(no subject)
The Senate passed the Iraq withdrawl bill this Thursday. This bill includes military funding, but also specifies that withdrawl of troops will begin next April. The vote was 51-46, which is really awful because in order to overwrite a veto there would have had to have been 67. Which basically means, George Bush (as he already has promised) is going to veto the bill and probably get what he wants; more money and no withdrawl date.
When I hear Senators who are against the withdrawl bill, sometimes they do make sense (when they aren't giving the "my opinion is right, anything you think is idiotic" speech). It gets difficult to know which of them are actually correct, politically. I agree that a very swift removal of American troops would probably be a bad move. This would leave basically no one to defend the civilians from the al-Qaeda. The whole reason their defences are down towards the al-Qaeda is because they're having to defend themselves from the American troops. Instead of training their military, they're shooting their civilians. I don't see how this is helping with anything at all.
It seems it's either letting George Bush do what he wants, which is basically take over Iraq by killing everyone, or removing the troops and having al-Qaeda try taking over, which they would probably succeed at seeing as though the Americans have basically already killed people who could have been trained to be soldiers.
It seems pointless to try to find a middleground because the democrats say this is not something they are willing to negotiate with, and George Bush is totally determined (which is obvious when you look at the past four years) to do what he wants, when he wants.
When I hear Senators who are against the withdrawl bill, sometimes they do make sense (when they aren't giving the "my opinion is right, anything you think is idiotic" speech). It gets difficult to know which of them are actually correct, politically. I agree that a very swift removal of American troops would probably be a bad move. This would leave basically no one to defend the civilians from the al-Qaeda. The whole reason their defences are down towards the al-Qaeda is because they're having to defend themselves from the American troops. Instead of training their military, they're shooting their civilians. I don't see how this is helping with anything at all.
It seems it's either letting George Bush do what he wants, which is basically take over Iraq by killing everyone, or removing the troops and having al-Qaeda try taking over, which they would probably succeed at seeing as though the Americans have basically already killed people who could have been trained to be soldiers.
It seems pointless to try to find a middleground because the democrats say this is not something they are willing to negotiate with, and George Bush is totally determined (which is obvious when you look at the past four years) to do what he wants, when he wants.