U.S withdrawing from Iraq in 2008?

[unknown mutant]

Democrats Unveil Plan To Withdraw Troops From Iraq By 2008

Bush spokeperson says plan is 'nonstarter' for president; U.S. commander says more troops may be needed.


The disconnect between the Democratically led Congress and the White House on the future of American involvement in the war in Iraq hit a crucial point on Thursday. Just as Democratic leaders in the House and Senate began their push for a plan to bring U.S. troops home next year, the newly appointed American commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said more troops might be needed in order to accomplish the job.

Meanwhile, President Bush vowed to veto any attempt to set a timeline for the redeployment of troops.

While Congress cannot legally recall troops from Iraq, it does have the power to defund the war in Iraq, forcing the president's hand, and the fight over a $100 billion funding bill for the war is the latest battleground in the skirmish between Congress and the president over when and how to bring the troops home.

Democrats in both houses of Congress more or less agreed Thursday on a fixed timetable for ending the war, according to The New York Times, with the Senate plan setting a goal for troops to withdraw by March 31, 2008. The House measure called for an exit no later than August 2008, and like the Senate proposal, the measure is attached to an emergency spending bill that will be considered next week in the Appropriations Committee in which the president is asking for nearly $100 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans quickly vowed to block the Democratic push and the White House responded with strong language as well. "It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it's safe to say it's a nonstarter for the president," said White House senior adviser Dan Bartlett.

While Democratic leaders in the House were optimistic about passing their legislation, chances in the Senate — where the Democrats hold a slim, two-seat majority — were less likely, given the opposition from Bush and Republicans.

Amid all the wrangling, new American commander Petraeus warned that even with the recent troop "surge" of more than 21,500 ordered by Bush, more soldiers might be needed in order to finish the job and he stressed that the U.S. commitment to Iraq must remain open-ended (see "President Bush Orders 21,500 More Troops To Iraq; Democrats Blast Plan").

The proposal from the House Democrats would require Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of military, political and economic benchmarks, according to the Times. If he fails to do that, the legislation calls for the majority of combat troops to be removed starting in July and ending by December 31. And, given the tense rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran, the legislation would also prohibit any military action against Iran without authorization from Congress.

In an attempt to build bipartisan support for the measure, Democrats also proposed spending an additional $900 million to help troops recover from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress, as well as $1.2 billion more than Bush requested to fight terrorists in Afghanistan. The bill is also loaded with other provisions that would make it hard to vote against, such as money for Gulf Coast recovery efforts, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, agriculture disaster programs and security.



http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1554300/20070309/index.jhtml

[ShaDoW1]

good let them bring my brother back and if they needs send more troops let them send the fu*kin presidents daughters and all the congress peoples kids there

[The Last Emperor]

I already know that I am getting deployed there in the spring of 2008.

[rashcobar]

I already know that I am getting deployed there in the spring of 2008.

how do u feel about it?

[justindlawson]

he should be proud to be an american military man.

[The Last Emperor]

how do u feel about it?

My view on this is probably going to be different than somebody that isn't in the military. Yes I am proud to serve my country. I'll be there for 6 months. Of course I am scared but know that is why I joined the military. So it's good & bad at the same time.

[PDA]

as long as they dont draft..i could give 2 fu*ks about this war or bush

[The Last Emperor]

They won't draft PDA. We actually downsized in the Air Force. So if we need more people we wouldn't be downsizing.

[PDA]

good.

fu*k bush

black man for president in 2008! i cant remember his name but its ok!

[rashcobar]

My view on this is probably going to be different than somebody that isn't in the military.

yeah, that's the exact reason why i was askin.

i had a friend who was involved over there during the start of the war.. he'd send me some gruesome pics every now and then!. but i haven't heard the thoughts of someone in the millitary for at least a few years.

u don't have to answer, but i was wondering:

what do u think of the current situation of the US-led co-alition in iraq right now

and what about the situation for the iraqi's?

[The Last Emperor]

[QUOTE=randm1874]My view on this is probably going to be different than somebody that isn't in the military.QUOTE]

yeah, that's the exact reason why i was askin.

i had a friend who was involved over there during the start of the war.. he'd send me some gruesome pics every now and then!. but i haven't heard the thoughts of someone in the millitary for at least a few years.

u don't have to answer, but i was wondering:

what do u think of the current situation of the US-led co-alition in iraq right now

and what about the situation for the iraqi's?

When we first started the war I thought this was good because we were preventing something that could have been really horrible. Now that the time has passed by we are just wasting our time. We did catch Saddam but there are plenty of people over that are just as bad or worse that would take over for him. It's a never ending cycle. Honestly I think we are just trying to control the oil since there is probably millions in it over there.

The situation for the Iraqi's is fu*ked up too. We tried to set there government & have a controlled system for them but it will never work till the Pro Saddam people are under control. To much out of control sh*t going on over there. We should just leave & let them handle it themselves now as long as they don't threaten other countries.

[Moody P]

The war is going to continue until Bush is out of office & if we the people don't vote for the right person when elections come back up...the war is going to continue(so people do your homework) & get everybody to vote this time around.

Thank all of you for serving our country,but this wasn't our war to fight.

Haven't heard Bush talk about bin laden in a long time(isn't that strange)?I thought he was the main reason we went over in the 1st place.(I know it was the oil),but you know what i'm saying....

[rashcobar]

Haven't heard Bush talk about bin laden in a long time(isn't that strange)?I thought he was the main reason we went over in the 1st place.(I know it was the oil),but you know what i'm saying....

..actually the reason for going to war in iraq was because it was percieved as a nuclear threat to freedom-loving nations

do you feel safer now?

i would say no..

will i feel safer in 10 years time because of this war?

ask me in 10 years :lol:


one thing's for certain, iraq is a lot worse off since the war

[loudobbs]

I was actualy thinkin bout the whole iraq situation last night while gettin high
i am a strong bush hater but i think he actualy did somethin good with invading Iraq now
I think the u.s could have had information before invading iraq about irans nuclear build up and may hae been worried of sadam starting his own build up to nuclear arms due to the previous wars between the the two countries.
The build up and possible war between the two would have sparked a huge islamic war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims all across the middle east.
So now that i think back on it bush may have actualy prevented somethin realy bad from happening.

PS: fu*k bush

[justindlawson]

i agree with the war in principle. removing saddam and crew...but now. its fu*ked. i dont hate bush. but i understand all sides. its fu*ked thats the only way to put it. i just hope it ends soon.

[Lake]

finally...we will never be able to disrupt the insurgency over there. the insurgents are not only Iraqis but anti-American extremists from other countries in that region. the government we set in place are corrupt and bias to their tribes. sad to say but Saddam was the only thing holding Iraq together.

and removing Saddam was not a benefit to us. the iraq war was nothing but a means for Cheney, Bush, and their cronies to reap the numerous weapons, oil, security, medical, and other contracts. there are private security officers there right now fighting for private owned companies for this country's sake BUT aren't under military law or tax.

i could go all day about the deceit and lies about Iraq but i won't cause ppl need to research sh*t themselves.

[GST]

*grabs key's to the UHaul truck*

*looks at avy*

[Krazi oNe]

one of my close friends is leaving in a month for iraq..hes getting 1300$ a month to cover rent (that he doesnt really pay so its pocket money) plus a minimum of 50,000$ when he gets back..he gets his own rv type of thing and all he has to do over there is fix radios and sh*t and he will work a simple 9-5 type of job over there.. before i found that out i was like WTF but hes excited to go..for the money mostly..

[ThaGh0st415]

send more troops let them send the fu*kin presidents daughters and all the congress peoples that voted for the warkids there

Fixed

he should be proud to be an american military man.


explain your logic

Yes I am proud to serve my country.

nigga please.

i agree with the war in principle. removing saddam and crew...i dont hate bush.

get off the pipe. There is no principle in this war, if we were looking out for other countries interests, we would tried to stop the Great Leap Forward, and currently our asses would be in Africa helping out. Iraq didn't have problems on the scale that many other countries are currently dealing with. Yes there was a dictator and he killed but he only got convicted for murdering 150 people.

"The official toll of excess deaths recorded in China for the years of the GLF is 14 million, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million."

[verb1]

..actually the reason for going to war in iraq was because it was percieved as a nuclear threat to freedom-loving nations

the government never percieved iraq as a threat to anything other than the united states' interests in the middle east. we knew very well they weren't anywhere close to a nuclear aresenal, and even if they were, none had the range to come anywhere close to the u.s. yes, iraq at one time had a stock of chemical weapons ( for which the technology, i should add, came from us), but our own intelligence showed at the time of the war decision that the stocks had been depleted.

no one seems to remember how the government spun the reasoning for war and how it evolved: 911 > bin laden > terrorism > iraq > weapons of mass destruction > saddam > democracy.

for the record bin laden denied 911 involvement, iraq was never a haven for al queda (in fact, saddam was an enemy of bin laden), iraq did not have wmd's, saddam was not involved in terrorism (except to his own people, which isn't an uncommon thing in the world today), and there is no democracy in iraq. so what have we acomplished and why? a lot of death, destruction, and billions of dollars for certain u.s. interests. as to the why, draw your own conclusions.

[GST]

nigga please.






hahahahaaa....hahahaaa

[BHOB]

its cuz the world is gonna end in 2012....and they wanna seem like they gave people enough time with family

[prophetz]

not sure, but iraq sure was better without americans in it. i don't resent americans though because i'm not stupid, i just resent U.S foreign policy

[ThaGh0st415]

its cuz the world is gonna end in 2012....
how so?

[BHOB]

Aliens yo.

[dwil1122]

I personally believe that we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place, but I also believe that cutting the funding for the war will hurt our troops and will not force us to withdraw as some democrats hope with their legislation, I also belive that it doesn't matter who you vote for in 2008 because whoever gets elected is going to keep us over their due to the massive amounts of money we have already coming out of their with all of the oil, medical, military, and construcution contracts given to slelect companies who have their hands deep into our poloticians pockets (both democrat and republican)

[dwil1122]

If you want to get out of Iraq vote Ron Paul in 2008, he will try to get the republican nomination (although he is a libratarian through and through)

[VeezNutz420]

*grabs key's to the UHaul truck*

*looks at avy*


Yo, we do not want to impeach Bush. He will resign (like Nixon), then CHENEY will become president, pardon Bush (like what happened with Nixon). That is something that NO ONE wants. President Cheney........think about it. :smh:

[Jerzyfam]

good let them bring my brother back and if they needs send more troops let them send the fu*kin presidents daughters and all the congress peoples kids there


better than that, have a ppv bout with a fight to the death by the leaders that are beefing...they need to stop with the pawns and go for the gusto

[askifan04]

yea man this is gonnna be some serious sh*t, now that there is a democratic congress there is a good chance that something crazy is gonna happen. Both sides arent gonna budge and something has to. Im a polisci minor and one of my professors whos job is studying the president is saying all sorts of crazy stuff so this is not good.

[highfi]

US War In Iraq:

750,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the war began due to fighting within the country. You really brought democracy. America was fooled and Bush should be hung like Sadam.

This whole mess started decades back, when Britain was unhappy that Iran wanted more profit on its oil operation, so Britain called up its cousin U.S.A to intervene. The U.S made political ties with Sadam Hussien (then young), and funded him in a war against the Shiite state of Iran. The leader of Iran was overthrow, and a new leader put in place, who ran a extremely brutal dictatorship. Several revolutions went by. Iranian citizens didn't forget and had a lot of hatred for both Iraq and U.SA/ Britain.

Now comes the early 90's, Sadam wants to build on his empire, and decides to attack nearby Kuwait. The world really doesn't care, most likely the U.S didn't either until it realised that if Sadam's troops keep heading west they'll be in Saudi Arabia, where U.S/Saudi oil assets are. America must protect these at all costs, so decides to join the war on Kuwait's side and wins.

Now U.S and Sadam are enemies, trade sanctions are placed on Iraq, millions die of hunger.. mainly shiite's and Kurds because Sadam treats his Sunni Arabs better.

Come 2001, Bush most likely stages 9/11 (mounting evidence for the case), and blames it on Osama (Al Quaeda) who the CIA trained for insurgency in Afghanistan against the Russians. Bush gets people riled up, and attacks Iraq illegally (without U.N sanctions).. WMD's not there.. Bush changes excuses.. private companies making millions... millions of Iraqi's dying... Bush realises woops and blames Iran..

Q: When will US leave Iraq?
A: When they enter Iran to fu*k some more sh*t up.

[dwil1122]

you speak the truth highfi

[nation]

the fu*king truth

[Cutty Olds]

I already know that I am getting deployed there in the spring of 2008.

You and me both more than likely...I go on cruise for my 6 month deployment in February

[pnoi89]

not sure, but iraq sure was better without americans in it. i don't resent americans though because i'm not stupid, i just resent U.S foreign policy

i agree..

shiit happens though..

everytime the U.S. gets involved, they are looking to benefit in some way.. Mexican-American War, land (Texas).. Philippine American War, ports for better trade routes.. World War II, benefiting financially to get out of the Great Depression.. and right now??.. it's basically about oil.

[XwakkawakkaX]

US War In Iraq:

750,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the war began due to fighting within the country. You really brought democracy. America was fooled and Bush should be hung like Sadam.

This whole mess started decades back, when Britain was unhappy that Iran wanted more profit on its oil operation, so Britain called up its cousin U.S.A to intervene. The U.S made political ties with Sadam Hussien (then young), and funded him in a war against the Shiite state of Iran. The leader of Iran was overthrow, and a new leader put in place, who ran a extremely brutal dictatorship. Several revolutions went by. Iranian citizens didn't forget and had a lot of hatred for both Iraq and U.SA/ Britain.

Now comes the early 90's, Sadam wants to build on his empire, and decides to attack nearby Kuwait. The world really doesn't care, most likely the U.S didn't either until it realised that if Sadam's troops keep heading west they'll be in Saudi Arabia, where U.S/Saudi oil assets are. America must protect these at all costs, so decides to join the war on Kuwait's side and wins.

Now U.S and Sadam are enemies, trade sanctions are placed on Iraq, millions die of hunger.. mainly shiite's and Kurds because Sadam treats his Sunni Arabs better.

Come 2001, Bush most likely stages 9/11 (mounting evidence for the case), and blames it on Osama (Al Quaeda) who the CIA trained for insurgency in Afghanistan against the Russians. Bush gets people riled up, and attacks Iraq illegally (without U.N sanctions).. WMD's not there.. Bush changes excuses.. private companies making millions... millions of Iraqi's dying... Bush realises woops and blames Iran..

Q: When will US leave Iraq?
A: When they enter Iran to fu*k some more sh*t up.

THE TRUTH!!!

[Architext]

Personally I have mixed feelings on this subject of course, i feel that the war that we have conducted in the middle east was unavoidable. It was going to happen soon or later bush jr just pushed subject and 9/11 was the source of his relentless campain, in which i do support the war against afghanastan because alot of innocent people lost there lives in World Trade Center, but iraq was just bush jr fighting his daddy's war. Bush Sr. tried the same thing in the Gulf War and didnt complete his goal, There using the war as a front for control in the middle east with not only destroying Saddam but having Iraq's Oil. I have family in afghanastan and Iraq as we speak on this subject. I have talked to them about this subject and they feel the same. There glad to fight for there country (like in afghanastan) < because that war is plausable, but When it comes to Iraq, were fighting for world control of resources.....that could have waited. Now that we have intruded the area, we have aggitated IRAN who whe should have targeted to begin with, Iraq wasn't burning american flags in the streets and chanting death to all americans in rallys like IRAN does, Iran is pubically pursuing nuclear intentions and then there is the threat of N. Korea which is a touch subject as well, we may have initiated another world war in the next couple of years......who knows. thats just my personal opinion. My family have been in the military for years, so i respect them and the program. I believe in fighting for our country and having honor, american pride. but when it comes to control over oil, i dont see that a threat to the U.S. at all. Iraq is a lost cause period!

[highfi]

I respect that you have family member in the middle east, and goodluck to them, but seriously what justification would there be at any point in the last few years regarding a war against Iran?

Just because the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear programme (it hasn't accurately been established if this includes a nuclear arsenal) and they have a flakey political leader, does that justify a pre-emptive strike against them.

The problem I have with American foreign policy, is that when the U.S goes to war, they will identify a country that is a threat (but hasn't committed wrongs against them) and attack pre-emptively to neutralise the perceived threat, when that country may never had intentions of attacking anybody.

For example Iraq, Bush claimed WMD's (none there), although his evidence about Sadam gathering nuclear material from Africa, was evidence obtained during the 80's/90's and spoken about in the context of today. It is almost irrefutible now, that you didn't go there for private contracts, and oil.

Even if Iran does obtain or create nuclear weapons, the liklihood that such a weapon could firstly reach the U.S or even subsequently penetrate your missle defense is highly unlikely. As of yet Iran has no nuclear weapons and America has around 3000 active warheads. Iran has never used nuclear weapons, America has dropped two bombs on a Japan who had prior to that action been unsucessfully attempting to negotiate a surrender with you.

I am not attacking America or its people, rather it's justifications for pre-emptive strikes against as of yet *mildly* peaceful countries on an international scale.

[dwil1122]

highfi knows what he's talking about, you always hear our media and our president talking about Iran's nuclear weapon program, but in reality reports have surfaced from the international community stating that Iran is at least 10 years away from a succesful nuclear program and even if they did get the bomb it they don't have the technology to use it against us.

[SUBCON007]

Democrats Unveil Plan To Withdraw Troops From Iraq By 2008

Bush spokeperson says plan is 'nonstarter' for president; U.S. commander says more troops may be needed.


The disconnect between the Democratically led Congress and the White House on the future of American involvement in the war in Iraq hit a crucial point on Thursday. Just as Democratic leaders in the House and Senate began their push for a plan to bring U.S. troops home next year, the newly appointed American commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said more troops might be needed in order to accomplish the job.

Meanwhile, President Bush vowed to veto any attempt to set a timeline for the redeployment of troops.

While Congress cannot legally recall troops from Iraq, it does have the power to defund the war in Iraq, forcing the president's hand, and the fight over a $100 billion funding bill for the war is the latest battleground in the skirmish between Congress and the president over when and how to bring the troops home.

Democrats in both houses of Congress more or less agreed Thursday on a fixed timetable for ending the war, according to The New York Times, with the Senate plan setting a goal for troops to withdraw by March 31, 2008. The House measure called for an exit no later than August 2008, and like the Senate proposal, the measure is attached to an emergency spending bill that will be considered next week in the Appropriations Committee in which the president is asking for nearly $100 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Republicans quickly vowed to block the Democratic push and the White House responded with strong language as well. "It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, and it's safe to say it's a nonstarter for the president," said White House senior adviser Dan Bartlett.

While Democratic leaders in the House were optimistic about passing their legislation, chances in the Senate — where the Democrats hold a slim, two-seat majority — were less likely, given the opposition from Bush and Republicans.

Amid all the wrangling, new American commander Petraeus warned that even with the recent troop "surge" of more than 21,500 ordered by Bush, more soldiers might be needed in order to finish the job and he stressed that the U.S. commitment to Iraq must remain open-ended (see "President Bush Orders 21,500 More Troops To Iraq; Democrats Blast Plan").

The proposal from the House Democrats would require Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting a series of military, political and economic benchmarks, according to the Times. If he fails to do that, the legislation calls for the majority of combat troops to be removed starting in July and ending by December 31. And, given the tense rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran, the legislation would also prohibit any military action against Iran without authorization from Congress.

In an attempt to build bipartisan support for the measure, Democrats also proposed spending an additional $900 million to help troops recover from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress, as well as $1.2 billion more than Bush requested to fight terrorists in Afghanistan. The bill is also loaded with other provisions that would make it hard to vote against, such as money for Gulf Coast recovery efforts, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, agriculture disaster programs and security.



http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1554300/20070309/index.jhtml


When they run out of oil they'll leave :lol:

[DMT]

ill believe it when i see it!!!!!!!!!!
dt

[USarmyboy21]

ill believe it when i see it!!!!!!!!!!
dt
i agree bro when it happens then ill believe it

[fred dibnah]

You'll be lucky it took the brits 30 yrs to leave ireland and that place was alot smaller and you guys can't cope with guerilla warfare like the english either hmmm remember vietnam?

[justindlawson]

this thread is ridiculous.

[justindlawson]

so you say 750,000 casualties of iraqi's


3,439 of american deaths....i guess its safe to say we are winning :)


and that 750,000 number is stretched. im sure thats a "moveon.org" number they prob count every murder...but im sure some of those murders would of never happened if we werent there. thats just ridiculus. crime happens. deal with it.

[justindlawson]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


this says 70,000 max. which i dont agree with. 750,000 seems so high. could be right now i think of it.


just to be clear. i do not support this war anymore. im glad we went in and killed who we did and captured who we did. now i would like us to leave. i believe that saddam needed to be taking out. no get the fu*k outta here....



and just a side note for all you republican haters and bush bashers.....democrats have gone in to battle more than republicans. and oh wait democrats also cut funding for the military more than republicans. so stop making this about a political party. come 2008 we will still be there.....do you really think that a woman or a black muslim will beat a white man? i do not think so. not yet. which is sad. but if the democrats give the world hillary or obama then its a shoo in for republicans

[justindlawson]

here is good site for info


http://www.infoshout.com/