GOP Senators to Bush: Time's Up

[DeadCanDance]

GOP Senators Back Lugar's Call For Iraq Withdrawal...Warner: “I Hail What He Did”...Voinovich: US Needs “Gradual Military Disengagement"…Sessions: Troop Levels Should Be Reduced “As Soon As It Is Realistic”



Voinovich calls for gradual withdrawal from Iraq

"Following up on comments by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) called today for President Bush to begin planning for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.".......


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0607/Voinovich_calls_for_gradual_withdrawal_from_Iraq.html

 

[actsnoblemartin]

if the surge doesnt work, i might agree with you, september will have the report. Bottom Line: im not willing to let americans die for iraqis, when iraqis would rather slit each others throats, like the religion of peace has been doing for the last thousand years.

GOP Senators Back Lugar's Call For Iraq Withdrawal...Warner: “I Hail What He Did”...Voinovich: US Needs “Gradual Military Disengagement"…Sessions: Troop Levels Should Be Reduced “As Soon As It Is Realistic”



Voinovich calls for gradual withdrawal from Iraq

"Following up on comments by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) called today for President Bush to begin planning for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.".......


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0607/Voinovich_calls_for_gradual_withdrawal_from_Iraq.html

 

[Bern80]

Probably won't be the last either. More and more people are simply getting tired of this. It's hard to see an end in site. Unfortunately that's the very reason I think it is ethically wrong on some level to simply leave.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

on some level you are completely right, but at the end of the day, its the iraqis responsibility to behave like adults, and not like children, and if they refuse to take the opportunity offered and accepted, not just with passive niety, but with passionate arrousal, then at some point, we must say to them, up yours man . or you make your bed, you lie in it.

They refuse to help, they can live in s***

Probably won't be the last either. More and more people are simply getting tired of this. It's hard to see an end in site. Unfortunately that's the very reason I think it is ethically wrong on some level to simply leave.

 

[DeadCanDance]

if the surge doesnt work, i might agree with you, september will have the report. Bottom Line: im not willing to let americans die for iraqis, when iraqis would rather slit each others throats, like the religion of peace has been doing for the last thousand years.

This is a civil war. A very complex one. There's nothing that 50k, 100k, or 200k american soldiers are going to do to significantly effect the outcome. It's up to the iraqis to sort it out.

I'm not even sure what it means that the surge "works", or not. What is the definition of "working". At best, the splurge will reduce violence in a few areas...or the violence will just shift over to other areas. This civil war is beyond the control of the US Military to have much lasting influence over.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

What I would like to know is, how do we know for 100% fact, that their is a full blown civil war.

how do we know that 50-200 more troops can do nothing about it? and that as you say, we have no chance of having any influence I believe is how you put it?.

Are you prepared, to hand iraq, with its rich oil reserves over to either al queda or iran, assumming, iraqis just fight 100 years war, and kill each other off?

Remember, im not completely opposed to leaving, or staying, as i said, im very conflicted right now, by the fact that, the mission was noble, in my eyes, but how many dead us soldiers, while iraqies do nothing to help us, does it take for us too see, maybe, just maybe we cant win, or maybe im an idiot, and we still can win?

im passionate, I didnt say i wasnt wrong.

This is a civil war. A very complex one. There's nothing that 50k, 100k, or 200k american soldiers are going to do to significantly effect the outcome. It's up to the iraqis to sort it out.

I'm not even sure what it means that the surge "works", or not. What is the definition of "working". At best, the splurge will reduce violence in a few areas...or the violence will just shift over to other areas. This civil war is beyond the control of the US Military to have much lasting influence over.

 

[maineman]

what, exactly, would you have more troops DO? Do you think that they can make sunnis and shiites love one another? DO you think that sending in a bunch more American youth to serve as cannon fodder will somehow make the majority shiite population forget about what the ba'athists did to them? Do you think that more Americans in harm's way will make those same shiiites any less aligned with Iran? Even if, by some miracle, Maliki's government can somehow meet the benchmarks that Bush previously set down for them (and is now backing away from) do you honestly think that it will not devolve into a full fledged civil war the minute we finally DO leave? Do you honestly think that we are accomplishing anything of beneficial substance by continuing to train the Iraqi military and police force and that the incremental training we provide them will not be used to more efficiently slaughter one another the minute we are gone?

Do you need an historical precedent for people putting some subset of their country ahead of their country? Try this: Robert E. Lee, West Point, class of 1829.

 

[Gunny]

what, exactly, would you have more troops DO? Do you think that they can make sunnis and shiites love one another? DO you think that sending in a bunch more American youth to serve as cannon fodder will somehow make the majority shiite population forget about what the ba'athists did to them? Do you think that more Americans in harm's way will make those same shiiites any less aligned with Iran? Even if, by some miracle, Maliki's government can somehow meet the benchmarks that Bush previously set down for them (and is now backing away from) do you honestly think that it will not devolve into a full fledged civil war the minute we finally DO leave? Do you honestly think that we are accomplishing anything of beneficial substance by continuing to train the Iraqi military and police force and that the incremental training we provide them will not be used to more efficiently slaughter one another the minute we are gone?

Do you need an historical precedent for people putting some subset of their country ahead of their country? Try this: Robert E. Lee, West Point, class of 1829.

Robert E Lee did put his state ahead of the Nation; however, he also put his belief in state's rights ahead of Federal omnipotence. I would tend to say that those who fought for the ideal of state's rights, believed they were fighting for the just cause every bit as much as those who fought to preserve the union.

That isn't addressing all the other reasons people had for the side they chose in the US Civil War. On a purely Constitutional, ideological level, I happen to agree with state's rights over some schmucks in DC making decisions for us that we have no control over once they are in office, and really only a choice between dumb and dumber when it comes to who we are going to send to represent us.

We have created a monster and allowed it to run amock, and it is consuming us.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im completely lost, what are you (gunny) and maineman, talking about"?

Robert E Lee did put his state ahead of the Nation; however, he also put his belief in state's rights ahead of Federal omnipotence. I would tend to say that those who fought for the ideal of state's rights, believed they were fighting for the just cause every bit as much as those who fought to preserve the union.

That isn't addressing all the other reasons people had for the side they chose in the US Civil War. On a purely Constitutional, ideological level, I happen to agree with state's rights over some schmucks in DC making decisions for us that we have no control over once they are in office, and really only a choice between dumb and dumber when it comes to who we are going to send to represent us.

We have created a monster and allowed it to run amock, and it is consuming us.

 

[maineman]

Robert E Lee did put his state ahead of the Nation; however, he also put his belief in state's rights ahead of Federal omnipotence. I would tend to say that those who fought for the ideal of state's rights, believed they were fighting for the just cause every bit as much as those who fought to preserve the union.

That isn't addressing all the other reasons people had for the side they chose in the US Civil War. On a purely Constitutional, ideological level, I happen to agree with state's rights over some schmucks in DC making decisions for us that we have no control over once they are in office, and really only a choice between dumb and dumber when it comes to who we are going to send to represent us.

We have created a monster and allowed it to run amock, and it is consuming us.

I do not disagree. I merely point out that there are plenty of legitimate reasons - and precedent - for the American trained Iraqi army to split apart into effective sectarian militias well trained in killing one another once we depart.

 

[CSM]

I do not disagree. I merely point out that there are plenty of legitimate reasons - and precedent - for the American trained Iraqi army to split apart into effective sectarian militias well trained in killing one another once we depart.

It is certainly possible. It is also possible that once trained, they will stage a military coup (once the US is out of there) or even possible they step up to the plate and actually instill and maintain order.

 

[maineman]

...or even possible they step up to the plate and actually instill and maintain order.

I would suggest that the Bush administration has been playing poker with American lives, fortune and status and has gone "all in" on just that possibility.

 

[red states rule]

It seems is politicans on both sides are trying to figure a way to weasel out of Iraq.

 

[CSM]

I would suggest that the Bush administration has been playing poker with American lives, fortune and status and has gone "all in" on just that possibility.

Hmm... I don't think we are "all in" just yet. We haven't committed the BSA or YWCA to the fray.

 

[maineman]

It seems is politicans on both sides are trying to figure a way to weasel out of Iraq.

again...why do you think there is any real chance for the Iraqi military to remain a cohesive unit upon our departure and not split into sunni and shiite militias?

what is the basis for your unbridled optimism?

 

[maineman]

Hmm... I don't think we are "all in" just yet. We haven't committed the BSA or YWCA to the fray.

good point

 

[red states rule]

again...why do you think there is any real chance for the Iraqi military to remain a cohesive unit upon our departure and not split into sunni and shiite militias?

what is the basis for your unbridled optimism?

The current defeatism on bth side is fine - if you do not mind losing in Iraq

As far as I know, not all the troops have arrived in Iraq - and there is progress being made where the troops are cracking down on the terrorists

The terrorists lnow they do not have to win the battle in Iraq - they hope to win it in DC

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media is giddy over this.......

Nets Embrace 'Respected' Lugar on Iraq as 'Tipping Point' and 'Turning Point'
Posted by Brent Baker on June 26, 2007 - 21:13.
The network anchors have found their new favorite Republican: Senator Richard Lugar, whose call for a change in policy direction on Iraq led the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Tuesday. Referring to Lugar's remarks Monday night on the Senate floor which were later echoed by Republican Senator George Voinovich, ABC anchor Charles Gibson engaged in some hyperbole as he teased: “Tonight, a Republican rebellion over the war: More Senators say the mission in Iraq is no longer in America's best interest.” With “Tipping Point?” on screen, Gibson bucked up Lugar's credibility: “There is no more respected Republican Senator in the area of foreign policy than Indiana's Richard Lugar. Senator Lugar took the floor of the U.S. Senate last night to say for the first time that he feels the U.S. Iraq policy is not working and U.S. troops should start coming home.”

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams matched Gibson's esteem for Lugar: “He's been around a long time, he doesn't speak out often, and so when he does, people listen up. Last night, in the U.S. Senate chamber, Senator Lugar gave a speech in which the respected Republican broke with the President on the Iraq war. Today, another Republican Senator did the same, and so tonight many are wondering if we're witnessing the beginning of some kind of turning point?” Williams earlier teased the newscast with the same formulation: “Is this a turning point in the war?” NBC, however, has a poor record of picking Iraq war “turning points.” In 2005 the network hailed Cindy Sheehan's protest near Bush's ranch as a “turning point” and last October Williams heralded comments from Senator John Warner as he asked: “Is this a new turning point?”

http://newsbusters.org/node/13759

 

[maineman]

The current defeatism on bth side is fine - if you do not mind losing in Iraq

As far as I know, not all the troops have arrived in Iraq - and there is progress being made where the troops are cracking down on the terrorists

The terrorists lnow they do not have to win the battle in Iraq - they hope to win it in DC

why are you absolutely incapable of answering a question?

Here, again, is what I asked you:

why do you think there is any real chance for the Iraqi military to remain a cohesive unit upon our departure and not split into sunni and shiite militias?

what is the basis for your unbridled optimism?

so you even SEE the word "terrorist" in there?

 

[T-Bor]

Weasel out?? Here is a FACT..IRAQ was much better off with Saddam in power. Now, that area is just a piece of shit that no one would want to venture into. And it will stay that way for a very long time. Thanks to George W Bush.

Instead of using all of our money on this war and weakening our military resources, we should be securing our borders and securing our ports and making our airlines safer. Instead of invading IRAQ we should have devoted all of our attention to keeping the lunatics out of the country instead of going over to IRAQ and causing complete and utter chaos. Which is what IRAQ is now. Pure ANARCHY.

Way to go George. Nice Job in IRAQ, what a success it has been and the US has benefited greatly from it.. <<./Sarcasm.>>

It seems is politicans on both sides are trying to figure a way to weasel out of Iraq.