House Votes 403 to 3 to Reject Iraq Pullout

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Way to go ... the US House of Representatives voted 403 to 3 against pulling our troops from Iraq.

I'm proud to say that all five memebers from Oklahoma voted against the resolution.

Read on ...


Reuters: House Rejects Iraq Pullout by 403 to 3 Vote

Reuters:

Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:16 AM ET
By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a maneuver to strike at Iraq war critics, the Republican-led House of Representatives engineered a vote on Friday on a resolution to pull U.S. troops immediately from Iraq, which was defeated nearly unanimously.

Republicans, who introduced the surprise resolution hours before lawmakers were to start a Thanksgiving holiday recess, said the vote was intended to show support for U.S. forces.

Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as possible.

The action by House Republicans was the latest volley in an offensive launched by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney last week to attack war critics as unpatriotic and hypocritical.

"The best strategy to keep America safe is to continue taking the fight to the terrorists, not to retreat in the face of the despicable attacks of a determined enemy," the White House said in a statement.

Unlike Murtha's proposal calling for troops to be withdrawn "as soon as practicable," which he expected would be about six months, the Republican resolution said deployment of the U.S. forces should be "terminated immediately."

Democrats said no one advocated an immediate pull-out without ensuring the safety of troops, and that it was a meaningless resolution that ducked serious debate on the situation in Iraq. It was defeated 403-3.

"To take this proposal and trash it, trivialize it, is outrageous," said Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Republicans had "stooped to a new low even for them."

Many Democrats have called on Bush to present a plan to end the war and an estimate of when U.S. forces can start to be withdrawn based on conditions on the ground. Only a few have called for a set timetable for withdrawal.

During the emotional, raucous debate, Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt read a letter from an Ohio state representative who she said asked her to send Congress and Murtha "a message that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats erupted, halting floor debate, and Schmidt withdrew the remark.

Lawmakers from both parties then applauded Murtha, a decorated Vietnam war veteran and retired Marine colonel, with several ovations.

Murtha said he had received "an outpouring from this country" since his call to withdraw troops from "people thirsting for an answer to this problem" in Iraq."

Iraqis "must be put on notice the United States will immediately redeploy," he said. "All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from the United States occupation."

Republicans countered with another war hero, Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas who was a war prisoner in Vietnam for seven years.

"When I was a p.o.w. I was scared to death when our Congress talked about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever," Johnson said. Soldiers "need to have full faith that a few naysayers in Washington won't cut and run and leave them high and dry."

Americans have become increasingly disenchanted with the Iraq war, which claimed its 2,000th U.S. military death last month. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have also died.

Bush, in South Korea for a summit of Asian leaders, rejected calls for a timetable to withdraw, and vowed "we will stay in the fight" until victory.

Despite several such speeches, the Republican-led Senate voted on Tuesday to require progress reports on the war from Bush and said Iraqis should start taking the lead in their own security next year to allow a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan charged Murtha with endorsing a "surrender" policy advocated by "extreme" liberals such as filmmaker Michael Moore.

That provoked a swift response from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, last year's defeated Democratic presidential candidate.

"It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a Marine who came home from Vietnam with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts," he said.

Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam period and never saw combat. Cheney received draft deferments that kept him out of the military during Vietnam.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Of course the bushcons et al rejected it. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq for a very long time. So many prisons to build, so many army bases to build, so much oil to control/ influence or steal, more people to kill. So many more victims to torture. Heck their job is far from done. :evil: :twisted:

sarcasm intended.

this is no surprise. Did ya really think YOUR" gov't" ( and that is being kind) would listen to the people??? or be in tune with the changing tides??? Hell no.........."stay the stupid course.." says the stupid man.

ya know .......even explorers in historical days , would change their course as the situation warranted it. Navigation intelligently is also being adaptable, flexible and receptive to new input./ facts. (or the revisitation of old facts) Every course of action demands constant assessment and adjustment.

so "stay the course" is meaningless........particularly when the navigator refuses to DEFINE the course. Nothing but a catch phrase for parroting by the sheeple.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Jewish Group Asks Bush to Start War's End Fri Nov 18, 5:22 PM ET



HOUSTON - About 2,000 representatives of the Union for Reform Judaism asked the Bush administration Friday to provide a clear exit strategy for the war in Iraq and begin to bring some soldiers home in mid-December.

The 1.5-million member organization of the most liberal of the three major branches of Judaism voted almost unanimously for the resolution at its Houston convention, spokeswoman Emily Grotta said.

"The sentiment was clear and overwhelming," Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, union president, said in a statement. "American Jews, and all Americans, are profoundly critical of this war and they want this administration to tell us how and when it will bring our troops home."

The resolution also asks for a bipartisan independent commission to study the lesson's learned from the war, and condemns "in the strongest possible terms" the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Ocean Breeze said:
Of course the bushcons et al rejected it. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq for a very long time.

The House of Representatives is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, Ocean. Votes were cast by both parties. It was an almost unanimous vote to not pull out our troops. We are sure as hell not going to surrender to the terrorists. Hah ... that'll be the day!
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
We are sure as hell not going to surrender to the terrorists. Hah ... that'll be the day!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


too late............ya already have. Problem is that you don't know it.......yet.

so the insurgents have graduated to "terrorists" now?? :roll:
sheesh......... :roll:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
gopher said:
Jewish Group Asks Bush to Start War's End Fri Nov 18, 5:22 PM ET



HOUSTON - About 2,000 representatives of the Union for Reform Judaism asked the Bush administration Friday to provide a clear exit strategy for the war in Iraq and begin to bring some soldiers home in mid-December.

The 1.5-million member organization of the most liberal of the three major branches of Judaism voted almost unanimously for the resolution at its Houston convention, spokeswoman Emily Grotta said.

"The sentiment was clear and overwhelming," Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, union president, said in a statement. "American Jews, and all Americans, are profoundly critical of this war and they want this administration to tell us how and when it will bring our troops home."

The resolution also asks for a bipartisan independent commission to study the lesson's learned from the war, and condemns "in the strongest possible terms" the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody.

NJ........are ya paying attention???
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Who are the terrorists James??

I would say the terrorists are those who invaded a sovereign country and killed a hundred thousand of it's citizens. There would not have been a "war" without the unprovoked invasion. Iraq was decimated by the brutal bombing in the first gulf war and had no military to defend themselves, let alone start a war. Americans must, once again, take the blame for needless bloodshed. I find it strange that Americans call Iraqis fighting invaders "terrorists", and "despicable enemies", when the reverse is true.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Ocean Breeze said:
Of course the bushcons et al rejected it. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq for a very long time. So many prisons to build, so many army bases to build, so much oil to control/ influence or steal, more people to kill. So many more victims to torture. Heck their job is far from done. :evil: :twisted:

sarcasm intended.

this is no surprise. Did ya really think YOUR" gov't" ( and that is being kind) would listen to the people??? or be in tune with the changing tides??? Hell no.........."stay the stupid course.." says the stupid man.

ya know .......even explorers in historical days , would change their course as the situation warranted it. Navigation intelligently is also being adaptable, flexible and receptive to new input./ facts. (or the revisitation of old facts) Every course of action demands constant assessment and adjustment.

so "stay the course" is meaningless........particularly when the navigator refuses to DEFINE the course. Nothing but a catch phrase for parroting by the sheeple.

OC, just because you disagree does not make the process illegitimate. The American House of Representatives are elected every two years, so they are very attuned to the wishes of the people.

Only slightly more than one half of Congress is Republican, so you have Americans of ALL stripes supporting the President's course.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
#juan said:
Who are the terrorists James??

I would say the terrorists are those who invaded a sovereign country and killed a hundred thousand of it's citizens. There would not have been a "war" without the unprovoked invasion. Iraq was decimated by the brutal bombing in the first gulf war and had no military to defend themselves, let alone start a war. Americans must, once again, take the blame for needless bloodshed. I find it strange that Americans call Iraqis fighting invaders "terrorists", and "despicable enemies", when the reverse is true.
\]

UNPROVOKED!!!!

Saddam refused to live up to the agreement that ended the Gulf War.

He tried to assasinate Bush Sr.

His military was firing on UN air patrols .

He played with weapons inspectors.

He did his best to convince the world he had WMD.

Unprovoked?

Hardly.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Colpy said:
Ocean Breeze said:
Of course the bushcons et al rejected it. They have no intentions of leaving Iraq for a very long time. So many prisons to build, so many army bases to build, so much oil to control/ influence or steal, more people to kill. So many more victims to torture. Heck their job is far from done. :evil: :twisted:

sarcasm intended.

this is no surprise. Did ya really think YOUR" gov't" ( and that is being kind) would listen to the people??? or be in tune with the changing tides??? Hell no.........."stay the stupid course.." says the stupid man.

ya know .......even explorers in historical days , would change their course as the situation warranted it. Navigation intelligently is also being adaptable, flexible and receptive to new input./ facts. (or the revisitation of old facts) Every course of action demands constant assessment and adjustment.

so "stay the course" is meaningless........particularly when the navigator refuses to DEFINE the course. Nothing but a catch phrase for parroting by the sheeple.

OC, just because you disagree does not make the process illegitimate. The American House of Representatives are elected every two years, so they are very attuned to the wishes of the people.

Only slightly more than one half of Congress is Republican, so you have Americans of ALL stripes supporting the President's course.

not discussing the process.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Colpy

Yes
, unprovoked!!

Which agreement did Saddam fail to live up to?


"He tried to assasinate Bush Sr."

Fair is fair, both Bushy senior and junior tried to assasinate Saddam


"His military was firing on UN air patrols"

Air patrols? you mean the twelve years of weekly, almost daily bombing sorties between the wars


"He played with weapons inspectors."

After twelve years of continuous bombing, he should welcome everyone with open arms??

"He did his best to convince everyone he had WMD???"

Like most Americans, you don't understand what happened and don't care to learn.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
#juan said:
Who are the terrorists James??

I would say the terrorists are those who invaded a sovereign country and killed a hundred thousand of it's citizens. There would not have been a "war" without the unprovoked invasion. Iraq was decimated by the brutal bombing in the first gulf war and had no military to defend themselves, let alone start a war. Americans must, once again, take the blame for needless bloodshed. I find it strange that Americans call Iraqis fighting invaders "terrorists", and "despicable enemies", when the reverse is true.

Fighting invaders, Juan? Do you not watch the news every day? Do you not hear of the terrorists blowing up mosques (recently), food markets, police stations ...etc). They are attacking their own citizens. And you condon this behavior. These are the worst degenerates of society, deliberately killing innocent women and children. The US troops do not deliberately kill innocent civilians. During any war innocent casualties will always occur as they are part of any war. Non deliberate innocent casualties are not in violation of the Geneva convention.

That's what distinguishes between terrorists and non-terrorists. Non-terrorists do not deliberately kill innocent women and children.

Well, what do you have to say to those arguments?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Nascar_James said:
#juan said:
Who are the terrorists James??

I would say the terrorists are those who invaded a sovereign country and killed a hundred thousand of it's citizens. There would not have been a "war" without the unprovoked invasion. Iraq was decimated by the brutal bombing in the first gulf war and had no military to defend themselves, let alone start a war. Americans must, once again, take the blame for needless bloodshed. I find it strange that Americans call Iraqis fighting invaders "terrorists", and "despicable enemies", when the reverse is true.

Fighting invaders, Juan? Do you not watch the news every day? Do you not hear of the terrorists blowing up mosques (recently), food markets, police stations ...etc). They are attacking their own citizens. And you condon this behavior. These are the worst degenerates of society, deliberately killing innocent women and children. The US troops do not deliberately kill innocent civilians. During any war innocent casualties will always occur as they are part of any war. Non deliberate innocent casualties are not in violation of the Geneva convention.

That's what distinguishes between terrorists and non-terrorists. Non-terrorists do not deliberately kill innocent women and children.

Well, what do you have to say to those arguments?


then DON'T START A FECKING WAR ......and base it on fecking lies!! for the record : your troops ain't the angels you would make them out to be. think Fallujah massacre. That was deliberate and with intent. Think TORTURE........deliberate and with intent.

YOUR DAMNED war is what brought the terrorists to Iraq. What is it NJ........... do you need diagrams??? sheesh........we have gone over this so many times ........and yet all we hear is the same old party line........
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Nascar_James said:
Ocean Breeze said:
then DON'T START A FECKING WAR ......and base it on fecking lies!!

The war was started based on reports from intelligence agencies from all over the world.
:roll: :roll:

and ya believe that, don't cha???? :roll:
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
#juan said:
Who are the terrorists James??

The ones that target their own women and children

#juan said:
I would say the terrorists are those who invaded a sovereign country and killed a hundred thousand of it's citizens.

Inflating the death toll doesn't make your point.

#juan said:
There would not have been a "war" without the unprovoked invasion. Iraq was decimated by the brutal bombing in the first gulf war and had no military to defend themselves, let alone start a war.

Read Amnesty International

#juan said:
Americans must, once again, take the blame for needless bloodshed. I find it strange that Americans call Iraqis fighting invaders "terrorists", and "despicable enemies", when the reverse is true.

Killing your own population and I mean women and children in markets is best to be defined as terrorism.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
I think not said:
#juan said:
Who are the terrorists James??

The ones that target their own women and children

#juan said:
I would say the terrorists are those who invaded a sovereign country and killed a hundred thousand of it's citizens.

Inflating the death toll doesn't make your point.

#juan said:
There would not have been a "war" without the unprovoked invasion. Iraq was decimated by the brutal bombing in the first gulf war and had no military to defend themselves, let alone start a war.

Read Amnesty International

#juan said:
Americans must, once again, take the blame for needless bloodshed. I find it strange that Americans call Iraqis fighting invaders "terrorists", and "despicable enemies", when the reverse is true.

Killing your own population and I mean women and children in markets is best to be defined as terrorism.

war is "terrorism" too....... and far more deadly.*& frightening. Have you ever tried to put yourself in the position of the Iraqis.??? How would you feel seeing your family, your find structures etc destroyed in front o f your eyes?? How would you like to live under the conditions that the Iraqis are living in?? Each day filled with fear and uncertainty. What about the psychological abuse that war creates by virtue of what it is??

Iraq was NOT A THREAT to the US .......no matter how many times the bush cons lie about it. This invasion was for something based on power and greed. How can people be so gullible??


(the definition of terrorism is a tad more complicated than what you provided.)
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Ocean Breeze said:
war is "terrorism" too....... and far more deadly.*& frightening. Have you ever tried to put yourself in the position of the Iraqis.??? How would you feel seeing your family, your find structures etc destroyed in front o f your eyes?? How would you like to live under the conditions that the Iraqis are living in?? Each day filled with fear and uncertainty. What about the psychological abuse that war creates by virtue of what it is??

Iraq was NOT A THREAT to the US .......no matter how many times the bush cons lie about it. This invasion was for something based on power and greed. How can people be so gullible??


(the definition of terrorism is a tad more complicated than what you provided.)

If war is terrorism then Canada is complicit in Afghanistan, and Serbia and Gulf War I and the Korean War etc....

Aside from that, you are partially correct with the rest in my view. Saddam Hussein was not a direct threat to the US, he was a direct threat to Israel and other countries in the region, indirectly he was a threat to the US.

Should have he invaded? I believe no. Other methods of containment should? could? of been used. You didn't bother reading the link I posted from Amnesty International, read it, several times and see what he was upto.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Nascar wrote:
The war was started based on reports from intelligence agencies from all over the world.

Bull! There is nothing intelligent about the bombing and destruction of Iraq.