Should Bush obey Iraqi vote on US withdrawal?

Question

More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/

Should Bush give them a lesson in democracy and obey their wishes?

Turn,

This might be a petition instead of an actual resolution in Parliament because Bush picked the PM after he vetoed the Iraqis first choice, so just as here, those who control the procedure can keep motions from reaching the floor.

Answer 1

What Bush should do is resign as president. He has created a situation that should not have been started. If the view of the public was 9/11 to support his actions, remember it was Afghanistan who was the original target. Iraq was targeted to get a hold of their oil reserves.

Actually, I am one of those who believe that our own government masterminded the event in order to declare war. What Bush did not take into account was that the Arab nations and Moslems believe in their own sovereignty and, as history has shown (Crusades) they are willing to die for their beliefs. Bush has done the damage already. Congress also is not blameless. Politics takes precidence over common sense, especially when it has a payoff to the individuals involved. Our polticians do not represent us, they represent the corporations and their vested interests. What we believe means nothing to them.

One more thing; Democracy does not work. When 51% of the people can tell the other 49% what to do it is not my view of the way to live. That is why there is a 2/3 rule in voting by Congress. It would be nice if it was used as originally intended; for the People.

Answer 2

First of all, there are issues with the fact that this website tells about half the truth.

Second, this is from the article you just posted...

"On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear."

Third, Al Rubaie is a Sadrist. Yes, the Sadrists want us out because we are impeding their ability to conduct genocide on the Sunnis. Shiites are all about revenge for 35 years of minority rule and abuse by the Ba'ath Party.

You have only half the story. I recommend you get all the facts.

Answer 3

This is just a straw poll. It is an effort to appeal to our public and show they are taking command of their society. A vote from this government body will have no control over the clerics and the people with power. It is a non issue and we are not able to draw down troops. The crimes against humanity are not over and we have not accomplished our mission. The Bush administration is ill equipped to mediate with religious leaders and to afraid of world opinion to fight the real criminals. The real criminals are clerics. They are like our Mafia was in the prohibition days. The Government is weak because we chose to put our faith in an exiled leader that has no conception of democratic ways. The leader of the central government is the destabilizing force we are unable to control. Diplomacy with neighboring countries has little promise for stabilizing the society, so we have to stay. It was a poor plan from the beginning, and it has to get worse before we can stop the bleeding.

Answer 4

None of it somewhat is unusual or outdoors of latest international treaties. everlasting protection tension bases in a post-conflict u . s . a . that has confronted a regime substitute is time-honored. the USA of a has protection tension bases world huge, how do you think of we've been given them, and are you so ignorant as to no longer see the fee in such bases for the USA of a? Do you no longer see how helpful it somewhat is to have bases interior the middle east? Diplomatic immunity is likewise time-honored in those circumstances. That being pronounced, in case you think of that our protection tension won't courtroom marshall troops who act in an unlawful or unethical way, you're unsuitable. As for the mercenaries, additionally they could face criminal action while warranted. BTW what's your project with mercenaries? of course you do no longer desire American troops in Iraq, you need to be satisfied that a number of those positions are crammed with mercenaries. The Iraqi parliament might nicely be frightened of what they'll. would not substitute that it somewhat is the way this game is performed. would not substitute that this might nicely be a sturdy deal for American hobbies, and Bush grew to become into elected to guard American hobbies specially others. Seeding a democracy is plenty distinctive than coaching democracy. we are seeding democracy interior the middle East via fact we desire that surrounding international places will take be conscious, and evolve their very own governments from sovereign states to those ruled by the folk. it somewhat is complete by occasion, and takes some years. Even interior of a democracy, now and back the government gets the only precise be conscious. charges might nicely be exceeded and overruled. this happens each and all of the time interior the USA of a. Why could you be shocked this tactic is getting used to ramrod a difficulty that advantages individuals, yet does no longer in all possibility harm Iraqis. Bush is appearing interior the final hobbies of the USA of a, if he did in any different case, that is unethical.

Answer 5

In Democracy, the decision of the majority of the People's Representatives is Honoured.

Where a so called President Vetos the decision of the majority of the People's Representatives, it is called
Aristocracy and the Nation is called a Fascist Nation.
Mr. Bush is not only an Aristocrat but also a Fascist.

Answer 6

Only if he wishes to show the world and the Iraqi people that the government in place is credible and we being in Iraq is not an occupation.

Answer 7

We are in a huge mess. We have truly transplanted our own system of democracy. Two parties, one with it's population's interests in mind and the other rooting for it's country's demise. The President may have well listened to the democrats when they voted for the sunnies

Answer 8

I don't think he should just up and have a total troop withdrawal. However, he would be wise to acknowledge the majority votes both in the U.S. and Iraq to get out of Iraq and use that for the benefit of his administration. He and his administration should atleast start looking at moving toward peacetime efforts, up to and including possible troop withdrawals. It would do wonders for his approval ratings at the very least, don't you think?

Answer 9

Bush ignores the American people and Congress. You really expect "the commander guy" to pay any attention to the Iraqis?

Don't tell me you took that "bring democracy to Iraq" propaganda seriously? :)

Answer 10

Bush has no right to intervene a sovereign nation. It would be like the Declaration of Independence from England never happened. It was the people that declared independence; not the government that made that happen. Bush is in direct violation of what the United States stands for.

We, (the US) were never as oppressed as some countries are, but that does not give any nation the right to dictate the sovereignty of any nation. Was Saddam Hussein a bad leader? Well in our view he was, but many of his people did not fee that way, and many of them did. However, it is not the mission of any country to decide for the people of another nation who their leader should be.

We could have overthrown Castro in his pittance of a small nation that he controlled, but we did not do that. It is up to the people under a government (not by the government) to make changes for themselves. If they cannot do that, then the residency's government should prevail.

Our religion is what Bush is leaning toward, yet in Biblical times, it was up to the masses of the people to make changes. No amount of US or allied soldiers can change the religions or sects of the Middle East. They must decide for themselves what kind of concessions they will make. No government can change the religion of a people. According to our laws, religion and state are separated, but our laws do not apply to other nations.

We must withdraw and let the Middle East decide their own fate. It is not the decision of a US president to decide for them.