMonkee @(^_^)@]

The dems long term plans don't make any sense to me. Not a one of the major democractic candidates (Kucinich is amazing, but he can't win) is even discussing a complete withdrawal. And, forgive me if I've made this point already, a partial withdrawal combines all the worst elements of both options. We leave troops in Iraq to maintain the current popularity of the insurgency (as long as an occupying army remains, WE are the primary enemy of the Iraqi people), yet we remove enough troops so that those who remain can't be particularly effective. As bad as it is now for American troops now in Iraq, the troops left in country after a partial withdrawal will be in an absolute hell.

  If we leave American "advisors" scattered throughout the police force, military and government, these institutions will never be seen as representing the people of Iraq. The citizenry doesn't trust us to pursue their interests over our own, and why should it?

  Time to gtfo.

[Sportsdude]

Yeah the democrats like i said are slowly getting there with there. Eventually they'll get to the idea of out of Iraq but not the region.

[PostMonkee @(^_^)@]

I just tried to post and it ate my message.

I will take this as a sign to stfu    =)