Congress votes for withdrawal date from Iraq

This is the best news I've heard in three years. Seriously. Pity Bush will veto the vote. But it's a statement, that's for sure. And just to forestall - I'm not pleased about this because it seems like a defeat for the US, I'm pleased about it because I truly think this will be the best thing for the people of Iraq.

Ok, swiftboaters! Start your engines!

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208084.htm

Wow. WOW. For the first time in all my years of posting here I am almost lost for words.

So you all truly believe that the best thing that can be done for your troops is to leave them there??? These men and women have endured and are enduring horrors unimaginable to us on an hourly basis, they are dying by the thousands, for being no more than pawns in a Fat Cat's war they should NOT be fighting, and instead of supporting bringing them home to their mothers, wives, husbands, children and brothers, you are angry that they may not be left there to die indefinitely.

As some of you have pointed out, this war is the arm of the government. Men in suits pointing their fingers and sending our troops to die for them and their hip pockets. And yet leaving the troops there in that sinkhole indefinitely is the best way to support them, the best thing for them. I am truly, deeply shocked.

Deaths? Yes, of course there are deaths in war. There are also needless deaths in war. This war has been FULL of needless deaths, from start to finish.

I am curious what people think would be a reasonable amount of time to `finish the job'. First of all, the troops didn't send themselves there. Their government sent them there to fight a sham war. One they should never have been fighting in the first place. What is everyone going to say in 2015 when we are still in a stalemate? `Well, we've started it, so we have to finish it!'. The death toll for our troops now is in the thousands - are we going to wait until its in the tens of thousands before we decide enough is enough?

And as for leaving the country to start a civil war - it's already in a civil war. It has been for a long, long time. It is not for our troops to be fighting their battles. It's most certainly not for our troops to be the personal play soldiers of a President who has a vendetta.

Leaving and withdrawing troops doesn't mean we have to leave Iraq forever. There are other ways to offer aid which don't involve occupation. They don't want us there, most of us don't want us there - how can anyone say the troops really, really want to stay there?

Every, single one of those troops is a hero already, and they should be brought home and treated that way every day for the rest of their lives. We are proud of them, as we should be. They've been through horrors we could never imagine in a thousand years of trying. But we should also be ashamed - downright ashamed - of what they have endured for us, and for their corrupt, selfish, megalomaniac governments (yes, mine included) that put them there in the first place. Enough is enough. Bring them home.

I'm amazed at the constant implication that if you tactically withdraw, then it's cowardice. You say you love and respect your country, your troops, and your administration - but that's only when they want to stand up, fight, bully and occupy. Any other form of diplomacy is cowardice, right?

I don't think it won't be worse if you leave - actually, I wonder how much worse it can get than it is now. Sure, it might be worse - but it's their country and their decision and their right to fight for their freedom. It is NOT for anyone else to decide how their freedom will be won.

International law holds that dictators can and should rightly be brought down and brought to justice, and that it is the prerogative of other nations to accomplish this. This has happened. Saddam is gone. There are no WMDs. There is NO REASON for you to be there anymore. Pay reparations if you must (and you should), but get the hell OUT. Australia, England and the US - we have no business being there any longer.

My cowardice comment was inspired by the term `cut and run' that I hear every time it comes up that troops should withdraw from Iraq.

You say it's over when the Army says it's over. The Army hasn't had a say in anything. Bush decides all. It's HIM who will make this decision, too, since despite what congress has voted for he will undoubtedly veto the decision. Not very democratic at all if you ask me. `You have the right to vote but I'll still end up deciding what happens'. Why vote at all? It's just a semblance of freedom to choose if a singular authority can override whenever he pleases. What a joke. If I thought the army actually had anything to do with any of this I might have a different attitude. But in fact, five high-ranking army officials threatened to quit if Bush sent in more troops. Shows what at least some of the army thinks about this war.

Again, I don't deny that we are in a mess of colossal proportions, but what we're doing isn't working, now, is it? So what's the best suggestion - more of the same? Great idea! NOT.

In the case of Bush, Heidi, it is just one megalomaniac controlling everything. Him and his megalomaniac mates. I'm not accusing every government or every president you've ever had of the same thing.

Fair point. My point was that if ANY generals threaten to break their chain of command and just outright quit, then there is a big problem. A BIG problem. They were the five brave enough to stand up and say it. And when there's smoke, there's fire. That's for sure. I am certain they weren't alone.

Sure that's demoralising. I'm sure it's not as demoralising as watching your friends and fellow soldiers get blown to bits. As demoralising as knowing that any second that could be you. As demoralising as knowing there's a good chance you'll never see your loved ones again. As demoralising as being in fear for your life every, unpredictable second of every, unpredictable day of the unpredictable amount of time you will be there? As demoralising as knowing that you're fighting in a war you are not winning - and you're not winning it Heidi, no matter how unpalatable that is. No matter how much of a bitter pill to swallow it is, it's just the cold hard truth. Harry Reid should have kept his mouth shut but if you think that this is the way the troops get their information you can think again. They KNOW what's happening over there - more than any politician could ever tell them.

And there's those words again. So you think to withdraw and explore alternatives is pure cowardice, is that right? No one is saying it should be occupied indefinitely and I never said anyone did say that. Don't put words in MY mouth. I'm asking what you suggest, seeing as there appears to be no plan at all. No one wants the war to continue, yet no one wants to leave, yet no one wants to estimate a time frame. All I'm hearing is `when it's finished'. Sorry, it's just not gonna have a date where it all suddenly ends and we can pack up and go home. holding hands and patting each other's backs over a job well done. Any ending at all is going to be a messy one. And what's currently happening there IS NOT WORKING. So, please tell me why it should continue?

Well I haven't heard any options put forward other than continue to occupy, continue to occupy. Whatever happens it's a defeat for Bush regardless. The man has already suffered a huge defeat - whether or not he admits it.

So, what will be? I don't see that thousands more of your troops dying and the ones that survive being scarred and ruined for the rest of their lives being a price I'd be willing to continue to pay. Do you?

Yes people die in war - I'm not and have never disputed that. And yes you did achieve one of your original objectives. So, again, you're done. Time to go. Lest even more people - many thousands more - die deaths that are even more needless than the usual war quota. People say they're sick of hearing about it - well, I'm sure they are. But it's far from over, so it's still a very current, relevant issue.

This war will have terrible repercussions that will echo down through the decades if not the centuries of the world's future (provided we survive that long) and only history will tell us anything definitive about its outcome. And let me tell you, that history will not look kindly on us, no indeed.

That is just so ludicrous it doesn't even bear examination.

I think this is a very good idea. The issues facing the troops in Iraq now are almost impossible to overcome. I fully agree that insurgents cannot and will not be negotiated with. We have seen the same thing with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Every time a cease-fire is reached, one insurgent group or another will blow it to smithereens - literally. Allied troops cannot face the kind of fighting that the insurgents employ - it's not how we work and it's not how we want to work. But, like facing the guerillas in Vietnam, their methods are insidious and unpredictable - and therefore all the more effective. They are virtually impossible to stand up against, and we can't infiltrate their ranks. It's a big mess. That's why I feel an occupying army isn't the answer - this is not a military issue anymore. It's an issue of government, and the politicians involved, instead of just pointing fingers and moving troops, should be analysing the situation as it is now (civil war) and reorganising their approach. The bombings, the suicide missions - these are insurgent activites directly designed to ambush, destroy and demoralise US troops. They are also designed to ambush, destroy and demoralise warring insurgent factions. Whether you're there or not they are in civil war now - this is not about your war, this is their war. The innocent Iraqi people are in as much danger whether you are there or not. Your efforts should be concentrated on helping the Iraqi people by helping their government - occupation is not the answer to that.

I have not actually suggested, at any time, offering to `talk' to insurgents or terrorist groups. I do realise that this is almost entirely pointless. But I don't believe that withdrawing the ground force is abandoning the Iraqi people. Again, as has been suggested above, withdrawing the main force of troops and establishing a force of allied troops (not just US) to help consolidate the government etc would be one start.

People keep bringing up Vietnam. By the time you withdrew, you had been there 21 years, and had lost 58,000 troops. It is widely believed to have been a disaster of monumental proportions for the US. What you're all saying is that you want that again? You want to occupy Iraq for a ridiculous amount of time and still achieve virtually nothing? You want to lose tens of thousands of troops? You want to wait until (like Vietnam) disillusionment spreads like a disease through your troops and the dreadful implications of that start to surface? You want another My Lai?

No, that's not what I believe. I said that because it seems as though that's what many of you who are still for occupation believe. That you'll be able to stay there until everyone is happy, you can pat them all on the head and go `we're done'. And that's not going to happen. As for being tired of hearing about your troops dying - that is unkind. I didn't say that or even imply it.

Perhaps he hasn't vetoed as many bills as other Presidents, why would he need to? His party has controlled congress and he's very happily got his own way on what matters to him - this war. He did, however, also defy and deny the explicit instructions and directives of world bodies, in order to pursue this war. So I'm afraid my adjective stands. Why is it that the US is above international law?