Democrats appear to be making good on their claim in the 2006 Congressional campaigns that, if elected, they would withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq. They are therefore also promoting (and reflecting) the view that the Iraq war is separate from the war on terror.
As of March, 2007, the number of troops in Iraq was still being debated: On March 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act. The act provides supplemental funds for the war, establishes benchmarks for current deployment levels, and requires the redeployment (to surrounding countries) of troops begin by March 1, 2008, and be completed by August.
On March 26, the Senate began debating its own version of the bill, which mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq no later than March 31, 2008.
For a leadup to the current debate between Democrats and Republicans over the number of troops in Iraq, read on …
Fall 2006 Troop Number Debates: According to the Bush Administration, the Iraq War is a crucial front in the war on terror. There are 140,000 troops in Iraq. Should there be any? Republicans say yes; Democrats say no. And both sides grow more vociferous as 2006 Congressional elections draw near.
In his September 11, 2006 address, President Bush argued the United States' post 9/11 position is one of zero tolerance for state sponsors of terrorism. Because Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, the United States was justified in invading.
The need to root out state sponsors of terrorism is the most recent justification for the war, but it has not been the only one. The original premise that justified the war in the minds of many people was that Saddam Hussein may have been connected to the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These have both proven to be false claims.
The demonstrable falseness of these claims have led to the Democrats current position on withdrawal. They argue that that since the war is being fought on false premises, it is imprudent, unpatriotic and not least, dangerous, to permit troops to continue fighting it. In other words, there is no reason for troops to be in Iraq, if they are not fighting a war on terror. And if they are not fighting a war on terror, then what are American interests in the region?
The issue is: should American troops withdraw from Iraq? Here are the Democratic and Republican positions on the matter.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
The "War on Terror" is a
The "War on Terror" is a fraud. The "War on Drugs" was a costly failure and most law inforcement personel say we have to concentrate on the demand to have any sucess and we are waisting time and money going after individual users. It is highly political to say one person is an alcoholic but let's leave him to his own devices, and another person is a criminal and should be jailed, put on probation, have to spend thousands on a lawyer, and have a criminal record. The War on Terror is simular: we are going after individual terrorists not the demand or causes. When the attack on 9-11 happened we did not go after the countries which support terrorism with money, safe-havens and religous fermentation and tell them to control their population or we would not be their friends anymore and trade with them. Instead we attacked a country where Osama Bin Laden was banned
As an old warrior I hate the
As an old warrior I hate the thought of leaving the field of battle with another loss, but there comes a time when we should stop throwing money and our precious American lives away by further butting into a conflict that has been going on longer than we have been a country.
These people are determined to destroy one another and we got sucked into the equation by whatever means.
Lets stop being the third rated country, behind China and India no less, and get back into taking care of our business and quit trying to tell the rest of the world how to keep house when we are doing a lousy job of keeping our own.
Our political leadership regardless of party should put the responsibility of "delivering our mail, defending our shores and otherwise staying the hell out of our lives";as their first order of business- nowhere in this last simplistic equation does it call for butting into where we were not invited and are for darn sure are not wanted.
O.K., so I'm an opinionated so and so, but somebody had better start watching the store or the rats are gonna haul off all the groceries.
The question becomes, do we
The question becomes, do we stick out out for the lives of the Iraqi's that we have so vastly disrupted or do we save our own citizen's lives by bringing the troops home.
I don't believe that our
I don't believe that our troops should be removed right now. That would create political and social unrest that would lead to even greater problems in the long run.
We had no reson to invade
We had no reson to invade Iraq. The invation of Afganistan was justified but the war with Iraq created more problems then it solved. The main "Change" I am hoping for is that our next President will use war as a last resort not the first or second choice. Respect our troops don't waste them when other options are avalable. Yes now that we have made a mess in Iraq we must slowly remove ourselves and continue to try to help thier people(those that have not been killed or relocated).