Honesty: Predict the reactions of the world, and US pop

[240 is Back]

Okay, let's pretend for a minute that the dems get their way, and they vote for a 4-6 month complete withdrawl from iraq.  bush vetoes, and due to constituency pressure, 2/3 of congress votes on the ovverride and it becomes official: The US will leave Iraq by July 2007.

Well, we all know the socioeconomic reasons for invading afghan and iraq and possible eventual of Iran.  Without our *mgmt* of their oil resources, the US economy will take a monster hit.  Definitely a recession, and possibly a depression.

If Bush got on a mic and basically told the world we were in the war to keep our economy afloat and begged for their support, what would happen?  What would the US population do?  What would other world leaders do?

[a_joker10]

America does not get very much oil from Iraq.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Also as of right now Iraq is importing oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5317972.stm
If the troops leave, it won't affect America's oil supply. China will put in a dictator and get their oil the same way they are from Sudan.

[240 is Back]

no joker - i'm referring to future use.  Oil ain't flowing today.  But it will be in the future.  And toss out all the 911 stuff and WMD stuff - Bush himself admitted we need to control Iraq to control oil prices. 

[Dos Equis]

Okay, let's pretend for a minute that the dems get their way, and they vote for a 4-6 month complete withdrawl from iraq.  bush vetoes, and due to constituency pressure, 2/3 of congress votes on the ovverride and it becomes official: The US will leave Iraq by July 2007.

I don't think Congress can order troop withdrawal?  The prez is commander in chief.  I suspect all Congress can do is pass resolutions, like they've done since the start of the war.  And I highly doubt the Dems will risk a partisan vote on a war resolution.   

[Al-Gebra]

I don't think Congress can order troop withdrawal?  The prez is commander in chief.  I suspect all Congress can do is pass resolutions, like they've done since the start of the war.  And I highly doubt the Dems will risk a partisan vote on a war resolution.   

cong can take away all funding.

[Dos Equis]

cong can take away all funding.

Maybe in theory.  I don't think they would have the votes to (a) pass a bill that takes away defense spending in the middle of a war or (b) override a veto if they were dumb enough to pass such a bill.  I think whatever solution Congress proposes on the war has to be bipartisan, just like the numerous resolutions supporting the war.   

[Al-Gebra]

Maybe in theory.  I don't think they would have the votes to (a) pass a bill that takes away defense spending in the middle of a war or (b) override a veto if they were dumb enough to pass such a bill.  I think whatever solution Congress proposes on the war has to be bipartisan, just like the numerous resolutions supporting the war.   

they don't need to pass a bill to take it away . . . they just won't pass one requisitioning funds to begin with.  nothing to veto then.

doubt they'll do that, but they'll certainly hold it over bush's head.

[Dos Equis]

they don't need to pass a bill to take it away . . . they just won't pass one requisitioning funds to begin with.  nothing to veto then.

doubt they'll do that, but they'll certainly hold it over bush's head.

Defense spending is part of the budget every year.  Not sure that approach is possible?  But even if we assume that it is, Dems would be committing suicide.  The election in 08 is too important for them to try "nuclear" options (like Republicans threatening to eliminate the filibuster).

Also, they have to consult with the military on the most prudent way to get our troops home.   

[Al-Gebra]

Not sure that approach is possible? 

it certainly is. Giving the power to cong (Art 1.Sec was intended to be a check on the president's war power, and even a check on cong's power, as no requisition may be used for more than 2 years.

obviously cong is not off its head like 240, and won't do anything rash. 

[a_joker10]

Vietnam's end was when congress cut off the money.

If Iraq doesn't start going better, and by this I mean handing over areas back to Iraq quicker, then congress will cut off the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#South_Vietnam_Stands_Alone.2C_1974.E2.80.931975

[Al-Gebra]

Vietnam's end was when congress cut off the money.

If Iraq doesn't start going better, and by this I mean handing over areas back to Iraq quicker, then congress will cut off the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#South_Vietnam_Stands_Alone.2C_1974.E2.80.931975

n/a, bro.

[Dos Equis]

Vietnam's end was when congress cut off the money.

If Iraq doesn't start going better, and by this I mean handing over areas back to Iraq quicker, then congress will cut off the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#South_Vietnam_Stands_Alone.2C_1974.E2.80.931975

Congress passed a bill that cut off funding to South Vietnam:  

"In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon.  Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon's vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress."

I don't think they have the votes for something like this before the 08 election.  I'll be surprised if the Dems play this kind of hardball.  

[240 is Back]

Dennis Kucinich proposed Congress cut all war funding to effectively end Bush's war immediately.  

Remember guys, I'm not anti-war.  I would definitely support hitting N Korea tomorrow.  But when the war is for resources and we are lied to, I don't like it.  Hell, if Bush showed us the numbers, I might agree we should storm iraq.  But to use fear tools (911 and WMD) and to curb domestic rights, I'm not cool with that.

So would the US citizens be okay with a war if they knew gas would be $17 a gallon in 3 years and groceries would rise 500%?

Would the rest of the world do a damn thing to stop us?

[student]

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake....  Leaving now would be even worse....  Iraq is now a vacuum for terrorism.   Iran now has more influence in Iraq then the states does, that's scary.  Seeing America as occupiers has now created a new generation of osama bin Ladens.  Sadam was the only thing holding that country together, now it's going to collapse into civil war.

[240 is Back]

Invading Iraq was a huge mistake....  Leaving now would be even worse....  Iraq is now a vacuum for terrorism.   Iran now has more influence in Iraq then the states does, that's scary.  Seeing America as occupiers has now created a new generation of osama bin Ladens.  Sadam was the only thing holding that country together, now it's going to collapse into civil war.

Well, if you are under the belief that the US will eventually manage iraqi oil, then a civil war is EXACTLY what we want. 

The moment they have a strong central govt and a capable police force, we will be shown the door, quite unceremoniously.  But, Maliki is a US puppet troll, the militias have better infrastructure than he does, and their police force have been doing nothing but train for 18 months and still can't guard baghdad street corners.

Tell me that - why is it that in the US, we trian a guy in basic for 6 weeks and he's combat ready.  They've had 12 times that, and they're not even fucking POLICE ready??? Gimme a break.  It's a system designed to stall while the pipeline gets put in.  Dennis Kuscinich said last week that the insurgency is exactly following the pipeline we're putting in, then he suddenly had 'mic problems'. LMAO...

[student]

I feel that there is always going to be a strong American presence in Iraq , regardless of who is in power...   America cannot make the same mistake that they made with Afganistan....   there is going to be a need to re-build infrastructure..  Resentment is going to be a serious problem down the road if things aren't done to give the appearance of good will.   As far as stalling tactics I agree with almost every thing that you state, it's all a big cluster fuck.

[MKD]

I don't think Congress can order troop withdrawal?  The prez is commander in chief.  I suspect all Congress can do is pass resolutions, like they've done since the start of the war.  And I highly doubt the Dems will risk a partisan vote on a war resolution.   

Congress would invoke the War Powers Act.  The precedent was set with the Lebanon fiasco of 1983.  It's not a withdrawl but places a definite time limit on how long the military can stay.

[Livewire]

240, al, joker, and everyone, please stfu.

yes inside job
no wmd
no we're not leaving
yes inciting civil war
yes we're taking their oil

its how it has to be unless you wanna live in squalor starting next week.  the govt makes tough choices so we don't have to. you try sleeping with that blood on your hands.  just be glad they do what they do, be glad you're not in the towers, and get on with it.  people crying about spilled milk here.  it's always happened, it always will.  shut up and grow up already.