Edwards promises to win the Iraq war! Do you support that?

[tedzbear]

Didn't you hear Edwards last night? That's what he said.

I find it amusing how most of us are against the occupation yet we are supporting two candidates who want to keep us there and "do it better."

Half way through "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn I am depressed to learn how easy it is for the American oligarchy to achieve their selfish interests to the detriment of the masses. The two party system is their device and it has worked for them since the early nineteenth century.

This is the last election that I will vote Democrat (only because of the Supreme Court appointments coming up in the next four years).

We need a third party like The Populist Party in the nineteenth century. Nader is too old but I think the Green Party could gain momentum. I hope so.

[truthspeaker]

1. No, because it's impossible.

The only way to win the Iraq war is to use neutron bombs to kill 90% of the population.

[zoidberg]

3. I think that's a bit pessimistic

Best I can tell, most Iraqis want 1)security 2)some form of representative government and 3)an end to the occupation.

If we can get others countries involved - especially Arab countries, then winning the war is quite possible. 90% of Iraqis are not the enemy.

[truthspeaker]

8. 90% of Iraqis are OUR enemy because they don't want us there

They don't want troops from Arab countries their either, because historically they have no reason to trust them. They want political and military control of their own country.

[tedzbear]

9. Iraqis won't let other Arab armies occupy their land.

If you want to see bloodshed watch what happens if the Sunni Saudi army shows up at the Shiites' doorsteps.

Or better yet, when the Turkish army shows up at the Kurds' doorsteps.

The Iraqis won't stand for it.

[ugarte]

2. The good news is that the Democratic Party is changing

In 4 years it will have adopted Howard Dean's positions. Little by little we are moving the party and this country to the left.

[truthspeaker]

6. Howard Dean isn't even left.

He said it himself "I opposed this war not because I'm a pacifist, but because the evidence wasn't there."

Opposition to the Iraq war is not a left vs. right issue. It is a smart vs. dumb issue.

[ugarte]

18. Agreed, Dean is not on the left as DUers would define it

It's all relative.

[Solly Mack]

4. Win what exactly?

What are winning in Iraq exactly?

I've never quite figured that one out.

[Worst Username Ever]

5. Depends what we mean by "win."

Killing everyone really isn't winning. Body counts really aren't winning. We should not have been there in the first place, but now that we are there (against most of our will), we can't just get up and go, because then we really WOULD have a security threat. A big ol' country left in a power vaccuum, with the (eventual) ability to sell tons of oil for arms or ANYTHING could pose a big problem. And so WE have a problem: Can't pull out, can't "win" in the traditional sense of war. I support Edward's comments, because through negotiation, repairing out relationship with our allies, and good old fashioned diplomacy, I believe we can safely bring stability to Iraq, a county that we destroyed for no reason. If that is winning, I believe the dems are better equipped.

[spooky3]

49. well said

[MadHound]

7. What arrogance, stupidity and lack of historical knowledge

No war of empire is ever "won". At best, a temporary standoff is achieved for a greater or lesser period of time. Then at some time the occupied nation throws off it's shackles, either peacefully, or as is the case most of the time, violently.

[GreenArrow]

13. you miss the point--it's about "HOPE"

This is the USA, we can do anything! It's time to shuck off all that lil ol negative cynical glass half full of pessimissim and rejoice that we inhabit a shining city on a hill where it's always morning.

[Solly Mack]

14. I'll have what you're smoking, please

:)

[MadHound]

20. You have been taking that 'Pug staffers advice, haven't you friend?

Slipping a little Prozac into your morning coffee.:evilgrin:

[Tweed]

24. Well it was John Edwards who said it

Can you blame him?

[DenverDem]

10. "Win" in Iraq means not getting our asses kicked out of there.

Now that busholinico has driven us into the quagmire we have to win hearts and minds by getting the damn electricity back on, and getting some running water and reopening the hospitals as they are sure going to need them to treat the cancer and birth defects our unconsionable use of depleted uranium will condemn the country too for a couple of thousand years.

This could have been done had helliburton not been stealing the funds hand over fist as fast as they could fly giant planes full of cash out of there to the Cayman Islands. The fact that absolutely no infrastructure repairs has been done is the biggest crime of profiteering in a giant redistribution of wealth con that is the whole post 9/11 action.

We can't just pull out now that we have destroyed the country and leave it to out of control civil war that would surely follow. If we start to show even a little good faith constructive work, then the world community will finally join us in trying to stabalize our mess.

This will not happen without a change of commander and chief, and if busholini is allowed to steal the election the Iraqi quagmire will swallow what is left of America and result in invasion of our country and decades of civil war.

25. Be careful

I don't think this was your intention at all from reading your post carefully, but I'd like to comment on your choice of phrase.
"We have to win hearts and minds by getting the damn electricity on."

Good idea! and yet The phrase hearts and minds is an interesting one to hear given its history.
A quick google search found this reference --
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=21924
to another use of the phraee.

"The title of this documentary was inspired by the mantra recited by those in charge of the Vietnam War: "In order to win the war, we must win the hearts and minds of the people." The failure to achieve this, coupled with the disastrous no-win policies of the higher-ups..."

Like I said, you don't seem to have that mentality.

[DenverDem]

34. We didn't win the hearts and minds in Viet Nam, and we lost.

The concept is still valid if it is actually carried out by improving the situation on the ground for the citizens.

You don't do it by slaughtering civillians, you do it by giving them at least a minimal quality of life.

busholinico claimed that this was their plan, but the billion$ of American middle class funds that have been sent have been siphoned off to carlyle group, bechtel and helliburton coffers by blatant theft and without any substantive reconstruction taking place. When bremmer retreated after "handing over" the "government" to the amerikkan puppets he hauled $3 billion of oil sales money with him. It's amazing in its scope and cynical trasparency.

The only way we can honorably disengage is to begin to actually fix all the shit we broke and stop killing and torturing civillians indiscriminantly. That's what is meant by winning hearts and minds, not some wrong wing propaganda spin.

57. That's what I was saying actually

Just be careful of how that phrase has been spun is what I was saying.

[DenverDem]

62. I'm into respinning the language to our benefit.

We need to take back the buzz words and redefine them in the positive and hopefull context they SHOULD be defined by, not by the Orwellian newspeak of the wrong wing.

[tedzbear]

30. Remember Viet-nam, my friend.

"We can't just pull out now that we have destroyed the country and leave it to out of control civil war that would surely follow."

Ha! This is the sentiment that our ExxonMobil led oligarchy wants us to believe. The fact is, what is meant by "civil war" is "the development of a Shiite controlled nation allied with Iran." ExxonMobil doesn't want to see that happen because then they won't have free reign to suck all the oil profits they can out of the ground there.
Whether Bush or Kerry wins, we will stay the course in Iraq until we have installed a pro-USA regime that will permit our army bases and our privatization of Iraq's oil infrastructure.

Follow the money trail and it will always lead you to the true objectives of USA foreign policy.

:kick:

[DenverDem]

37. Probably, because the petro/millitary/information complex is too strong

for The People to defeat now.

But by at least showing some good faith effort to fix some of the civillian infrastructure we destroyed we can begin disengaging from active combat and not be reduced to fleeing via helicopters from the roof.

[G_j]

39. Viet-who ??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. How about some wishful thinking.

Imperialists don't build countries. Soldiers build nothing. The Iraqi people don't want us there and will throw us out.

[DenverDem]

38. That's why the only way out is to turn away from cynical imperialism

and start filling the mythical role that America stands for (as opposed to the reality of the last 80-90 years.)

[Right Makes Might]

11. No. Why would I support murder.

And injustice. Does the fact that it's a democrat make a wrongful invasion for world domination (by getting control of oil) right?

Let's not lose sight of that fact, folks.

[GainesT1958]

12. If losing more of our troops, more innocent Iraqi civilians, and...

Any semblance of a single Iraqi state to a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis, a Shi'ite Arab/Iranian alliance, and the Kurds is the alternative...well, yes, I support that.

What I OPPOSE so vehemently is the way it has been so spectacularly MIShandled up to now by the current Neo-Con/PNAC-Oil obsessed Bushies!:mad:

What we CAN'T do is to go on like this..going it virtually alone, save for the U.K. and a smattering of troops from a handful of the Coalition of the Bought. Otherwise, we WILL, indeed, "lose" Iraq.

B-)

[napi21]

15. It depends on how you interpret WIN!

Yea, yea, I know, sounds like Clinton. If winning means Iraq will be a democratic state....it's iffy. If it means Iraqi's will be able to run their country as THEY choose, and not turn into a terrorist haven...absolutely it can be done.

[Melodybe]

23. If you mean win in the sense that we could help Iraq become a democracy

then I think yes.

People everywhere are tried of bloodshed. If you think that Kerry is going to be the same as Bush you are lying to yourself.

There is no way that Teresa could say the things she did on Tuesday and be married to a man like John Kerry if he was just going to reap the profits of Iraqi oil.

If anything you can say that John Kerry always has voted for the environment, ALWAYS. I think a man that has voted with his heart concerning the environment means it when he says we will start looking into alternative energy.

I think that our soldiers will take the rool of peacekeepers not warriors under a Kerry administration. With good men like Clark helping to figure out a real solution to the problems in Iraq I think that we can do it.

I have to believe that all is not lost in Iraq, the people there do not think all is lost, they do want a peaceful and happy nation. I think that with John Kerry that is a lot more likely to happen.

[Jacobin]

16. Edwards just punched another fist in the tar-baby

It doesn't matter who the president is. NATO won't jump into that pit of death, if Arabs send in troops, it will make it worse, and more troops from the U.S. will simply mean more resistance, more targets to shoot at and more resentment from Iraqis.

A true Quagmire with a capital "Q". Smirk has fucked up this region with his idiotic adventure for decades and there is NO easy way out.

[truthspeaker]

17. Who was it who said "How to you ask a man to die for a mistake?"

I guess Kerry will find out in January.

[supernova]

19. I support leaving gracefully

with some government structure intact (that the Iraqis can immediately change).

[Nadienne]

21. If, by "win the Iraq war" he means

help the Iraqis dismantle the phoney puppet government the Bush administration set up, and help the Iraqis set up their own government, and allow them to govern themselves...

Then I could support his desire to "win" the "war".

[redqueen]

22. I'm not answering this.

I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards. That's all I have to say.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

32. I'll take a stand AFTER the thief in chief is gone, thankyouverymuch

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. You mischaracterized Edwards' remarks - he never said what you claim.

Your assertion "Edwards promises to win the Iraq war!"

was false, dishonest, and misleading. Which is no surprise, really, because the only way anyone can make the argument that electing Kerry means no change in Iraq policy is by dishonesty obscuring the truth.


What Edwards really said:

John understands personally about fighting in a war. And he knows what our brave men and women are going through in another war—the war in Iraq.

The human cost and extraordinary heroism of this war, it surrounds us. It surrounds us in our cities and towns. And we will win this war because of the strength and courage of our own people.

Some of our friends and neighbors saw their last images in Baghdad. Some took their last steps outside of Fallujah. And some buttoned their uniform for the final time before they went out to save their unit.

Men and women who used to take care of themselves, they now count on others to see them through the day. They need their mother to tie their shoe. Their husband to brush their hair. And their wife’s arm to help them across the room.

The stars and stripes wave for them. The word hero was made for them. They are the best and the bravest. They will never be left behind. You understand that. And they deserve a president who understands that on the most personal level what they have gone through—what they have given and what they have given up for their country.

To us, the real test of patriotism is how we treat the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to defend our values. And let me tell you, the 26 million veterans in this country won’t have to wonder if they’ll have health care next week or next year—they will have it always because they took care of us and we will take care of them.

But today, our great United States military is stretched thin. More than 140,000 are in Iraq. Nearly 20,000 are serving in Afghanistan. And I visited the men and women there and we’re praying for them as they keep working to give that country hope.

Like all of those brave men and women, John put his life on the line for our country. He knows that when authority is given to the president, much is expected in return. That’s why we will strengthen and modernize our military.

We will double our Special Forces, and invest in the new equipment and technologies so that our military remains the best equipped and best trained in the world. This will make our military stronger so we’re able to defeat every enemy in this new world.

But we can’t do this alone. We have to restore our respect in the world to bring our allies to us and with us. It’s how we won the World Wars and the Cold War and it is how we will build a stable Iraq.

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq’s neighbors like Syria and Iran, don’t stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq’s economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people and our soldiers. And we will get this done right.

A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it—a stable Iraq and a real chance for peace and freedom in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel. And John and I will bring the world together to face our most dangerous threat: the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon.

With our credibility restored, we can work with other nations to secure stockpiles of the worlds most dangerous weapons and safeguard this dangerous material. We can finish the job and secure all loose nukes in Russia. And we can close the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows rogue nations access to the tools they need to develop these weapons.
http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=130840&ct=158740

[tedzbear]

40. You are trying to HIDE IT inside a bunch of rhetoric but there it is:

"The human cost and extraordinary heroism of this war, it surrounds us. It surrounds us in our cities and towns. And we will WIN THIS WAR because of the strength and courage of our own people."

Now who is trying to obscure the truth? You are, my friend.


Also this quote is telling:

"We can ensure that Iraq’s neighbors like Syria and Iran, don’t stand in the way of a democratic Iraq."

What he really means is we will make sure we install a pro-ExxonMobil Iraqi regime that will permit USA army bases and our privatization of Iraq's oil profits. The last thing our ExxonMobil oligarchy wants is an Iraq allied with Iran and Syria that will put the brakes on our control of the oil.

:kick:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. In other words, when the full context is provided, your argument fails.

He didn't use the words you ascribed to him, and your characterization of the words he did use is false.


I think the most revealing thing here is your use of the phrase:

What he really means


Guess what? Your belief that you are more qualified to communicate what John Edwards means than John Edwards is ridiculous on its face.


Your comments are without value because they are false and display obvious bias.

[tedzbear]

51. Hey, he said it, baby.

WE WILL WIN THIS WAR

Did he or didn't he use those words? It's there for all to see.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Which again illustrates that your point is dishonest.

The only way to can make your point is by cherry-picking 5 words out of a 3500 word address.


What I find amusing about your failed argument is that you've simply chosen the wrong venue. Most DUers read speechs for themselves, think for themselves, and are way too sophisticated to get all excited about what someone else tells them something means, lol.

28. You're right

I'm assuming you've read Thomas Frank's new book.
If you haven't do so!

[Walt Starr]

29. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it

:shrug:

[rucky]

31. No. eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The "war" is lost. Nobody wants to admit it. So they kill more.

That's if you can call the invasion and subjugation of a third world state with a wrecked army a "war".

We aren't going to get out. The Iraqis are going to throw us out. Edwards would do well to read a little history with a focus on Imperialism and it's costs, rather than try to sound like Rambo.

[GreenArrow]

42. Edwards is well aware of Imperialism, its costs and consequences

which is why he voted for IWR in the first place, why he continues to support it, why he has been thoroughly unrepentant about his support for it before and after. And no, we could not have let those on the Security Council hold us hostage.

But hey! Look on the bright side; Edwards brings new HOPE!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Yeah, I noticed that too. Hope. Good old Pie in the Sky.

We'll all be eatin' strawberries and sippin' champagne, and have a chicken in every golden pot. There's going to be peace in the Middle East because he and Kerry will mean well when they send in more troops and kill more people.

Hallelujah!! Make mine Banana Cream.

[doctorbombeigh]

36. Edwards promises not to bail on the Iraq we destroyed. He's right.

This is the second time it's come up this morning. It is, of course, an essential question in this election.

Democrats, contrary to Republican nonsense, are not silly people. We are quite aware that regardless of our opposition to this war, we are citizens of the country who started it. We've been aggressively destroying Iraq for more than a decade and it's always been wrong. That doesn't mean we have LESS responsibility there, it means that we have MORE responsibility there. Personally having been against this war before it started does NOT absolve us of our responsibilities as Americans.

What we need right now is a serious person to clean up the Mess-O'Potamia brought to us by the Bush family.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. And, the way to do that is to get out and give it to the Iraqis.

If we want to support a UN effort to help, I'm all for it. I emphasize support a UN effort, not lead, not offer troops or "military adivisors", or any of the other metaphors for imperialism.

What we need to do now is get the hell out and let the Iraqis decide what is to become of their country.

[gcomeau]

43. If it can happen... yes, because the alternative sucks.

The question of what exactly would constitute "winning" at this point however isn't exactly simple.

Would it have been better if the war hadn't been started in the first place and Bush hadn't stuck us in this impossible situation? Undoubtedly. But it happened and now we have to deal with the big stinking mess that's been created.

So here's the facts as they exist today. It's what we have to work with.

1. The country has a U.S. appointed governemnt that most of the population implicitly distrusts.

2. The VAST majority of the country view the coalition troops as a hostile occupying force. (duh, what else do you expect them to call the army that killed 20 thousand or so of their citizens and counting?)

3. There are still daily attacks on coalition forces, and increasing attacks on government forces (who'd of thunk it, eh?)

4. The two most popular and respected people in the entire country are a couple of Shiite clerics, Al-Sistani and Al-Sadr. Sistani is just playing ball because he wants to move things along to the point where the U.S. pulls out and gets the hell out of his way. Sadr doesn't possess the same patience.

5. Come elections, those two people are going to hold the lion's share of the influence over who gets elected and I somehow don't see them backing the "happily pro-U.S." candidates.

So how do we "win" from this starting point? Hope somebody has an answer to that, but that somebody isn't me. Best case result I'm hoping for is that the coalition manages to extract itself without the country imploding completely. Of course, then we're going to have a Shiite run Iraq sitting next door to a shiite run Iran. Who knows what's going to happen there.

All in all this is a damn scary situation.

Gee, thanks Bush!

-Grant

[tedzbear]

47. We can never undo Abu Ghraib.

We blew it and there's no going back.

[newyawker99]

64. Hi gcomeau!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bobbyboucher]

44. Don't be ridiculous.

Please.

[never_get_over_it]

45. Its not amusing - its sad

For those of us who do not agree with John Edwards about winning the war - that instead of winning the war which we will NEVER do - we need to get the hell out of there - BUT we support these two because there is no viable third party under our present system and we will not survive 4 more years of the freak-in-chief

I'm hoping Kerry will be very much like Bush in this way - that he runs in the center and moves to the left once in office. Just like Bush supposedly ran in the center and then took a BIG RIGHT TURN

[ScreamingMeemie]

48. Well said. This is what I'm putting my pennies on as well...

If not that, then I will support the formation of a viable hawkless third party. :hi:

[Snivi Yllom]

50. I knew it

I knew we would get f*cked over supporting the same as usual BS. More of the same.

[Bush was AWOL]

54. Edwards promises to clean up the mess and not leave

the place in chaos. I support that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. That's what Nixon promised.

[Bush was AWOL]

56. What do you want him to say? We will pull all the troops

out and leave the place in chaos? We are there now and the job must be finished.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. That's exactly what I want him to say.

It's now or later. It's our military causing the chaos. What "job" are they supposed to finsh? How many more dead are required before it's done?

The "war" in Iraq is over. The occupations remains until the Iraqis throw us out with our puppets (those that survive and are allowed to become millionaire exiles).

[Bush was AWOL]

59. The country is far from stable and I'm afraid if we pull

the troops out there will be civil war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Uh-huh. And, there was supposed to be a bloodbath in Vietnam.

And, even if there is to be a civil war, it will be an Iraqi civil war. After the Brits "cut and run" from this country there followed no small amount of chaos. Bacon's Rebellion. Shay's Rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion. The Indian wars when competing Americans fought over territory. Followed by a real bloodbath the Civil War.

There's a helluva lot of bloodshed and chaos going on there now. Kerry's "plan" is to send in more troops - which is what is causing the bloodshed. Catch-22.

[Bush was AWOL]

63. Why do most of the generals support Kerry's plan then?

I'm talking about the Generals who strongly disagree with the way Bush has handled the war this far.

[DemCam]

60. Hate it...but needed to be said.

I recoiled at the line where he told Al-Qaeda that they could not hide...way too Bushish for my taste. However...in order to win this election...and we can win it handily, Kerry/Edwards must make the case that they can keep us "safe", that it is safe to abandon a war-time president.

(I, for one, do not believe that one of our inalienable rights is "to be safe", but it is of crucial importance to many voters in this country...and I ran into it over and over canvassing as an ACT volunteer.)

So....I sucked it up and accept that this is the major task that our Democratic campaign must accomplish....in order to win this election.