Man, that's a fun headline to type. :D

CHICAGO - Chicago on Wednesday became the nation's largest city to urge the Bush administration to withdraw U.S. troops from
Iraq at once.

The resolution, approved 29-9, seeks an "immediate and orderly" withdrawal. The City Council has 50 aldermen.

Chicago joins other cities — including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Calif., 50 communities in Vermont and the Chicago suburb of Evanston — in calling for the withdrawal of troops.

The vote followed an hour of emotional debate, including an impassioned speech by Alderman Burton Natarus, who fainted afterward.

Rest of the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050915/ap_on_re_us/chicago_iraq_withdrawal_1

Congratulations, Chicago! :)

Bringing the Troops home now would be the worst thing we could do to the Iraqi people now. I hate the fact that Bush attacked Iraq for what I believe are his own reasons, but it's too late to back up and say 'so long and good luck!'

Was he speaking in tongues?

Keeping the troops there is not preventing bombs going off more and more each day. People say that civil war will break out if the American troops leave. That is such bulls*it. The civil war has begun a long time ago.

That country is heading more and more into chaos, with or without the Americans.

And the Global War Against Terrorism has been lost. That's the real reason why GWOT was changed to SAVE. It was not only a marketing ploy. It was because Bush and his gang realised that there was no way they were going to win the war they had started.

But then again, their original aim had nothing to do with GWOT - it had to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was Newspeak for "Salivating at the thought of all the oil-fields in Iraq."

Abou Moussah al-Zarqaoui has just announced that he is declaring a Total War against the shiites.

Pandora's box was opened when Bush's clique put their foot in Iraq. It is too late now. There's nothing they can do to stop the terror.

It is so sad. So very very sad.

I agree it's so very sad. I'm not sure what you mean by GWOT and SAVE, I think this bit of 'marketing' hasn't made it to my ears.

I personally believe that if we pull out now, the newly formed government would be crushed in days and the country would be in more chaos and become a new 'threat' as a hot bed for 'terrorists'. I put those two words in quotes because those are the spin words used to describe people that are trying to defend what they see as their country being invaded.

GWOT = Global War on Terrorism.

This was the title of Bush's campaign to bring peace to the world. (Like a friend of mine says, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity").

The Bush administration recently declared that they were changing GWOT to SAVE, which means "Struggle Against Violent Extremism". It's the name of their new campaign.

Also, SAVE reads better than GWOT. SAVE means something, but GWOT just rhymes with snot.

It's horrible to read the news each day, and see the aftermaths of the bombs. Do Americans get informed by their press regularly of the carnage that goes on daily?

You sure are an impatient bunch. Give war a chance, will ya?

It's easy to say that, skanky, from the safety of one's computer screen. Or from a peaceful Texas ranch.

How many body bags have been brought back to date?

And what about all the Iraq casualties? Or don't they count... 'cos they're sort of, kind of Arab (not really, but hey... they speak a funny language that SOUNDS a bit like Arabic.)

You sure are an impatient bunch. Give war a chance, will ya?

You must be joking.

Actually, I think skanky was quoting P.J. O'Rourkes book, which was called "Give War a Chance".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679742018/002-3416392-3826431?v=glance

It's actually a very funny book. O'Rourke is one of the few Republicans that I actually find amusing.

George Monbiot, who is one of my favourite columnists and news commentators (his web-site is here http://www.monbiot.com/ ), recently wrote in one of his columns:

"Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow of occupation. Whatever the parliamentarians in Iraq do to try to prevent total meltdown, their efforts are compromised by the fact that their power grows from the barrel of someone else's gun. When George Bush picked up the phone last month to urge the negotiators to sign the constitution, he reminded Iraqis that their representatives - though elected - remain the administrators of his protectorate. While US and British troops stay in Iraq, no government there can make an undisputed claim to legitimacy. Nothing can be resolved in the country until the armies of occupation leave."

Bringing the troops home now will only make everything done in the war thus far in vain. Any semblence of order and path towards reconstruction will only give way to chaos and anarchy if the troops left just now. I want the troops back too, but they need to be there long enough that security forces in iraq can be more properly trained, and whatever government that is set up gets some stronger roots before they get yanked out.

I never supported the war initially, but to just up and leave the mess the US has created would be pretty shameful.

It's horrible to read the news each day, and see the aftermaths of the bombs. Do Americans get informed by their press regularly of the carnage that goes on daily?


No, we never hear a thing. We are too distracted driving SUVs, drinking Starbucks coffee, and conversing about the birth of Britney's child. If it weren't for the wonderful, enlightened Europeans, us 'mericans would never know a dang thing about what is happening around the world. :rolleyes:

Congratulations, Chicago! :)


Do you often give congratulations for meaningless gestures? :lol:

Re: immediate departure. I think the council did a poor job in wording this. I listened most of the debate that took place and only one of the council was in favor of a "get out this very instant" kind of action. The others wanted something/planning to start now and progress. The end wording though said the wanted to make the withdrawal "immediate and orderly". :worried:

I completely agree that a rushed pullout would be irresponsible, since we created much of the chaos that exists there. One the basic rules in life...if you make a mess, you clean it up. :)

No, we never hear a thing. We are too distracted driving SUVs, drinking Starbucks coffee, and conversing about the birth of Britney's child.

Everyone knows that your main press censors itself. I do think that a lot of things people have to go and search for and the majority of people do not bother.

SUVs suck. And it's not even sure that that stupid war in Iraq will even give you the oild-fields you need to fill up these gas-guzzling and non-environment-friendly monsters, because the oild-fields may be run soon by radical Islamists which will make Iran look like a boys scout picnic.

Who is Britney?

That's such awesome news! I think I posted a thread when the 50 communities in Vermont voted to bring the military back to the U.S.

Bringing the Troops home now would be the worst thing we could do to the Iraqi people now. I hate the fact that Bush attacked Iraq for what I believe are his own reasons, but it's too late to back up and say 'so long and good luck!'

I agree.

The Iraqis hate the American troops. They remind them of Abu Graihb. And civilians are being blown up every day since the society fell apart.

But I think they're stuck with them.

What a bloody cheek, invading someone's country. Quite out-of-line.

What a bloody cheek, invading someone's country. Quite out-of-line.

Iraq is far better off without Saddam. Unless him keeping his people in line by doing such peaceful things as... Well, I dunno, tossing them in woodchippers, and murdering entire families for the dissent by one lone individual?

Picture a person being thrown into a wood chipper, then remove the person and replace it with an animal. Now you have something you can look at in terms that make more sense to you. Its awful. Saddam had to go.

The US didn't invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein They were quite okay with him for a long time. Murderous dictators is not something the US adminstration is worried about, now, nor in the past. I mean, in the past they have even set up murderous dictatarships and supported them, and it's only recently for instance that they have timidly said anything about Uzbekistan where they boil opponents alive because they realise they don't really need Uzbekistan anymore.

They invaded to find "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which everyone (except them apparently) knew didn't exist.

Ask the Iraqis if they're happy what's going on in their country before making suppositions. They hate the American troops.

If a murderous dictator is an ally of America, they've always been happy to go along with them.

Iraq is far better off without Saddam. Unless him keeping his people in line by doing such peaceful things as... Well, I dunno, tossing them in woodchippers, and murdering entire families for the dissent by one lone individual?

Picture a person being thrown into a wood chipper, then remove the person and replace it with an animal. Now you have something you can look at in terms that make more sense to you. Its awful. Saddam had to go.

There are far worse things happening around the world in other countries presently. Iraq seemed to me a better place before the war than it's state over the past few years since the start of the war. Entire family bloodlines have been killed as a result. Imagine that your entire family is wiped out.

When you talk about some that were killed in woodchippers, we had that happen an hour South of where I lived in Dryden, NY, 15 minutes from Ithaca. Some guy abducted two cheerleaders, raped them, and then fed them in to a wood chipper.

When you look at the things that happened compared to other countries like China, where about fifty years ago there were brutal executions of people they declared 'class enemies', I'm not moved to believe that the US should have moved in to 'liberate' the Iraqi people.

My friends grandfather was an army photographer in China and he captured some photos of the governments people butchering a 'class enemy' live. The people in the crowd were all afraid of being called a class enemies. Alot of the people were innocents that were selected to keep the rest of the public in line. His grandfather was witness to this and my friend has the photos at his house that can't be argued with.

There was also documented instances of the towns people after these killings would gather the meat and liver of the victim to be eaten. There are several books out on this subject.

My point? China fifty years later is not the same country as it was, and it is continually becoming at a slow place a much better country. Iraq was led by a family known for it's cruelty, but in time, this would have changed. These things are all part of the natural growth of a country.

Don't forget, we attack Iraq with the air of moral superiority, but it wasn't long ago that we were involved with slave trade of both Africans and Chinese, that women didn't have full rights, and even today, we still suffer from major rasicm issues that may not be as obvious as physical attack but rather exist mentally in the obvious oppression in the workplace and in neighborhoods.

So sure, you can say I am Pro-Saddam. This doesn't mean that I like the man and want to befriend him. No, instead I see him as a future historical leader of a better nation that someday will look back on him much the same way we might look back at the Kings in Europe.

Exitof99: That was a very brave post to make.