Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Found: Clinton's deadline

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-17-07 07:53 PM
Original message
Found: Clinton's deadline
The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

Snip...

PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.

more...


January 2009
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-17-07 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. "should be able to complete"
Two years?


Set a deadline and get out of Iraq in six months to a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-17-07 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm a little angry at the way we talk about Iraqis.
Edited on Sat Feb-17-07 09:18 PM by higher class
Though I realize that phrasing of all our leaders is directed to Iraqi leaders, the other citizens of Iraq are hearing the threats we make.

We do not honor other people -

so many people are phrasing the words related to getting out -

that says the same thing as -

get your act together or else.

We invade them, we slay them, we allow pillaging, we have plans to take their oil - and then we tell them - get your act together or else. We threaten them to sound tough for political advancement?

"... requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction."

Yes, I want out of this 'thing' that we should never have entered in to as quickly as possible.

But have we lost ALL our diplomatic capabilites?

We just don't honor other people - the way we talk about these people should be looked at.

I don't want one more person to die - but can't we do it some other way - we sound so arrogant, so minus a heart about what we've done.

We need to make it sound like we're working with them - I think a total new team to handle this is the only way.

Sen. Clinton is hardly alone in doing this.

We are the most arrogant of people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. leaving is an odd "threat" when the Iraqis would like nothing better. I don't like being lied to
and patronized by democrats anymore than republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-18-07 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I agree
I have had a serious problem with this hardline approach too.

This has a long history, but we poked a resting mass of wasp nests with a disreagard for the potential fallout.

I have a problem with the idea of caring more about American soldiers than Iraqi soldiers and citizens. All anyone talks about left or right is bringing our soldiers home.

How about we stopping the killing on both sides? How about ending collateral damage? This is part of our "work" in war. These are people whose lives should all have value. But, we talk about leaving all we talk about is some bizarre idea of "winning" and saving our own soldiers. When we are there we are part of the killing. No wonder many of them hate us.

I think that our diplomatic solutions need to leave room for something that resembles an apology.
You are absolutly correct in that the beginning of diplomacy is wrapped in language.

Not only were we wrong, we did "these people" wrong!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC