House Iraq Resolution--what will it do?

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 01:41
VIEWED: 4088
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

DAYVE

Friday, February 16, 2007 8:45 PM

just so you'll know... the votes are in - no surprise.... will it make a difference? Maybe if there were resonable people in this administration they would at least take notice...GW?? not so sure

BTW: picked this up over at Huffington Post:

After four days of debate, the House of Representatives has passed a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
The resolution, below, passed by 246 to 182.
Senate Democrats are holding an up or down vote on the resolution Saturday.
----
Text of the "Concurrent Resolution on the President's Escalation Plan:
This week the House of Representatives will be considering the following Concurrent Resolution.
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm curious about your opinions on the resolution being debated in U.S. House of Representatives condemning the troop surge.

Training wheels.

Congress is learning to ride a bike. Again. (I know they say that you never forget how to ride a bike but these are Congresspeople we're talking about). The bike they're learning to re-ride is the concept that they actually represent one of the three branches of government rather than a rubber-stamp for the executive branch.

This non-binding resolution is, looked at from one direction, meaningless. So why is it a more robust expression of displeasure than Congress has managed in many years of Republican rule? And why did Republican Congresspeople fight so hard against it?

We were lied into this war. The rationale for this war has shifted repeatedly. Those in overall charge of prosecuting this war have failed miserably. The majority of Americans understand and agree with these facts. Congress, unfortunately, is lagging behind the rest of the country.

Taken by itself this vote is meaningless. Taken as the first step in a learning program, this vote could be huge. I will defer to Ron Paul's - the Republican representative from the 14th district of Texas and one of the 17 Republican Congresspeople who had the balls to support this resolution - statements regarding this resolution:

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm
...
This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.
...

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:15 PM

America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, February 17, 2007 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?

Wait a second, Jongsstraw. How is what you did at the end of the paragraph any different than what you're complaining about at the start of the paragraph?

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Wait a second, Jongsstraw. How is what you did at the end of the paragraph any different than what you're complaining about at the start of the paragraph?

I believe I was giving my view based on reality, and both ends of my post are related because they are honest, but harsh reminders of the utter failure of our entire government to put the county's interests ahead of their childish and embarassing social and political agendas.

WALKERHOUND

Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:
It think it's worth making the public's disapproval a matter of record

hummm, slight quibble.

This disapproval being put on record (symbolic though it be) is that of the house of representatives. Who (theoretically, hopefully?) are reflecting the opinion (or at lest what thay think/ hope/ believe the polls say) there constituents want back home.

In other word's maybe yes maybe no but DEFENTLY for some reason (that has been formulated in such a way as to prevent the lest political riaque)? Ask me in 60 years when my grand kid's bring home there history text's books.

MALBADINLATIN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
America is a very unique and strange country :

We announce to a listening and hostile world with exhuberant and boastful shame that our presence in Iraq was a mistake based on a lie (or was it a lie based on a mistake...I get'em mixed up).. we annouce that our politicians who supposedly represent our nation's best interests and "will of the people" won't continue our disaterous folly. What other country now or ever does that? To my best recollection all "other" countries seem to staunchly defend their country...whatever their country does..whatever their country's vile actions are, they still don't accept humiliation and world involvement in their soverign rights. The USA acts like some sort of whipped and mal-treated puppy dog...always waving its' tail hoping for some love, but instead always gladly accepting a whack...from both inside and outside our country. And speaking of " having a COUNTRY "...uhmm...do we have one really anymore? What other country on the planet allows it borders to be wide open and have 10's of millions of un-knowns to wonder and intermingle into the legal & (born or documented)society? How can anyone say we have a country under these circumstances?

How many other countries have you been to? I don't mean to offend. I spent 3 or 4 months in Turkey back in 2002. They shame themselves politically all the time, its' all part of the chaotic system of self discovery they have. They've had open borders since Biblical times, there are millions of undocumenteds walking the countryside looking for work, and they find it doing tasks that any other Turk with money won't do, same as here. Most Turks will invite someone they don't know into thier house for dinner because they look hungry, it's a tradition. Why are we afraid to do that? Because were all brainwash-paranoid! by the media. Sorry I don't agree completely with your post, no offense intended.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

AURAPTOR

Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:58 PM

I think it's safe to say that most know my feelings on the issue.

Think I'll leave this one alone as well. Hell, it's Mardis Gras weekend. The Endymion parade is goin on.

Endymion Grand Marshall for 2007

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CAUSAL

Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
and may damage the morale of the military

BS, anyone who could lose morale from this reolution would have lost it all long ago, lack of support for the war has been evident for years.

With all due respect, I have to disagree here. I served in Iraq at the beginning of the war, so I know whereof I speak (that is to say, I'm speaking from the experience of being one of the troops in Iraq).

As I read somewhere around, mission is a sacred thing to the military. You do the job, you accomplish the mission, and you put your life on the line to do so. We sacrifice so very much in order to see the mission get accomplished. We shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Granted. We could argue all day long about how and why we got into the war, but the bottom line is, we shouldn't have been there. But as a military man, I accepted the fact that I didn't get to be the one to make that call. I feel like a failure. And I don't like that feeling. I don't want to have suffered for nothing. I'm resolved to the fact that that may indeed turn out to be the case. But man, this just feels shitty. It feels like the country is saying to us, "You suck; pack your bags and guns and ammunition and come home, losers. You couldn't get the job done, so you're on the bench." Forget the political BS. That's how I feel. The House Resolution feels like a slap in the face. That's how it feels, and it's not because of my party affiliation. It's because I feel like I sacrificed for nothing. Because I feel like a damned failure. Makes sense to me now, why the Vietnam vets hurt so bad. They did their best and failed. I feel like I let the whole damned country down.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, February 19, 2007 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
With all due respect, I have to disagree here. I served in Iraq at the beginning of the war, so I know whereof I speak (that is to say, I'm speaking from the experience of being one of the troops in Iraq).

As I read somewhere around, mission is a sacred thing to the military. You do the job, you accomplish the mission, and you put your life on the line to do so. We sacrifice so very much in order to see the mission get accomplished. We shouldn't have been over there in the first place. Granted. We could argue all day long about how and why we got into the war, but the bottom line is, we shouldn't have been there. But as a military man, I accepted the fact that I didn't get to be the one to make that call. I feel like a failure. And I don't like that feeling. I don't want to have suffered for nothing. I'm resolved to the fact that that may indeed turn out to be the case. But man, this just feels shitty. It feels like the country is saying to us, "You suck; pack your bags and guns and ammunition and come home, losers. You couldn't get the job done, so you're on the bench." Forget the political BS. That's how I feel. The House Resolution feels like a slap in the face. That's how it feels, and it's not because of my party affiliation. It's because I feel like I sacrificed for nothing. Because I feel like a damned failure. Makes sense to me now, why the Vietnam vets hurt so bad. They did their best and failed. I feel like I let the whole damned country down.

Or it could be that the country is saying, "Given the past performance of this group of civilian leaders and their stated goals there is zero chance for success in Iraq. Our troops have done the best they could but they have been let down by their leaders. We will leave Iraq without successfully completing the mission that this administration set forth. The only question is whether we leave now or many years down the road and how much more our troops will be required to sacrifice for failed leadership."

There is no way to win this war, given the people we have in charge, without destroying our soul as a country. The mission was impossible in March of 2003. The mission is impossible today. It will be impossible in January 2009 when the next President takes office.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE