• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Suprise suprise: House decides to "Stay the course"

Status
Not open for further replies.

ronito

Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060616/pl_nm/iraq_congress_usa_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a vote charged with election-year politics, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed a symbolic resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal.

The House voted 256-153 largely on party lines for the resolution that sparked two days of emotional debate as Republicans sought to depict Democrats as weak on terrorism while Democrats decried President George W. Bush's policies that they said led to chaos in Iraq and detracted from the fight against al Qaeda.

"Will we fight or will we retreat? That's the question that's posed to us," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. "Defeating repressive radical terrorists and their allies is our defining task of the 21st century."

But in impassioned debate, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Democrat, erupted in anger at Republicans who advocated continuing the fight in Iraq.

Murtha, a Vietnam veteran and defense hawk who rocked the Congress last year when he turned against the war, said it was "easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say I'm going to stay the course." He added, "That's why I get so upset when they stand here sanctimoniously and say we're fighting this thing. It's the troops that are doing the fighting."

Bush has seen his popularity plummet this year largely because of the war, and Republicans are hoping to avoid being dragged down by the conflict in November elections that will determine control of both chambers of Congress.

The Senate prepared to debate Iraq next week after Republicans forced a vote on Thursday on Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry's amendment to withdraw U.S. forces by this year's end.

With Democrats blasting Republicans for the maneuver, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to put aside the measure which allows Kerry to bring it up again next week for full debate.

A large group of Senate Democrats also was working on an amendment to the defense policy bill for a troop withdrawal starting this year, but without a deadline for completion.

In the House, many Democrats called the Republican resolution a sham that tried to connect the Iraq war with the September 11 attacks, even though no such links have been established.

The nonbinding resolution that has no force of law declares that the United States will prevail in the war on terrorism and declares that it is not in the national interest to "set an arbitrary date to withdraw or redeploy U.S. forces" from Iraq.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California called it "an affirmation of the president's failed policy in Iraq."

But Republicans portrayed a vote against their resolution as a vote against winning the war on terrorism.

This vote is "sending a message about what they believe America's capable of doing, and about whether the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting," said House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

With mounting public discontent over the war that so far has caused 2,500 U.S. military deaths, some Republicans acknowledged errors were made, but that the United States must stay to stabilize Iraq.

"To be sure mistakes have been made in Iraq, from pre-war intelligence to de-Bathification, to the destructive events of Abu Ghraib, but these mistakes should not stop us from our goal," said Rep. Charles Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican.

"There's no question Iraq is a petri dish for terrorists now," said Republican Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia.

Forty-two Democrats crossed lines to vote for the resolution, while three Republicans voted against it.

One must wonder what that goal is?? No WMDS? Check. Overthrow Saddam. Check. Install a new puppet government? check. What else is there? Poor troops.

StayThe%20xCourse.jpg
 
Words like "course" imply there was a plan to begin with. Also, I thought this thread was about the show before entering it.
 
Iraq is still nowhere near as bad as Vietnam--of course it's terrible that American soldiers have died, but 2,500 is nowhere near 57,000. This war is still winnable, and there have been encouraging signs in the past two weeks. If reliable democracy can be installed, it will pay dividends for decades down the road--both in the region and at home.
 
I guess the President can remain in office after his term has expired if the country is at war. Anyone think Bush might milk some extra time out of this somehow?
 
Why, of course victory means that we have to stay until they stop fighting us.

Only problem is, occupying their country only convinces them that Bin Laden and other extremists are correct about what our intent is. So they will always fight us as long as we are there.

Our political system is too collectively dumb to understand Catch-22.
 
Remember, remember the 7th of Novemeber.

Vote Democrat if you want to stop the current administration from spending more money that we do not have. Also, if the local Democrat supported the resolution, vote them out!!!
 
Uno Ill Nino said:
I guess the President can remain in office after his term has expired if the country is at war. Anyone think Bush might milk some extra time out of this somehow?
Umm, no, the President CANNOT do that. ThatÂ’s never happened before in American history, and as much as I hate this particular President, he wouldnÂ’t try it.
 
beermonkey@tehbias said:
Why, of course victory means that we have to stay until they stop fighting us.

Only problem is, occupying their country only convinces them that Bin Laden and other extremists are correct about what our intent is. So they will always fight us as long as we are there.

Our political system is too collectively dumb to understand Catch-22.

Like when we occupied Germany--all it did was create a thousand new Hitlers... Most people are not idiots, they are intelligent and rational. Seeing a late-term abortion performed on some terrorist scumbag is not going to inspire them to become like them and suffer their same fate. The only people who join the ranks of these terrorists are lunatics, savages, and murderous nutjobs who have no concern about killing innocent people to get their way and to acquire power. Those scumbags need to be rooted out and killed--not given free reign over an infant nation.

If we had followed this insane retreat and defeat idea months ago--when it first became all the rage in the salons of New York, Hollywood, and Georgetown--Zarqawi would still be alive, free to rape, murder, and terrorize.
 
browds11 said:
Like when we occupied Germany--all it did was create a thousand new Hitlers... Most people are not idiots, they are intelligent and rational. Seeing a late-term abortion performed on some terrorist scumbag is not going to inspire them to become like them and suffer their same fate. The only people who join the ranks of these terrorists are lunatics, savages, and murderous nutjobs who have no concern about killing innocent people to get their way and to acquire power. Those scumbags need to be rooted out and killed--not given free reign over an infant nation.

If we had followed this insane retreat and defeat idea months ago--when it first became all the rage in the salons of New York, Hollywood, and Georgetown--Zarqawi would still be alive, free to rape, murder, and terrorize.
Wow, you have absolutely no regard for history at all.
 
browds11 said:
Like when we occupied Germany--all it did was create a thousand new Hitlers... Most people are not idiots, they are intelligent and rational. Seeing a late-term abortion performed on some terrorist scumbag is not going to inspire them to become like them and suffer their same fate. The only people who join the ranks of these terrorists are lunatics, savages, and murderous nutjobs who have no concern about killing innocent people to get their way and to acquire power. Those scumbags need to be rooted out and killed--not given free reign over an infant nation.

If we had followed this insane retreat and defeat idea months ago--when it first became all the rage in the salons of New York, Hollywood, and Georgetown--Zarqawi would still be alive, free to rape, murder, and terrorize.
Two fallacies:

1. We occupied Germany because we were fighting their government army and defeated it. Here we are fighting independent terrorists. Apples. Oranges.

2. You can complain about cut and run, but after helping us win our indepence France didn't stick around and tell us how to run our government.
 
browds11 said:
I think I do.
If you can sit there and say that the way Germans acted in the 1940s and the way Iraqis are acting 60 years later is a good comparison, no, you donÂ’t have any regard for history.
 
ronito said:
Two fallacies:

1. We occupied Germany because we were fighting their government army and defeated it. Here we are fighting independent terrorists. Apples. Oranges.

We are fighting an armed force, it makes no difference what the tactics are. During the South African Wars the Boer forces would blend into the civilian population and would use guerrilla tactics to attack the British. It didn’t change the fact that the British were still fighting an enemy power. And they still fought them—and eventually brought them to their knees.

You say we should retreat because the enemy has withdrawn into the shadows--that’s asinine. The enemy exists, it still must be defeated no matter their tactics. Do you think the Union would have retreated from the Confederacy if Lee’s army had gone underground and waged a guerilla war—as many Southern soldiers had wanted before Lee surrendered?

As long as there are terrorist savages in Iraq we must be in Iraq—sending them to hell.

2. You can complain about cut and run, but after helping us win our indepence France didn't stick around and tell us how to run our government.

Because France was never here. All France did was loan us some money after the war was already won.
 
browds11 said:
We are fighting an armed force, it makes no difference what the tactics are. During the South African Wars the Boer forces would blend into the civilian population and would use guerrilla tactics to attack the British. It didn’t change the fact that the British were still fighting an enemy power. And they still fought them—and eventually brought them to their knees.

You say we should retreat because the enemy has withdrawn into the shadows--that’s asinine. The enemy exists, it still must be defeated no matter their tactics. Do you think the Union would have retreated from the Confederacy if Lee’s army had gone underground and waged a guerilla war—as many Southern soldiers had wanted before Lee surrendered?

As long as there are terrorist savages in Iraq we must be in Iraq—sending them to hell.
I'm saying you can't kill a terrorist insurgency. Russia couldn't do it with Afghanistan and we wont be able to do it here. As long as someone believes that God is on their side and they're willing to die for it and they have the numbers you can't entirely crush them.

browds11 said:
Because France was never here. All France did was loan us some money after the war was already won.
:lol Lafayette begs to differ
 
Matt said:
OK, well, that PROVES you know nothing of history.

How many armies did France send over? How many tens of thousands of soldiers did they send here to fight our war for us?

None? Yeah, that's right--I forgot for a second.

All we got from France was a PR victory and some volunteer advisors. By the time French "support" started coming in the war had already been won by Arnold at Saratoga.
 
:lol Lafayette begs to differ

Washington's Aide-de-camp, a volunteer--yeah, the whole war hinged on him.

Anyway I don't see how you can be so smug about his Frenchyness since he was wanted for treason by the French Revolutionaries.
 
browds11 said:
Washington's Aide-de-camp, a volunteer--yeah, the whole war hinged on him.

Anyway I don't see how you can be so smug about his Frenchyness since he was wanted for treason by the French Revolutionaries.
Oh I'm not being smug. I just don't know how you can say that he wasn't here. Besides, everyone was wanted by the French Revolutionaries probably those 4,000 troops under General Rochambeau that were "never sent" were wanted too.
 
browds11 said:
How many armies did France send over? How many tens of thousands of soldiers did they send here to fight our war for us?

None? Yeah, that's right--I forgot for a second.

All we got from France was a PR victory and some volunteer advisors. By the time French "support" started coming in the war had already been won by Arnold at Saratoga.
Well, just off the top of my head:

1. We would not have won independence from Great Britain without the French Fleet.
2. The arms provided by the French were essential to victory in the war, as was the money.
3. 5,000 Frenchmen and 1,500 Americans tried to capture Savannah in September-October 1779.
4. The siege of Yorktown was fought by 8,800 Americans and 7,800 French regulars.

Those are just a couple of examples. The ugly truth is, without France, the US would have lost the war.
 
ronito said:
Oh I'm not being smug. I just don't know how you can say that he wasn't here. Besides, everyone was wanted by the French Revolutionaries probably those 4,000 troops under General Rochambeau that were "never sent" were wanted too.

Because they weren't. You keep raising these piddlings that meant nothing. Comparing a vacation tour group to the occupation of Iraq is just silly.
 
browds11 said:
Because they weren't. You keep raising these piddlings that meant nothing. Comparing a vacation tour group to the occupation of Iraq is just silly.
Â…We just gave you hard facts and numbers, and youÂ’re saying theyÂ’re not true? The Iraqi link is now beside the point, address the issue at hand.
 
Like I needed anymore evidence of how worthless the government has become. Why can't they do the right thing rather than the political thing?
 
browds11 said:
Because they weren't. You keep raising these piddlings that meant nothing. Comparing a vacation tour group to the occupation of Iraq is just silly.
wait..wait...we've gone from

How many armies did France send over? How many tens of thousands of soldiers did they send here to fight our war for us?

None? Yeah, that's right--I forgot for a second.

to this?

a vacation tour group

I thought we didn't have any troops from France? Now it's a vacation tour group?

And how is it silly? We went under the guise to get rid of Saddam, we did that. Ok we went to make sure Iraq didn't have WMDs. Yeah did that too. If we went to Iraq to help them win their indepence, much like FRANCE and their imaginary troops did with us, we we've done that as well. Our troops have done everything and more than we've asked them too. Everyday we go deeper into debt. Staying the course isn't going to cut it. Unless you have a plan on how to eradicate the terrrrrists other than staying there a real long time.
 
Matt said:
Well, just off the top of my head:

1. We would not have won independence from Great Britain without the French Fleet.

That's based on a "Children's Pictorial History of America" understanding of the Revolutionary War. The French fleet only came into play at Yorktown--after the war was won. If the French fleet wasn't there Cornwallis simply would have fled to New York--a besieged city--then fled to Halifax and that would have been that.

The ugly truth is, without France, the US would have lost the war.

And the real truth is--if your understanding of American history was based off more than smugness and comic book clippings--the war had been won by Arnold at Saratoga. The British war plan of choking off the revolution at the Hudson had completely failed, and the British presence in America had been reduced primarily to a besieged existence in New York City and other minor areas. It was only a matter of time at that point.


BTW Why are we even talking about this? It seems you've lost interest in the topic at hand and seem to be derailing this thread by nitpicking 2 sentences I made in one post.
 
nah, just when someone comes around saying the know a bit about history then says there were no french troops at all in the American revolution, you tend to get called on it.
 
ronito said:
nah, just when someone comes around saying the know a bit about history then says there were no french troops at all in the American revolution, you tend to get called on it.

No, I think it's just a defensive measure, you didn't want to debate the original subject anymore so you decided to veer this thread about Iraq into a debate about France's non-existent support of the Revolution. I suppose you think you're on better intellectual footing here.
 
browds11 said:
No, I think it's just a defensive measure, you didn't want to debate the original subject anymore so you decided to veer this thread about Iraq into a debate about France's non-existent support of the Revolution. I suppose you think you're on better intellectual footing here.

I think you're trying to gradually abandon your false premise of "France was never here, they just loaned us money" via reverse red-herring..
 
browds11 said:
No, I think it's just a defensive measure, you didn't want to debate the original subject anymore so you decided to veer this thread about Iraq into a debate about France's non-existent support of the Revolution. I suppose you think you're on better intellectual footing here.
Did you not read this?

If we went to Iraq to help them win their indepence, much like FRANCE and their imaginary troops did with us, we we've done that as well.
 
browds11 said:
Matt said:
Well, just off the top of my head:



That's based on a "Children's Pictorial History of America" understanding of the Revolutionary War. The French fleet only came into play at Yorktown--after the war was won. If the French fleet wasn't there Cornwallis simply would have fled to New York--a besieged city--then fled to Halifax and that would have been that.



And the real truth is--if your understanding of American history was based off more than smugness and comic book clippings--the war had been won by Arnold at Saratoga. The British war plan of choking off the revolution at the Hudson had completely failed, and the British presence in America had been reduced primarily to a besieged existence in New York City and other minor areas. It was only a matter of time at that point.


BTW Why are we even talking about this? It seems you've lost interest in the topic at hand and seem to be derailing this thread by nitpicking 2 sentences I made in one post.
Considering the fact that you were so blatantly wrong on the whole France thing, AND refuse to admit it, I donÂ’t know why I am continuing this, but, here it goes.

YouÂ’re wrong. The French (and then the Spanish and then the Dutch) declaring war on the British was the factor that eventually ended the war. The British went from having to fight against a rebellion in its 13 colonies, to waging a world war against three very powerful countries. After that, they had to worry about their holdings in Canada, India, Gibraltar, and the West Indies. With the defeat of Cornwallis and Clinton (which was ONLY possible because of the French) in the colonies, the British learned that winning the war would not be easy, if possible, and then decided to make peace, realizing that holding on to all of their other possessions was far more important then keeping 13 spiteful colonies.

BTW, did you know that about 90% of the arms used by the colonists in the Revolutionary War were supplied by France (including the “Charleville,” a revolutionary musket that some claim was the real reason that Americans won the war)? They provided most of the funds to fight the war, too.
 
Ned Flanders said:
I think you're trying to gradually abandon your false premise of "France was never here, they just loaned us money" via reverse red-herring..

My premise was never that, my premise was that we should stay in Iraq to kill terrorists. I must say that if I knew this would become a debate about France's non-involvement in the Revolution I probably would have stayed away. False advertising I say.
 
browds11 said:
My premise was never that, my premise was that we should stay in Iraq to kill terrorists. I must say that if I knew this would become a debate about France's non-involvement in the Revolution I probably would have stayed away. False advertising I say.
That wasn't my point. My point was that we would resent it if France stayed in the US and helped us set up our government and their king had meetings with Washington to discuss how washington should run his country. But alas by this point that is neither here nor there.

purplemonkeydishwasher :(
 
browds11 said:
My premise was never that, my premise was that we should stay in Iraq to kill terrorists. I must say that if I knew this would become a debate about France's non-involvement in the Revolution I probably would have stayed away. False advertising I say.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists.
 
Its easy to accuse democrats of "cutting and running" however this notion is completely false at no point has Murtha, the leading voice in this" suggested cutting and running this phrase like all other assesnine catch phrases and bumper sticker slogans was coined by and repeated in typical "talking points" fashion by all maner of GOP underling and right wing media outlets is a distorted point of view that can be easily implanted in peoples eveyday chattter. Democrats do not want to cut and run they whant a PLAN something Bush and co has not provided. "Stay the course" is NOT a plan however the democrats are to fault for being so easily put in a bad light they need to gader their caucus and come up with a meaningful alternative a "redeploy" plan simply saying we need a plan doesn't help either.
 
maynerd said:
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists.
Correction: HAD nothing to do with terrorists.

As Bush's former security advisor said, if we went to Iraq it would become a terrorist's Disneyland. He was right. It's full of terrorists now of course that's our fault.
 
What is with this bullshit of staying a course? Bush pulled this crap in the last election campaign and well before it, and now the house is doing it too?

I would RATHER have a government realize its mistakes and CHANGE FOR THE BETTER than "stay a course" that is futile, flawed, and a complete failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom