The troops are coming home in '08??

[HighlyIllogical]

They are?

Apparently so, says the House.

Barring a negative vote in the Senate (or modifications) and then an inevitable Bush veto (if it passes), they might be.

It's nice to see some real action!

[UWDarDar17]

Even though I am a Democrat, and against the war, and I like seeing this progress, I'm almost certain it will be vetoed. And my main question is the rate of withdrawal, and the number being withdrawn.

[UWDarDar17]

Sorry for the double post, but here's the Congress records page for this bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:
1:./temp/~bdiTj6:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/110search .html|

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Honestly, does ANYONE doubt Bush will Veto it? And the movement to withdraw troops in 08 doesn't have enough support to get enough votes to overrule a veto.

[Demosthenez]

Just a fast question, why should a legislative body be deciding when the war is over, picking an arbitrary number when they just decide its done, no more war?

Seems stupid to me.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/13/07 03:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Just a fast question, why should a legislative body be deciding when the war is over, picking an arbitrary number when they just decide its done, no more war?

Seems stupid to me.

Well, I don't think it was arbitrary; it was the date they decided was the best/soonest they could do it. Personally, I think those fucking politicians voting for immediate with-drawl are idiots. It's one thing to be against starting the war, but don't take that out on America by screwing the Iraqi people. As a proud liberal, I must say that a surge is the only thing that makes sense.

[hongkongexpress]

what do you guys thing will happen when the troops leave Iraq? Would the Iraqi government implode? your thoughts?

[Bolo]

At 7/13/07 03:48 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: what do you guys thing will happen when the troops leave Iraq? Would the Iraqi government implode? your thoughts?

Probably. But even if we stay for a bit longer, the government will probably implode, anyways. It's too weak, and has too many enemies to function without US support, and even then, it's barely capable of governing the country anyways.

[JakeHero]

This war has caused nothing but problem, the Iraqis are ingrate, assholes that deserved to be ruled under Saddam Hussein, it's a multi-billion dollar burden on the US, it's expending military manpower among other things, however, withdrawal is unacceptable. I've said it once, and I'll say it again; the best word to describe it is quagmire.

[cellardoor6]

At 7/13/07 03:10 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/13/07 03:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Just a fast question, why should a legislative body be deciding when the war is over, picking an arbitrary number when they just decide its done, no more war?

Seems stupid to me.

Well, I don't think it was arbitrary; it was the date they decided was the best/soonest they could do it.

You don't think that is arbitrary? You think that a legislative branch can decide when best to withdraw their country's military, never minding what the generals on the ground say about it?

How could someone possibly not consider it to be arbitrary? If the goal is to win, and fulfill goals, what sense does it make to make a deadline for withdrawal when the goals haven't been met yet?

Personally, I think those fucking politicians voting for immediate with-drawl are idiots. It's one thing to be against starting the war, but don't take that out on America by screwing the Iraqi people.

Withdrawing at an arbitrary date IS screwing the Iraqi people because that date wasn't decided upon based on the tactical realities on the ground, it was a POLITICALLY expedient date that was decided upon for POLITICS, it has absolutely nothing to do with fulfilling our objectives.

The measure is basically saying "win by this date because you're withdrawing, that's final" as opposed to "win the war and then withdraw accordingly".

As a proud liberal, I must say that a surge is the only thing that makes sense.

Wow, irony.

[Elfer]

Yes, barring the inevitable, the troops will be coming home in 2008.

[SlithVampir]

At 7/13/07 03:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Just a fast question, why should a legislative body be deciding when the war is over, picking an arbitrary number when they just decide its done, no more war?

Seems stupid to me.

I don't know, seems constitutional to me.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/13/07 04:30 AM, JakeHero wrote: This war has caused nothing but problem, the Iraqis are ingrate, assholes that deserved to be ruled under Saddam Hussein,

im not really sure how youd feel if somebody came over to the u.s uninvited, started blowing everything up and claimed they were giving you freedom. evidently bush and his administration couldnt even begin to recognize language and cultural barriers, or even the sensitivity of the situation.
but dont take my word for it, several cia reports already emphasized this prior to war
I'm just glad we got in there based on a some selective reports and a "gut feeling".

it's a multi-billion dollar burden on the US, it's expending military manpower among other things,

Well im sure you know who's accountable.

however, withdrawal is unacceptable. I've said it once, and I'll say it again; the best word to describe it is quagmire.

the entire premise for going to war was a comprehensive fuck-over. i'd agree with your sentiment on withdrawal however. why fuck a country over and leave them to resolve everything themselves, they're neighboring iran of all countries after all.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/13/07 03:48 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: what do you guys thing will happen when the troops leave Iraq? Would the Iraqi government implode? your thoughts?

Yes, given the abysmal Iraqi military and ineffective government despite billions of dollars and support of the U.S marines.
I'd agree with a lot of people here, an immediate withdrawal without consideration to the circumstances is an incredibly retarded move on the congressional part, if they try to pursue it its just politically motivated, much akin to the motivations that got us in there.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 7/13/07 05:24 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You don't think that is arbitrary? You think that a legislative branch can decide when best to withdraw their country's military, never minding what the generals on the ground say about it?

That makes the decision "stupid", "bad", or "incorrect", not arbitrary.

How could someone possibly not consider it to be arbitrary? If the goal is to win, and fulfill goals, what sense does it make to make a deadline for withdrawal when the goals haven't been met yet?

Once again; not arbitrary. Arbitrary means that theres no power to keep them in check. As the dictionary says, "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority". The fact that Bush can veto them means they ARE restrained in their exercise of power.

Withdrawing at an arbitrary date IS screwing the Iraqi people

I know. I just said that. Christ, it's even what you where quoting when you said that. Do you bother to read what you quote before talking about it, or do you just start arguing off the bat?

Wow, irony.

Wow, A troll.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/13/07 03:48 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: what do you guys thing will happen when the troops leave Iraq? Would the Iraqi government implode? your thoughts?

I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done.

[Proteas]

At 7/12/07 10:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It's nice to see some real action!

Wait... you mean they're actually going to DO something besides try and get republicans in trouble?

That's a mindfucker right there.

[azn-vink]

It will get vetoed... Bush want to keep the troop there...

[Tancrisism]

At 7/13/07 05:38 PM, azn-vink wrote: It will get vetoed... Bush want to keep the troop there...

Yeah, absolutely, I am not worried in the least bit about this. Congress has been so fucking incompetant; I don't know who I dislike more: Bush, with very firm, but stupid, decisions, or Congress, with very weak, understandable but ill-guided decisions.

[SlithVampir]

At 7/13/07 05:29 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/12/07 10:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It's nice to see some real action!

Wait... you mean they're actually going to DO something besides try and get republicans in trouble?

That's a mindfucker right there.

Bigger mindfucker that they're doing anything.

[AapoJoki]

I hope the UN takes over after that, because the worst thing that could happen to that place is to leave it in a power vacuum. But on the other hand, no power might better than power that the people see as hostile. I really don't know what's going to happen after USA leaves. I don't think many Iraqis would consider UN peace keepers any more welcome than US troops.

[Proteas]

At 7/13/07 07:07 PM, AapoJoki wrote: I really don't know what's going to happen after USA leaves.

People will bitch at us for leaving it to implode into a full on civil war, despite sitting back bitching that we should have left only days earlier. Dem's will use this as fuel against the incumbent Republican party in '08.

Oh, and the world will keep spinning.

[cellardoor6]

At 7/13/07 05:08 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/13/07 05:24 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: You don't think that is arbitrary? You think that a legislative branch can decide when best to withdraw their country's military, never minding what the generals on the ground say about it?

That makes the decision "stupid", "bad", or "incorrect", not arbitrary.

Your comprehension of English is pretty bad. Either that or you dishonestly changed the context of what you said intentionally to avoid the fact that was you said was pretty dumb. We were talking about an arbitrary date of withdrawal.

The date decided upon was arbitrary, because it was decided upon by politicians for political purposes, not based on the necessity or the logic of it. It wasn't decided in sync with the achieving of goals we have there. A date for withdrawal of military forces in a war shouldn't be arbitrary, it should reflect the realities on the ground. If by chance we withdrew after some point in time when Iraq is entirely stable, that wouldn't be an arbitrary withdrawal, it would be the opposite of arbitrary.

Now is that too hard for your little mind to fathom?

How could someone possibly not consider it to be arbitrary? If the goal is to win, and fulfill goals, what sense does it make to make a deadline for withdrawal when the goals haven't been met yet?

Once again; not arbitrary. Arbitrary means that theres no power to keep them in check.

Ahem, once again, in order to perpetuate your stupid argument, you only use one single way of looking at the word, one definition, as long as it allows you to ignore the context of what was actually said.

Here's another set of definitions:

Arbitrary

adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute

The date decided upon by congress to withdraw troops in 2008 (regardless of the situation on the ground or the existence or non-existence to criteria to consider it a victory in Iraq) is - guess what - ARBITRARY.

Withdrawing at an arbitrary date IS screwing the Iraqi people

I know. I just said that. Christ, it's even what you where quoting when you said that.

Hahaha you didn't say! Let's recap what you said, because like always, you disown things you previously say and slowly play it off by refusing to quote the things you say that I replied to. Let's take a look:

At 7/13/07 03:10 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Well, I don't think it was arbitrary; it was the date they decided was the best/soonest they could do it. Personally, I think those fucking politicians voting for immediate with-drawl are idiots. It's one thing to be against starting the war, but don't take that out on America by screwing the Iraqi people. As a proud liberal, I must say that a surge is the only thing that makes sense.

See? Not only did you say that the 2008 deadline decision wasn't arbitrary, but that it was decided it was the best/soonest they could do it.

You were then referencing "those fucking politicians" who were voting for "immediate" withdrawal, saying that THIS would be screwing the Iraqi people, that the immediate withdrawal would be screwing the Iraqi people. Immediate withdrawal is not being discussed in this thread in case you didn't know, we're talking about the deadline set for in 2008, that's a phased withdrawal.

But I mentioned the fact that even the phased withdrawal, the 2008 deadline for withdrawal, would be screwing the Iraqi people, and you had the stupidity and/or dishonesty to suggest that this is what you had already said.

Do you bother to read what you quote before talking about it, or do you just start arguing off the bat?

It seems you should be directing that question to yourself considering you already forgot what you were talking about, or intentionally ignored the context of what you said and I said in order to cover your tracks for the ridiculous things you say.

[SmilezRoyale]

I feel bad for the soldiers; They probably wont be as hated as the vietnam vets like my grandfather; but they will still probably have a marked place in history.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 7/13/07 03:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Just a fast question, why should a legislative body be deciding when the war is over, picking an arbitrary number when they just decide its done, no more war?

Lol, funding, K?

Seriously, it's far from stupid. The legislative body, in the case of the US, is the group of people that decides if it's worth it for the US to spend money fighting a war..

[qaz-qaz]

At 7/13/07 09:56 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Your comprehension of English is pretty bad. Either that or you dishonestly changed the context of what you said intentionally to avoid the fact that was you said was pretty dumb. We were talking about an arbitrary date of withdrawal.

no, you were refering to how the congress shouldnt be able to withdraw troops; this is related to 'bad' or 'stupid' or some such, not arbitrary.

The date decided upon was arbitrary, because it was decided upon by politicians for political purposes, not based on the necessity or the logic of it. It wasn't decided in sync with the achieving of goals we have there. A date for withdrawal of military forces in a war shouldn't be arbitrary, it should reflect the realities on the ground. If by chance we withdrew after some point in time when Iraq is entirely stable, that wouldn't be an arbitrary withdrawal, it would be the opposite of arbitrary.

exept that there are other factors they could have been looking at.

Now is that too hard for your little mind to fathom?

hey look mommy, a troll

Ahem, once again, in order to perpetuate your stupid argument, you only use one single way of looking at the word, one definition, as long as it allows you to ignore the context of what was actually said.

Here's another set of definitions:

Arbitrary

adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute

yeah, except both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the American heritage dictionary both exclude those from their definition, and onl;y include the 'power' aspect; meaning that that was a legitimate argument you just tried to downplay. it also reafirms that your a troll.

The date decided upon by congress to withdraw troops in 2008 (regardless of the situation on the ground or the existence or non-existence to criteria to consider it a victory in Iraq) is - guess what - ARBITRARY.

depends on which dictionary your looking up.

and slowly play it off by refusing to quote the things you say that I replied to. Let's take a look:

funny, thats exactly what you did in the germany thread.

See? Not only did you say that the 2008 deadline decision wasn't arbitrary, but that it was decided it was the best/soonest they could do it.

it WAS decided to be the best/soonest. that's obvious, since they voted for it.

You were then referencing "those fucking politicians" who were voting for "immediate" withdrawal, saying that THIS would be screwing the Iraqi people, that the immediate withdrawal would be screwing the Iraqi people. Immediate withdrawal is not being discussed in this thread in case you didn't know, we're talking about the deadline set for in 2008, that's a phased withdrawal.

teh ohz noes, someone used "immediate" instead of "almost immediate"!! god, stop arguing semantics and argue with the actual point. even though it's the same point you made.

But I mentioned the fact that even the phased withdrawal, the 2008 deadline for withdrawal, would be screwing the Iraqi people, and you had the stupidity and/or dishonesty to suggest that this is what you had already said.

once again; semantics. obviously "immediately" was refering to the 2008 deadline, as that IS immediate in a relative sense.

It seems you should be directing that question to yourself considering you already forgot what you were talking about,

how?

or intentionally ignored the context of what you said and I said in order to cover your tracks for the ridiculous things you say.

i find it funny to see that coming from you.

[animehater]

Well at least it appears that everyone here is against a complete all-out withdrawal. So that's good.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 7/13/07 10:14 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/13/07 03:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

Seriously, it's far from stupid. The legislative body, in the case of the US, is the group of people that decides if it's worth it for the US to spend money fighting a war..

I think he's meaning more of why Senators who have ( in most cases) haven't faught in a war or even been on a battlefield, be the ones to declare a war over and done with rather then the generals.

[cellardoor6]

At 7/13/07 10:34 PM, qaz-qaz wrote:

At 7/13/07 09:56 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Your comprehension of English is pretty bad. Either that or you dishonestly changed the context of what you said intentionally to avoid the fact that was you said was pretty dumb. We were talking about an arbitrary date of withdrawal.

no, you were refering to how the congress shouldnt be able to withdraw troops; this is related to 'bad' or 'stupid' or some such, not arbitrary.

You disingenuous little fool. I said that the date decided upon by congress to withdraw troops was arbitrary, because it was.

And the use of the word arbitrary is 100% correct. It is a word used to describe the characteristic of decision making as being without necessity, principle, rationale, reason.

That is what the withdrawal date in 2008 is, arbitrary. Because they made it now, in the middle of 2007, even though right now we haven't achieved our objectives and there is no way of knowing if we will by the date they came to. ARBITRARY.

It is just as arbitrary as if in the middle of WWII, with victory uncertain, how the war will end unknown, congress just said "you have to withdraw at this time". ARBITRARY.

exept that there are other factors they could have been looking at.

And that makes it less arbitrary how?

Ahem, once again, in order to perpetuate your stupid argument, you only use one single way of looking at the word, one definition, as long as it allows you to ignore the context of what was actually said.

Here's another set of definitions:

Arbitrary

adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute

yeah, except both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the American heritage dictionary both exclude those from their definition onl;y include the 'power' aspect; meaning that that was a legitimate argument you just tried to downplay.

Yeah, you're a fucking liar. I didn't downplay anything, you simply avoid reality as hard as you can because the only way you can salvage your dignity after showing how fucking dumb you are is to do just that, lie, and misconstrue every single aspect of what was said. TAKE A LOOK:

Merriam-Webster: Arbitrary -

3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <a n arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <a rbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments -- A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

American heritage: Arbitrary -

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

it also reafirms that your a troll.

Thus reaffirming you're a dishonest, fact-dodging, moronic imbecile whose only way of arguing revolves around deception, mindless semantics, and a perpetual disregard for the context of the argument.

The date decided upon by congress to withdraw troops in 2008 (regardless of the situation on the ground or the existence or non-existence to criteria to consider it a victory in Iraq) is - guess what - ARBITRARY.

depends on which dictionary your looking up.

Hmm, actually no it doesn't. Because that is the MOST prevalent definition in even the dictionaries that YOU SAID didn't include that definition.

and slowly play it off by refusing to quote the things you say that I replied to. Let's take a look:

funny, thats exactly what you did in the germany thread.

Hmm? Maybe you should go back and take a look.

See? Not only did you say that the 2008 deadline decision wasn't arbitrary, but that it was decided it was the best/soonest they could do it.

it WAS decided to be the best/soonest. that's obvious, since they voted for it.

HAHAHA, yeah.. congress votes on everything based because it's the best idea ever! You saying such a thing is entirely stupid, not only because you're pretending congress made a good decision, but because congress is not the military and they can't see into the future, therefore the date they came to arbitrarily is obviously not the best, and can't be determined to be the best by any measure because the war has NOT BEEN WON YET.

You were then referencing "those fucking politicians" who were voting for "immediate" withdrawal, saying that THIS would be screwing the Iraqi people, that the immediate withdrawal would be screwing the Iraqi people. Immediate withdrawal is not being discussed in this thread in case you didn't know, we're talking about the deadline set for in 2008, that's a phased withdrawal.

teh ohz noes, someone used "immediate" instead of "almost immediate"!! god, stop arguing semantics and argue with the actual point. even though it's the same point you made.

Oh my hell you are one pathetic moron. There were two entirely distinct movements in congress, the minor one consisting of people who proposed an IMMEDIATE withdrawal from Iraq, as in RIGHT NOW. And the larger group that proposed, and recently voted for a phased withdrawal at date more than a year form now.

Haha you have to do the most pathetic thing possible and pretend that the two VERY different withdrawal agendas are similar, thus making the FACT that your entire argument was flawed, seem like semantics only.

You have absolutely ZERO personal accountability. You are an incredibly dishonest little fool who continually and intentionally distorts the context of the argument in order save-face.

You can't accept the FACT that what you said was STUPID, and your out of context replies to what I said in response were just as stupid. So you have to lie and ignore reality.

But I mentioned the fact that even the phased withdrawal, the 2008 deadline for withdrawal, would be screwing the Iraqi people, and you had the stupidity and/or dishonesty to suggest that this is what you had already said.

once again; semantics. obviously "immediately" was refering to the 2008 deadline, as that IS immediate in a relative sense.

Um no it's not. Maybe you should verse yourself with a little something called REALITY, by looking at the facts.

There were people in congress that wanted an IMMEDIATE withdrawal, RIGHT NOW. THose were the people you were originally referring to and YOU KNOW IT. Those measures were defeated easily. But what is gaining steam RIGHT NOW, that is the point of discussion, RIGHT NOW, is the voting on a phased withdrawal of forces ending in 2008.

It seems you should be directing that question to yourself considering you already forgot what you were talking about,

how?

or intentionally ignored the context of what you said and I said in order to cover your tracks for the ridiculous things you say.

i find it funny to see that coming from you.

No, actually it's entirely credible coming from you because I already showed how it was YOU woul repeatedly ignored the context of what YOU were responding to in order to cover your tracks, and you did it again in this post. You discounted things as "semantics" even though they were a direct, accurate description of how YOU repeatedly ignored the context of the issue in order to deceptively draw attention away form your flawed arguments, and your even more flawed responses that you gave when I criticized your flawed arguments.

Seriously, take a fucking look at yourself. You KNOW how incredibly pathetic you are, your entire post was deception and semantics, then you accuse me of semantics because that was your only way of responding.

[bcdemon]

At 7/13/07 07:07 PM, AapoJoki wrote: I hope the UN takes over after that, because the worst thing that could happen to that place is to leave it in a power vacuum. But on the other hand, no power might better than power that the people see as hostile. I really don't know what's going to happen after USA leaves. I don't think many Iraqis would consider UN peace keepers any more welcome than US troops.

Fuck that noise. As much as I am for the UN, I don't want to see Canadian troops trying to keep the peace in a country that the USA fucked up royally. If the UN goes into Iraq in the state that Iraq is in now, they will become the scapegoat for all the americans who can't (or just refuse to) accept responsibility for their governments actions, actions that they supported at the time.