Bushs plan tosend more troops to iraq rejected

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by The_0ne, Feb 16, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1252001,00.html

    Thats buggered that then!! :frustrated:
  2. Does Bush have to follow what they say?
  3. NO because Bush has read Article II of the US Constitution and the Democrats have not
  4. UPDATE:

    Good!! :thumright:
  5. All that this vote in essence said was
    1) We support the troops
    2) We don't support the mission

    Not sure how you support the troops and then say but your mission is cr@p.

    The same ass clowns that were screaming that Bush screwed up and didn't send enough troops at the onset are now the same ass clowns voting for this "non-binding resolution" and saying don't send more troops.

    If the democrats and the RINO's had any backbone and really believed that this war is lost/bad idea then they would vote on defunding it. That power they do have.

    This is just political posturing nothing more, a week long debate on a worthless resolution.
  6. Thanks Voyager
  7. There's also the third possibility that they're looking at the next election cycle. From a political standpoint the move is a good one. Republicans come out in support of the continuation of the war then, come 2008 and the war is still going t1ts-up with no end in sight, they can be battered by the issue while the dems can sit back and say "we told you so". The use of parliamentary procedures by Senate Republicans to stave off even a debate on the non-binding resolution will, in all probability, come back to haunt them.

    I agree with you though that, from a policy (rather than political) standpoint it is a dereliction of their responsibilities not to defund the war if they believe it to be lost/counterproductive to American interests and international security.
  8. They are not such arrse clowns as you might think my friend.
    They are in fact playing a clever game.
    They want to be seen as going on the record of being against Bush's plans but they don't want it binding.
    Here's why - if it was binding and troops were stopped from embarkation they would later get the blame for any American failure in Iraq.
    So they will let the troops go ahead and when enevitably it is still all horrible wrong over there they will be able to point at their voting record and say "see we told you not to send the troops but you went ahead anyway."

    The man who said he didn't know what was going on in Iraq because he "lived in a beautiful White house" is losing it and it will only get worse - for him.

    I think its utterly dreadful that American service peoples lives are being manipulated like this. But now the most powerful opposition to Bush is developing inside of the Republican party itself.
  9. Holy F'ing Shyte no wonder it's as cold as a witches t1t in a brass bra in Florida we agree on something.

    The only thing missing in your theory is what if it works and the dems are proven wrong, granted they didn't defund it but they will be on the record as having said "It will never work", that backpeddel is one I would love to see ;-)
  10. Yeah, I wouldn't bet the farm on that happening if I were you. The Administration's fcuked up everything else they've tried in the past 6 years. What's suddenly made them so smart now?
  11. ctauch wrote,
    "The only thing missing in your theory is what if it works and the dems are proven wrong, granted they didn't defund it but they will be on the record as having said "It will never work", that backpeddel is one I would love to see."

    Well not excactly. The chances of anything going RIGHT over there is very slim in deed for one thing. Although of course what RIGHT actually means in the mouth of neo cons is very elastic. (Tony Snow only yesterday blurted out that no mistakes in Iraq had been made!)

    No what the dems could do if things went right is say we could have done the same with less troops how come you lot needed so many.
    If the opposition is smart and think like a hustler they should soon be able to run a few rings around the likes of that fat git Rove and his mates.
  12. Problem is they have been jumping up and down to get the point across we didn't have enough troops.

    You're proving my point this is just politics has nothing to do with success has to do with getting re-elected at the expense of using the armed forces as a poltical pawn. I find this all repugnant.

    If they think all is lost force Bush's hand and defund the war and bring the troops home. Don't pass a worthless resolution and at the same time say you support the troops fighting and dying.
  13. Yes you are of course right. In normal circumstances if you don't approve of the war a lawmaker should morally vote if such arises to defund the war. I'm no great fan of the Dems and I can't stand Hilary Clinton.
    And if the truth is faced the Dems didn't win last Nov. the Repugs. just lost.
    What I think we will be seeing more of is the bloodied confusion of Iraq returning as intellectual confusion spreading through out the American government. And with Bush's ratings down to 28% with a strong possibility of them sinking even lower as this war gets worse things might start cracking up in America.
  14. But, to be fair, they were jumping up and down and quoting Shinseki's figure, so really another 20,000 to their mind would be ineffectual in a strategic sense, especially since the situation has deteriorated considerably since the initial post-invasion phase, when Shinseki's number would have come in handy.

    the big problem is that all manner of political and paramilitary/militia/insurgent forces had time and space to become established. Accordingly, the job is going to be even harder than it was in 2003. To my mind, it's an impossible task and the continued presence of US/coalition forces is just delaying the inevitable.

    But then, as we both have said, it's ultimately a political fight. And ultimately, war is a political act.
  15. Has it really deteriorated? Don't buy it I have heard from a number of serving that it's not as bad as the media is making it out to be. Personally I trust them over the Dan Blather type reporters.

    Are you saying that the Iraqi people have no desire to be free? Are you saying that Iraqis can not form a democracy? It's hard for me to think that Iraqis are any different then me and that the idea to be free is a concept they as fellow humans are unable to grasp.

    No the current "debate" is a political fight, atleast that is my position. War is the ultimate extension of diplomacy, think that was what Bismarck said. Diplomacy failed with respect to Saddam's Iraq and here we are. Saddam's dead and his fellow cohorts are starting to hang as well.

    The political part of this is a bunch of power hungry ass clown putting their finger in the air and thinking if they bash Bush they have cover and will be re-elected. They took the results of 2006 and drew a conclusion, and only time will tell if they are right.

    Don't forget these are the same "people" that elected Bush 2 times. As has been banded about on this site that was a bad idea and american's are stupid, so what makes you think that 2 years later we got a clue? ;-)

    Ain't democracy grand, and we expect Iraqis to get it "better" in just 4 short years?

    Besides this isn't about Iraq anymore this is about preventing the entire middle-east from going up in flames. President Tom is just waiting for the US to fail.