Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus

11.18.2005

Sound Off!

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

How do drinktankers vote on the issue.
How do they vote if they care about reelection.

OUT now on both counts for me.

By the way congratulations to the Repbulicans for makeing people stand up for their beliefs.

6 Comments:

At 5:49 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

Vote: Yes on Rep. Murtha's proposal to withdraw ASAP. I don't think that resolution is up for a vote, but I can't really tell from newsreports.

 
At 10:18 AM, Blogger Ivan said...

Voted Down 403-3. Rightly so.

As Mr. Reynolds observes, the vast majority of attacks by insurgents are on Iraqi civilian targets. That will stop when the US troops leave?

Regardless of the wisdom of going to war, it is clearly now a 'nexus of tranny and terror'. It is _the_ battleground of the WoT. Leaving before Iraq is ready politically and militarily would be a huge mistake.

Were I to have voted, it would be to keep troops in till the job is done. But you probably already knew that.

 
At 10:58 AM, Blogger joŇ°ko said...

I think immediate withdrawl sounds like a bad idea. More people would die, and that's bad, mmmkay.

 
At 12:02 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

Josko & Ivan: I'm actually unaware of any evidence that the US troop presence is keeping Iraq either less or more violent. It's probably one or the other; on what basis would you say "less?"

Ivan, the targeted civilians are largely targeted for association with our occupying army, with the specific objective of convincing our army to leave. That leads me to believe that it would in fact stop if we left. A loony dictatorship would then arise, but is that different from the path we're on?

As noted above, the House specifically chose not to vote on a withdrawal plan cafted by someone who wishes to withdraw, but rather on a resolution drafted by people who wish for it to fail... not super meaningful. Since the US is a state actor, the decision to leave will be made way to late. As citizens, we should do our best to urge that it happens sooner.

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

"As citizens, we should do our best to urge that it happens sooner."

So even if now is too early, we should lie in public and say we want it now, just cuz governments are slow?


Idiotic.

"A loony dictatorship would then arise, but is that different from the path we're on?"

Yes. There is a difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. Iraq is on the road to a successful democracy, with excellent results in election after election. The alternatives, with either the baathist or islamist ruling without democracy, is unacceptable and totally different.


"I'm actually unaware of any evidence that the US troop presence is keeping Iraq either less or more violent. It's probably one or the other; on what basis would you say "less?""

It isn't just about Iraq. It's about the modernism vs. militant islam. More people will die in that war if we pull out of Iraq before we are done.

 
At 11:14 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

"It's about the modernism vs. militant islam. More people will die in that war if we pull out of Iraq before we are done."

I disagree - I think because of blunders in Iraq more are dying right now and will in the future. Obviously the daily bloodbaths in Iraq sadden everyone; I happen to think we could lessen them by leaving (incidentally, I think the time was right a while ago and the government is already in the long process of being too late, which I suspect will continue for years).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home