The Senate has passed legislation ordering troops to begin coming home Oct. 1...

[Arrian]

Hilarity ensues. End Act II.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Maybe I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of American politics....but how would not making another bill expedite the return of the soldiers?

No funds to keep them there. Congress controls the money.

[rah]

Originally posted by Asmodean


Okay....I know that you as a republican would probably be against a withdrawal. Add to that the fact that as things stand now, a withdrawal would probably be the worst thing possible for Iraq.

But you can't argue against the fact that it's the will of a majority of the American people. And that Bush with his continued stance on this is probably worsening the chances of having a republic president after the 2008 elections.

I'm against a scheduled withdrawal. We need to get out, but we have to clean up after ourselves a bit first to be fair to the iraqi people.

And I think what Bush is doing is could actually help a repug in 2008. One, it won't be BUSH. (jeb won't fly at this point) So a repug can modify the stance a little and seem more reasonable. The Dems are starting to sound a bit out on the edge on this. Regardless of how the majority voted, people don't want to see IRAQ descend into a hell of civil war and genocide. Many people still feel responsible so while a majority may want our boys home, there is still considerable debate to how and when. But time will tell. I've been wrong before.

[Berzerker]

haven't we been fair enough to them already? Got rid of their dictator, the ball is in their court. Hanging around just to attract terrorists aint exactly doing them any favors.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Imagine if Bush signed it.

He'd make democrats look like huge idiots.

edit: and also piss off many, many republicans. It's win win win.

[rah]

Originally posted by Berzerker
haven't we been fair enough to them already? Got rid of their dictator, the ball is in their court. Hanging around just to attract terrorists aint exactly doing them any favors.

Do you think it would get better if we pulled out now? Or would there be more open genocide.

[MRT144]

is genocide necessarily a reason to stay or go into a country?

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by rah


(jeb won't fly at this point)

Okay I know I am getting dangerously near the off-topic boundaries for this thread, but does Jeb actually stand a long-term chance? After the hassle that was the 2000 elections, one would think he has made such a mess of things that however much Florida may like him, he wouldn't be able to measure up to the judgement of the rest of the nation??

Asmodean

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MRT144


He'd make democrats look like huge idiots.

edit: and also piss off many, many republicans. It's win win win.

So the appropriate thing is for him to fall on the sword sign it and **** the Dems for years to come.

So that just leaves the question of what happens to the region, the iraqis, and more importantly the oil.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


So the appropriate thing is for him to fall on the sword sign it and **** the Dems for years to come.

So that just leaves the question of what happens to the region, the iraqis, and more importantly the oil.

We drill a pipeline through the core of the earth!

[Berzerker]

Do you think it would get better if we pulled out now? Or would there be more open genocide.

Yes, and dont know, its pretty open already. We invaded to drain the swamp, and everything we've done was designed to attract terrorists to the drain. So I dont see how our presence inhibits violence...

[Lord Avalon]

Did anyone see Colbert suggest using illegal immigrants as soldiers? Solves the recruiting problem, the immigration problem (they can earn citizenship), and we can bring American soldiers home.

[Berzerker]

yes, the path to citizenship leads thru Baghdad

[Arrian]

Worked for the Irish during the Civil War...



-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

The Senate voted for a deadline and not a "goal?" The problem with that is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Congress has no authority to order troops out or pass laws saying they must be out by a date certain. Congress cannot micro-manage.

That's why I liked the idea of stating a policy of having a "goal." Then leave things up to the Excutive Branch to achieve that goal, if they can, in the best way possible. Even this is pushing the envelope...but I think it would be constitutionally viable.