Senior Democrat calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq

[conjur]

A little bit of truth to cut through the White House's catapaulted propaganda (including the vile insults from my own Rep. Geoff Davis - whose office received a phone call from me today):


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/withdrawal_11-17.html

"I hope this is a watershed. I hope a lot of people think about what I've said and we can begin to withdraw our troops immediately from that area and put them on the horizon, or over the horizon, so if they have to they can go back in."

"This is an idea of how we can save lives, of how we can be on the periphery of Iraq and send troops back in, in case there is an increase in terrorism that we need to go back in."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common...y_page/0,5478,17287351%255E663,00.html

"to immediately redeploy US troops consistent with the safety of US forces".

"With a US troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentified to take control,"

Where in Rep. Murtha's statements is he calling on bringing the troops HOME (where they belong, imo)??

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: RealPatriot
Yes, Yes

The same extreme left that lobbied for us to cut and run in Vietnam is now trying it again.....

This time - however - Americans won't stand for it. We're not going to tuck our head between our legs and run and surrender like we did in Nam.

Stay the course.

HIYA PABSTER!!!

Mods - where R U???

Future Shock

Oh come on now, he is doing such a good job of proxy smurfing!

Ars would have him locked out cold. 😛 j/k j/k. Did I mention I prefer Anandtech for its unusually deep analysis of technology and thought provoking forums? 😀

 

[conjur]

BTW, Rep. Murtha has been against the war (or, at the least, against the way it's been handled by the incompetent boobs in the WH and the Pentagon) for over two years:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/11/18/publiceye/entry1058531.shtml

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: irwincur

can you refresh my memory....how many peopel did the US loose in the 2.5years of German and Japanese occupation?

Actually, in the ten years after WWII the US lost more than 10,000 troops in Japan and Germany to insurgents. Not at all uncommon after war. As a matter of fact, there probably has never been a modern war that has not been followed by an insugency movement.

There are always those displaced and for the most part they have no option expect to fight as they have no future in a new society. Do you really think a Bathist has a lot of future in Iraq. They made their decision years ago to follow Saddam, they must live with the consequences of those decisions.

Back then though we did not have the anti-American media that we have today.

do you have anything to back that up?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, Rep. Murtha has been against the war (or, at the least, against the way it's been handled by the incompetent boobs in the WH and the Pentagon) for over two years:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/11/18/publiceye/entry1058531.shtml

Yes, we know, it's been said and presented a few times in this thread already, which is why this thread isn't news. So really this is not anything new or surprising like the OP and the "news" media has tried to suggest it was. He is just the latest water carrier for the hard-left's anti-war movement, meaning, he lined right up when Pelosi said heel.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[Yes, we know, it's been said and presented a few times in this thread already, which is why this thread isn't news. So really this is not anything new or surprising like the OP and the "news" media has tried to suggest it was. He is just the latest water carrier for the hard-left's anti-war movement, meaning, he lined right up when Pelosi said heel.

Got to respect Murtha for sticking up for his position, especially since he's right about the war. 😎

Pulling out immediately would be wrong only because of Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" rule. Regardless of how wrong the Bushwhackos were to start this war, we broke it, and we're responsible for dealing with it. 🙁

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[Yes, we know, it's been said and presented a few times in this thread already, which is why this thread isn't news. So really this is not anything new or surprising like the OP and the "news" media has tried to suggest it was. He is just the latest water carrier for the hard-left's anti-war movement, meaning, he lined right up when Pelosi said heel.

Got to respect Murtha for sticking up for his position, especially since he's right about the war. 😎

Pulling out immediately would be wrong only because of Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" rule. Regardless of how wrong the Bushwhackos were to start this war, we broke it, and we're responsible for dealing with it. 🙁

Well, he did vote for the action against Iraq But yes ever since that first inconsistency, he has been consistently anti-this-Republican-war. Kudos. I guess. :roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[Yes, we know, it's been said and presented a few times in this thread already, which is why this thread isn't news. So really this is not anything new or surprising like the OP and the "news" media has tried to suggest it was. He is just the latest water carrier for the hard-left's anti-war movement, meaning, he lined right up when Pelosi said heel.

Got to respect Murtha for sticking up for his position, especially since he's right about the war. 😎

Pulling out immediately would be wrong only because of Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" rule. Regardless of how wrong the Bushwhackos were to start this war, we broke it, and we're responsible for dealing with it. 🙁

Well, he did vote for the action against Iraq But yes ever since that first inconsistency, he has been consistently anti-this-Republican-war. Kudos. I guess. :roll:

What are you rolling your eyes at, hmmm? Feeling lonely with the rest of your tiny minority that still support this failed administration and the even smaller minority that still think the war is going great?

More from Murtha:

When I went to Iraq two months ago, I talk to the commanders at Adefa, the Marine commander, and I saw some of the explosive devices that were used. Incidents have increased in Iraq from 150 a week in a year to 700 a week in the last week. So we're losing that type of activity. They won the military victory in Iraq. They toppled Saddam Hussein. They defeated the army, but the incidents -- the economic situation has gotten worse.

Now, when I say redeploy our troops, I'm talking about to Kuwait, if they allow us to redeploy there, to Okinawa where we can be over the horizon, go back in, in case there's more terrorist activity.

You have got to remember, Margaret, there was no terrorist activity in Iraq at all before we went in there. There's been an increase. The State Department said there's been an increase in terrorist activity in the last couple of years, before they stopped putting the report out.

But the president said a lot of things, and they turned out not to be true. The president said there are weapons of mass destruction. The president said oil would pay for it. The president cut taxes at a time when we're in a war.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: MrsBugi

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: MrsBugi
So Congressman John Murtha (D,PA) today called for a pullout of all American troops from Iraq in an orderly and safe fashion, which he estimates would take about six months.

He is right.

Each year we spend $100 billion and lose a thousand soldiers, with ten thousand seriously wounded. After ten years of this occupation, we'd have lost 10,000 soldiers, with 100,000 wounded, and have spent $1 trillion. We'd have destroyed our Army and ruined our economy -- and we'd still leave a mess, pulling out our troops in 2014.

Congressman Murtha is no sissy. He joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67; he won the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990 and has served the people of the 12th Congressional District since 1974.
He is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Other politicians, most of whom have never cleaned a rifle, should support him and our troops by bringing them home.

After a great history like that, I wonder what happened to him? He slide down a bannister and catch a nail?

Condor thinks "Gee, this guy is obviously more macho and experienced than I am, and he wants out - I know, he must have become DEFECTIVE to not think like I think...."

I suggest that former answer, that he is more macho and experienced than you, and realizes he doesn't need to prove it by beating his chest and bellowing WAR!WAR!WAR! is probably more correct...

FS

I concur.

Aren't you the rare bird here? Protected by the mods?

 

[realsup]

We should leave. Just like we should leave South Korea. They have there country it is up to them to defend themselves. If they get attacked again like South Vietnam did and do not defend themselves and lose. Well they deserve the new government they get. If they cuase us problems again go in and kill them some more. Rinse repeat.

 

[Bitek]

So the GOP talking point logic is:

If you change your position, you are a flip-flopper. If you are consistant in your principaled and educated stance, you are "old news" to be ignored. ... ... Right. I guess that would mean:

If you are one-track minded 8 bit automaton incapable of independent thought, you are welcome in the GOP collective.

Welcome Neocon 11 of 13.

 

[Bitek]

So what exactly is the "BuSh Vict0rY Pl@n"? Piss away the Treasury until the Iraqi officials one day decide that they want to end the open-ended blank check they are happlily spending and skimming? The local insurgents, deeply saddened by all the troops they've killed or injured, will peacefully accept occupation and lawlessness, throw down their arms and return to their 3rd world living conditions and lack of jobs? Perhaps they will join the Iraqi police. I heard they are always looking for new cannon fodde...er, I mean, recruits...Yup.
Foriegn fighters, burdened by high oil prices, runout of gas money so have to stay home "sit this one out." Or maybe the plan is just to gather them all in one convient location. Keep shooting them and they will eventually have to run out, right? I mean even rabbits can only multiply so fast..

Oh no, don't tell me.... The plan is democracy. Ah yes, of course. That one day of voting every 5 years and the opportunity to pick the scumbags in charge will wash all those problems away. Crowds will cheer, flowers will fly in the streets, children will smile, oil will flow, and all will be well. I got it now, in summary; Open-ended check, keep shooting, and in 10 or 20 years this sh!t's got to blow over. Then they come home for parades, or maybe just a nice cake, depending on what we can afford.

 

[thahenchman]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: MrsBugi

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: MrsBugi
So Congressman John Murtha (D,PA) today called for a pullout of all American troops from Iraq in an orderly and safe fashion, which he estimates would take about six months.

He is right.

Each year we spend $100 billion and lose a thousand soldiers, with ten thousand seriously wounded. After ten years of this occupation, we'd have lost 10,000 soldiers, with 100,000 wounded, and have spent $1 trillion. We'd have destroyed our Army and ruined our economy -- and we'd still leave a mess, pulling out our troops in 2014.

Congressman Murtha is no sissy. He joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67; he won the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990 and has served the people of the 12th Congressional District since 1974.
He is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Other politicians, most of whom have never cleaned a rifle, should support him and our troops by bringing them home.

After a great history like that, I wonder what happened to him? He slide down a bannister and catch a nail?

Condor thinks "Gee, this guy is obviously more macho and experienced than I am, and he wants out - I know, he must have become DEFECTIVE to not think like I think...."

I suggest that former answer, that he is more macho and experienced than you, and realizes he doesn't need to prove it by beating his chest and bellowing WAR!WAR!WAR! is probably more correct...

FS

I concur.

Aren't you the rare bird here? Protected by the mods?

lol way to change the topic and avoid the valid points made... typical desperate ultra-conservative right wing strategy

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: thahenchman

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: MrsBugi

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: MrsBugi
So Congressman John Murtha (D,PA) today called for a pullout of all American troops from Iraq in an orderly and safe fashion, which he estimates would take about six months.

He is right.

Each year we spend $100 billion and lose a thousand soldiers, with ten thousand seriously wounded. After ten years of this occupation, we'd have lost 10,000 soldiers, with 100,000 wounded, and have spent $1 trillion. We'd have destroyed our Army and ruined our economy -- and we'd still leave a mess, pulling out our troops in 2014.

Congressman Murtha is no sissy. He joined the Marines in 1952 and volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67; he won the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990 and has served the people of the 12th Congressional District since 1974.
He is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Other politicians, most of whom have never cleaned a rifle, should support him and our troops by bringing them home.

After a great history like that, I wonder what happened to him? He slide down a bannister and catch a nail?

Condor thinks "Gee, this guy is obviously more macho and experienced than I am, and he wants out - I know, he must have become DEFECTIVE to not think like I think...."

I suggest that former answer, that he is more macho and experienced than you, and realizes he doesn't need to prove it by beating his chest and bellowing WAR!WAR!WAR! is probably more correct...

FS

I concur.

Aren't you the rare bird here? Protected by the mods?

lol way to change the topic and avoid the valid points made... typical desperate ultra-conservative right wing strategy

My point is valid as she just concured with a personal attack on my machismo. When she first posted, one of the mods said that she was just starting and we should treat her nice. In fact the mod stated that anyone who didn't would be suffer consequences. That removes her right to debate honestly and certainly removes her right to criticize my courage. Not that it makes a chit to me, but just wanted to point out the two faced approach that most liberals seem to love.

If anybody is being protected it's you. In order to keep a "fairly" balanced Right/Left ratio we suffer your insults of others. Keep in mind there is only so much we will suffer as witnessed by Pabster and Bbond's vacations.

Mod, You altered my post!

Repost of link and quote:

safety

"This post from a recent female joinee has just been moved from OT to here. I am DEMANDING that your replies be substantive and reasonably polite. Consequences will follow if they are not. Permission to complain in this post about this request is DENIED. If you have such a complaint, pm us with it ONLY.

Anandtech "Miss Manners Moderator

 

[CaptnKirk]

Everyone -

The only way to disengage from Iraq is for Iraq to reconstitute an Army for the countries security and use those personel to replace our troops in their present capacity.
That's not happening. They are trying to put little Iraqi Police groups together here and there, but this is a level that needs to be sustained by a militia.

US dispersed the Iraqi Army - they became a subset of the insurgent underground, and until the US gets serious about letting the
New ! Improved ! Iraqi Government ! (now with 100% more leanings towards Iran) build and control their own army,
we have to stay there and be that army for them. You don't 'remove soldiers', or cut and run, you 're-deploy', moving the assets to
the next staging area for traning and future use.

Asian and European troop concentrations were reduced because of the jepordy that maintaining Iraqi troop levels presented.

If we want out, someone better take a serious look at putting an Iraqi Army in place, until then it ain't gonna happen.

UN & NATO aren't going to come in under the Cowboys watch.

 

[conjur]

I disagree somewhat from that, Captn. The U.S. presence in Iraq is a major source of most of the violence. The attacks by the insurgents are against U.S. positions. The attacks from the terrorists are against those deemed to be collaborating with the U.S.

Remove the U.S. and the targets are removed.

That was the crux of Murtha's (and others') statements over the last 2 years or so.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Sorry Cooter, it's not that simple.

We can't pull out in mass, something has to be there to keep a vaccuum from forming.
A 'police' presence can't do the job, it has to be Iraqi Government Control level, and there's nothing there to perform as that.
Why has our Administration been pushing so hard for a 'Democratic Iraqi Government' but preventing that same government from forming their own army.
Bremmer dispersed the one that could have done the job, they're not being allowed to reform, even under our control.

Something has to be in place - Bush refused to allow th UN to do it's original job, and NATO won't touch this pig.
It doesn't matter if it thakes another day or another hundred years - someday we'll be out of there, we need to get out,
but the mechanisms to make that happen aren't being allowed to work.

A premature pull-out may trigger a civil uprising that won't be confined to Iraq, but could sweep the region involving common historical enemies.
Isreal cannot take on each and every country that surrounds them, and terrotorial boundries will mean nothing to Iran.

 

[conjur]

That's why Murtha's proposal makes a lot of sense. Remove the targets but keep the U.S. troops nearby in case violence does escalate in Iraq. Why should our men and women continue to be clay pigeons?

 

[imported_Condor]

Just in case I get banned for my above illumination of reality, it's been fun and I have gotten pretty bored with saying the same things in response to the same things over and over again anyway. Perhaps I won't get banned, but the warning is there. If I do get banned, I hope they don't ban my IP as I like to monitor Hot Deals and would love to see the post banning comments. I'm sure that many here will be very happy if I am. It's been almost real. I've enjoyed it!

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, Rep. Murtha has been against the war (or, at the least, against the way it's been handled by the incompetent boobs in the WH and the Pentagon) for over two years:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/11/18/publiceye/entry1058531.shtml

Yes, we know, it's been said and presented a few times in this thread already, which is why this thread isn't news. So really this is not anything new or surprising like the OP and the "news" media has tried to suggest it was. He is just the latest water carrier for the hard-left's anti-war movement, meaning, he lined right up when Pelosi said heel.

More evidence the Republicans are out of control, they attack a bonified war hero, a 35 year veteran of the U.S. Marines and defend a guy who avoided a war by joining the Air National Guard and even then went AWOL!
Who is better qualified to make judgements on this war, the guy who rushed us into it on false pretenses and outright lies -on fixed intelligence- or someone who has actually been boots-on-ground in battle as a fricken MARINE?

 

[maluckey]

There are many "bonified" war heroes that are relatively stupid as far as policy and strategy. Personal courage does not equal intellectual capabilities. BTW, Bronze Stars (without the "V" device) are virtually a gimme medal during war time. An Arcom award is automatically upgraded to a Bronze Star in the Army in a war-zone. It is likely the exact same in the Marines. All NCO's in my unit got a Bronze Star in Iraq, and three got purple hearts.

Murtha did not even think of anything or anyone when he pulled his statements out of his butt. An immediate pullout would kill thousands, and the situation for U.S. politics would likely worsen in general. What faith would other nations have if they questioned the intestinal fortitude of the United States to go the distance when the going got tough?

As soon as the Iraqis show ability to stand alone, we should 100 percent pull out, and not before. I don't even believe in leaving U.S. forces on the ground after a pullout.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: irwincur

can you refresh my memory....how many peopel did the US loose in the 2.5years of German and Japanese occupation?

Actually, in the ten years after WWII the US lost more than 10,000 troops in Japan and Germany to insurgents. Not at all uncommon after war. As a matter of fact, there probably has never been a modern war that has not been followed by an insugency movement.

There are always those displaced and for the most part they have no option expect to fight as they have no future in a new society. Do you really think a Bathist has a lot of future in Iraq. They made their decision years ago to follow Saddam, they must live with the consequences of those decisions.

Back then though we did not have the anti-American media that we have today.

If we were dealing with or even two factions of insurgents I might agree with you. If they were all insurgents for that matter. But since we aren't I don't think your analogy fits. Also with modern technology far more make it off the battlefield wounded, but not dead.

It is nothing but mess in Iraq and I doubt we could fix it if we tried. Doing a controlled pullout may be the only option. By controlled I mean we give the Iraqi government a target date (keep it confidential) and push them to be ready to fully take over by then, and we leave.

At least Bush Sr was smart enough not to roll into Bagdad.

 

[Steeplerot]

This "stay the course" for the iraqis is such crap,

First off these bush supporters are the same people who wanted to nuke baghdad and called them desert coons and camel jockeys now suddenly so worried about their welfare, it is shown 80% of the iraqis want us gone, the soldiers are the enemy and catalyst now for these bombing, the iraqis are and have always been ready to take over, the problem is the us troops uniting the iraqis into violence.
Arabs have their own way with dealing with making peace with each other, and the middle east is not a one size fits all for western democracy forced upon them, nor can democracy be forced upon a nation.

Stay the course my ass, more like permanent bases so we can get the oil, the iraqis are a cover for the admins power grab and thats what this has been about the whole time.

A timetable for bush is one in the same with the amount of oil left under that sand, the iraqis are mere pawns as our soldiers are to him.

The writing is on the wall, torture, chemical weapons used on them, leveling their cities, and insitigating violence, reality meet rhetoric, bush could give a ****** less about the troops or the iraqis, just so long as the hardliners keep lying and spinning for him to keep the impeachment at bay he would say anything to cover his ass for this failed war for lies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey

As soon as the Iraqis show ability to stand alone, we should 100 percent pull out, and not before. I don't even believe in leaving U.S. forces on the ground after a pullout.

If we wait for that we'll be there forever!

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
[Yes, we know, it's been said and presented a few times in this thread already, which is why this thread isn't news. So really this is not anything new or surprising like the OP and the "news" media has tried to suggest it was. He is just the latest water carrier for the hard-left's anti-war movement, meaning, he lined right up when Pelosi said heel.

Got to respect Murtha for sticking up for his position, especially since he's right about the war. 😎

Pulling out immediately would be wrong only because of Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" rule. Regardless of how wrong the Bushwhackos were to start this war, we broke it, and we're responsible for dealing with it. 🙁

Well, he did vote for the action against Iraq But yes ever since that first inconsistency, he has been consistently anti-this-Republican-war. Kudos. I guess. :roll:

What are you rolling your eyes at, hmmm? Feeling lonely with the rest of your tiny minority that still support this failed administration and the even smaller minority that still think the war is going great?

More from Murtha:

When I went to Iraq two months ago, I talk to the commanders at Adefa, the Marine commander, and I saw some of the explosive devices that were used. Incidents have increased in Iraq from 150 a week in a year to 700 a week in the last week. So we're losing that type of activity. They won the military victory in Iraq. They toppled Saddam Hussein. They defeated the army, but the incidents -- the economic situation has gotten worse.

Now, when I say redeploy our troops, I'm talking about to Kuwait, if they allow us to redeploy there, to Okinawa where we can be over the horizon, go back in, in case there's more terrorist activity.
You have got to remember, Margaret, there was no terrorist activity in Iraq at all before we went in there. There's been an increase. The State Department said there's been an increase in terrorist activity in the last couple of years, before they stopped putting the report out.

But the president said a lot of things, and they turned out not to be true. The president said there are weapons of mass destruction. The president said oil would pay for it. The president cut taxes at a time when we're in a war.

Since the other thread was locked, here is some more of Murtha:

Murtha is included also because he stated "the United States will immediately redeploy" during his press conference. He also said this: "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces." And the cherry on top is this statement at the end of his press conference: "It is time to bring them home."
I'm not sure what you think the different between "immediate pullout" and "immediate redeploy" is, but there is no practical or logical difference.

So conjur, care to play apologist for those who seek an "immediate" cut and run policy? There are atleast 4.

This was in response to your request to know the names and show proof they wanted immediate pullout from Iraq.