Is there such a thing as a 'difference of opinion' on the Iraq 'war'?

[Q]

Untold numbers of Democrats still support the Iraq invasion and occupation despite overwhelming evidence that it's an unprovoked, unnecessary, illegal, aggressive war based on fabricated 'evidence' and outright lies.

The Democratic candidate for president, the DNC and the DLC did nothing to bring this truth to the American people. The anti-war point of view was/is kept from the public forum by Republicans and Democrats alike.

But with all we now know about the lies and plans to attack Iraq before 9-11...can support for the war be called a simple 'difference of opinion'? Isn't it more appropriate and truthful to call support for the war a lie and deception in and of itself?

There is no simple difference of opinion on Iraq. One side is right and one side is wrong. Democrats who still support it any form should know by now that they were wrong, admit they made a mistake and call for the immediate withdrawal of American troops. Anything less is knowingly supporting a lie and participating in deceiving the American people.

[knowbody0]

1. no doubt

illegal war. illegal invasion. illegal occupation. a rather impotent body of checks and balances.

abu ghraib?

oh well.

[Q]

4. Is it nationalism that's driving Democrats to support this war?

Or is it that they don't want to risk being called 'unpatriotic' by the Corporate Media?

How long can we keep this lie alive without causing resentment among those who have known all along that Bush* intended to attack Iraq no matter what the evidence showed?

How can the Dem leadership sleep at night knowing that Bush* is blaming the intelligence community for HIS lies and HIS war?

(And why is nothing being done about the Saudi financing of terrorism and the Bush*/Saudi royal family/bin Laden family connection?)

[w4rma]

9. I think it's fear that big media will go OJ on their coverage of them and

that the DLC leadership will stab them in the backs when they try something. I think the DLC has more power, behind the scenes,that they admit to. I also think that the vast majority of elected Democrats dislike the DLC but don't really know what to do about the organisation since it pretty much has unlimited funds to trash Dems with from big corps who will give DLCers all the airtime they want to trash Dems with.

[knowbody0]

13. jim mcdermot was one who did and does speak out against

all of this.
everything in F911 out there for all to see and investigate. we get la la la la la la. oh yeah, that is under investigation. oh man, im getting really pissed again. just an illusion of representation.

[Q]

18. And we should all be thankful for those brave Dems...

...that have been telling the truth from the very beginning. But they have been silenced by the 'warmongers' and their voice is seldom heard in the public forum.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. It depends on which Democrats you are speaking of

Elected officials? They are mostly silent because many of them get the same monies from the defense contractors as the republicans, even if it isn't as much.

Citizen Democrats? Willfully or unintentionally ignorant of what is going on in the world. Many people have no idea that we've lost almost 1300 American soldiers and wounded over 10,000, much less that we've killed 100,000 Iraqis. But worse than that is that many don't care. Our society has devolved into a celebrity worshiping cult which is more concerned about Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson spending ungodly sums of money on clothes than about feeding the poor of the world. Or more concerned about how the Bears and Cowboys are doing. Or the Peterson murder trial. Or...

Most of the things you've written about are too taxing for the average American. They understood the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco, but they don't understand the world of finance and money laundering. If they did, there would be hell to pay for the ruling class. So does anyone really think that our dismal educational systems in this country resulted from accidental incompetence?

And then there is also the arrogance of our little e empire. We do no wrong because we are the United States, the proverbial white knight riding in to save the day. ergo, the Iraq war couldn't have been wrong or illegal, because we don't act that way- the other guys do. I don't know that all of that sentiment results from actual nationalism, though, as much as it is from our ignorance of our government's actions.

I don't remember who said it, but I once read that ignorance and apathy were the murderers of democracy. I think that's fairly self-evident if you look at the state of events today.

[Tinoire]

62. Spot on! Great post! n/t

[crasmane]

74. I think it's cowardice among the leadership and in the ranks.

They're afraid to show real anger, to make real sacrifices in order to show opposition based on truth.
The truth is on the side of liberals and real Democrats.
They trust money more, and that is what makes them cowards.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I knew the war was wrong

before it began, and demonstrated against it. I knew that we would be stuck in Iraq for years in a war that would drain our resources and create emnity throughout the world. I wish I had been wrong, but sadly I was right.

[gaia_gardener]

36. How is it that so many of us saw

that this would not be an in and out war and yet the government didn't? On NPR today they were talking about the war and said that rumsfeld's biggest failure is in not having a plan b - plan a was that we'd be welcomed with open arms, everyone would love us and we'd be out in 6 months.

I called my congresscritters and was told I was wrong. There was an exit plan in place. I asked "only one?", and was told that they couldn't tell me all the details but that I shouldn't worry about it.

Whatever

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. Yeah, I know what you mean

I got that and also the smug assurance that Bush was the Second Coming, so we didn't have anything to worry about. This last came from a crazed freeper in a mini van who kept circling the courthouse square to scream at us as we protested. I didn't expect her to understand the consequences, but I did expect people in government to. Guess that is one reason that I supported Dean and Kucinich. They were two fellows who seemed to understand the horrible consequences of this disaster.

[LoZoccolo]

3. BS

Anything less is knowingly supporting a lie and participating in deceiving the American people.

No it's not.

[Q]

7. Sure it is. Democrats know that Bush* lied this nation into war...

...or are you saying that it's not true? Are you about to defend Bush* and the Democrats who still support this tragedy despite all the evidence showing that there was never any reason (beyond the PNAC plan) to attack and occupy Iraq?

If Democrats know Bush* is lying and don't inform the American people in no uncertain terms...it absolutely IS particpation in the deception.

Perhaps you could elaborate?

[LoZoccolo]

10. I'm saying the one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Whether or not we pull out immediately has nothing to do with the false pretense that brought us there in the first place.

[Q]

15. It wasn't a 'pretense'...it was a lie...

...why is it so difficult for some Democrats to simply say the words? THE IRAQ WAR WAS UNNECESSARY AND WAS BASED ON A LIE.

Whether we pull out immediately has EVERYTHING to do with these lies. It's dishonest to say that a war is unnecessary and based on a lie...and still allow AMERICAN TROOPS TO DIE FOR NOTHING. Who wants to be the last soldier to die for a lie?

[LoZoccolo]

17. No it doesn't.

You're wrong. It's much more complicated than that.

[Q]

21. Then perhaps you could explain the 'complicated' nuances?

It seems pretty straight-forward to many of us. Bush* lied. Democrats went along. Both are now defending that lie and Dem cooperation.

[LoZoccolo]

48. It depends somewhat on not changing the subject.

You keep going back to a year and a half ago.

[Q]

61. The subject has remained the same...

...but it's clear that you have no defense for the Iraq 'war' or Democrats supporting it. Which is why all of this has been watered down to silly slogans like 'bringing democracy to Iraq' or 'support the troops'. Even the troops understand that the only way to support them is to bring them home and not put them in harm's way in an unneccesary war.

This is but one more topic where both Dems and GOPers have simply shut down the public debate. They did the same with the 'war' on drugs, corporate corruption and election fraud. To be more specific...it's the Neocons and Neodems who support this war. Which is one reason why they have both brought a new round of attacks against LIBERALS and anti-war activists like Moore and others.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

90. No I don't, and you should really take that back.

I'm not for the war. It was a big mistake. Doesn't mean I think we should reneg on the confidence that certain Iraqis placed on us to stay there until things are stable. My position is no different than the Democratic candidate for president this election, so you have no business telling me I don't belong here, and thus you should apologize. I'm giving you an hour before I hit alert on you for breaking the rules.

[Forkboy]

94. where does he say you dont belong?

All I see is a question about the war :shrug:

And if you're so gung ho on the rules should you be telling others to shut up?

Dont worry,I'll give you an hour before alerting :silly:

[LoZoccolo]

95. "I keep wondering about you"

This is like, exactly what is meant by the new updated warnings on calling out FReepers.

I'm sick of these message-board Maoists and their criticism/self-criticism sessions they bring here. It's just a big headache.

And I reiterate my point about you never see these people actually do anything like phone-bank or walk a precinct.

Plus I'll go back and edit where I said "shut up".

[Forkboy]

96. uh.....k

:crazy:

Hell,now I'm wondering about you too...but not in relation to being a freeper.

[LoZoccolo]

97. You actually could serve as a "hostile witness" here.

I mean you saw how determined I was to get Kerry elected in my efforts to discredit Nader and his followers, right? That would show someone who saw my posts back then that I am determined to make progress by getting Democrats elected. This person has been on the board for a little over two weeks, and could at least acknowledge that they haven't seen enough to make those kinds of judgements against someone who's got a year and a half of posts here.

[Forkboy]

98. I will certainly agree that you're no freeper or troll

And I believe you to be sincere in your caring about the Dem Party.

But can I be a sarcastic witness? Hostile just isn't the right term for our back and forth here on DU :)

:toast:

[LoZoccolo]

100. Understood; it's just a legal term. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

91. P. S. Lot of nerve you got telling me I don't belong here...

...because I don't agree with you.

[LoZoccolo]

92. You've been here since NOVEMBER 30TH and you tell me this shit?

WHAT THE FUCK??!!! You even bother going back and reading some of my posts?

[LoZoccolo]

93. You know what? I lied. I'm hitting alert now.

Go deal with the mods.

[LynnTheDem]

16. The IRAQIS want us out IMMEDIATELY. So if we're now invading & occupying

to "spread democracy", isn't it a TOTAL LIE to remain there against the wishes of the vast majority of Iraqis?

We all know this, and most the rightwingnut morons don't know this; so by insisting we stay, aren't we supporting a LIE, both against Americans & against the Iraqi people?

Yep.

[cali]

31. I've actually read differing reports

about whether the Iraqi people want us out now. I believe it's the right thing to do. The concerns about civil war seem ironic in the light of the strife we've caused.

[JaneDoughnut]

76. Me too

I have been reading that a "slight majority" - whatever that means - still want us there and are grateful that Saddam has been removed. I don't trust the sources anymore, but I also can't prove them wrong.

[LoZoccolo]

50. It would be another lie...

...to abandon the people that have helped out up to this point. If you believe that George H. W. Bush is responsible for putting the Kurds into a situation where they were eventually slaughtered during the first Gulf War, then it's not a stretch to believe that pulling out would get a lot of people killed who we are beholden to.

[wtmusic]

5. The world is safer without Saddam

if I hear that once more, I will scream.

[flordehinojos]

6. so many of us KNEW that the war was wrong, just on principle it was wrong

and many of us demonstrated against the war, wrote letters to editors, spoke out in whatever way we could ... and the fact that the DNC, the DLC or the Democratic candidate for president support the war, it does not make one single iota of difference in the book of many of us who continue to faithfully believe that the war was wrong, unprovoked, illegal, fabricated and a profit making venture for the bushies and many others.

I for one will continue speaking, even if into a vacuum, of the wrongness of the war, the authoritarian nature of GWB and the rest of the Bushes, and against the wrongheadedness of the evil against humanity now operating from the white house.

[Q]

11. But isn't it more than a 'belief' that the war...

...is not only immoral and illegal...but that it was unnecessary?

Both Republicans and Democrats KNEW before the attack that Iraq wasn't a threat in any sense of the word. It's time that we stop protecting Democrats who knew and didn't show the integrity to forcefully oppose it.

[flordehinojos]

27. I absolutely agree with you ...

Biden?
Clinton?
Kerry?

Did anyone stand up against the war other than perhaps Senator Byrd?

Kucinich stood up against the war--and I believe it was Barbara Lee from California. anyone else?

[Q]

63. I remember Kennedy giving his 'Why Now, Why Iraq?" speech...

...and other Democrats speaking out against rushing to war on the floor of the house. They were shouted down by the hawks in both parties. They were accused of the most vile things...like not caring about the security of America and being unpatriotic.

One could say that most Democrats were intimidated and pressured into signing on after 9-11. But they had no excuse for their continued support after all the facts were in.

[xchrom]

8. pnac types, democrats like peter beinart,

approve the war and even support the lies because for them the bottom line is remaking the middle east into a version acceptable to the west.
in this case -- the west -- is america.
saddam or 9-11 or any number of other reasons are sufficient reason to create mindless war in order to burn out those individuals who are a threat to the traditional power set.

democrats like beinart or al from believe in hyping their own version of this philosophy something a good deal closer to the truth perhaps -- but it's all the same -- use military force to project americas version free market democracy to the rest of the world.

[LynnTheDem]

12. Absolutely; well said.

Illegal, immoral unjust WAR OF AGGRESSION. bush INVADED and OCCUPIED a nation that had done NOTHING.

There is no "difference of opinion" possible; WARS OF AGGRESSION ARE THE SUPREME CRIME. Period.

[knowbody0]

14. crimes against humanity IN OUR NAME (barf)

[JaneDoughnut]

19. Funny you should ask

I have a friend who agreed with me that Bush was a facist, but she voted for him anyway, and who believes, genuinely believes, that we went to war with Iraq as a response to human rights violations. And then she demands that I respect her opinion.

I just tell her that having an opinion and having the facts wrong are two different things. I think she may be a pretty good illustration of the insanity you're talking about.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Does she know the Human Rights groups say NO it is NOT

a humanitarian intervention, that in fact there were NO ongoing or imminent atrocities being committed and hasn't been since over a decade ago?

Does she know bush's own website matches to what HRW and AI say about "disappeared Iraqis"? 14,674 unaccounted for over the past decade. How many Americans go "unaccounted for" in 10 years? And we've "disappeared several tens of thousands of Iraqis, so far...that the military will admit to the ICRC.

"Mass graved"? 5000 remains, of whom bush's own forensic scientist says are from the Iran-Iraq war and the 1991 putting down of the reb-oops I mean INSURGENT TERRORISTS, actions both of which the USA supported Hussein's government.

Does she know of the current report "conservative estimate" showing we've killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians over the past 2 years of invasion & occupation?

And she should also think about just WHY 97% of the Iraqis themselves view us as INVADERS and OCCUPIERS, and NOT as liberators.

She sounds promising, for someone dumb enough to vote for bush; maybe knowing the FACTS which clearly make this invasion & occupation NOTHING to do with any human rights violations will be the final light to wake her up.

[JaneDoughnut]

26. She's usually pretty smart

But I think she decided who to vote for before she looked at the facts, and then retained whatever favored her decision. It had to be pretty difficult for someone of her intelligence to pull off.

[LynnTheDem]

32. Try sending her these links?

HRW: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

The World Today - Iraq war not a humanitarian one: Human Rights Watch

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1032488.htm

No Humanitarian Case for Iraq War, Says Rights Group

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0127-03.htm

The vast majority of Americans say "humanitarian" is not justification

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

Human Rights Watch; Iraq invasion cannot be justified as humanitarian intervention

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-07.htm

Poll: Only 2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

Amnesty Slams "Bankrupt" Vision of US in Damning Rights Report

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0526-02.htm

Send the links and ask her her "opinion" on it all, if you should "believe" Amnesty International and Huamn Rights Watch when they say bush's invasion is NOT humanitarian intervention. Pretend to SERIOUSLY ask her opinion, as you're "not sure" if AI and HRW are to be believed...

Gotta be cunning dealing with rightwingers & facts. :D

[Finding Rawls]

20. I'm satisfied with your attack

I didn't support the war in Iraq. I wasn't sure if that was the right thing to do, but I didn't feel that it was justified. When it comes to nuclear weapons, I'm never sure about what the right course of action is. But once we had invaded, I must say that I'm even more unsure of what to do. It's not that I'm interested in spreading democracy. I feel that a democracy run by a religious sect, in Iraq the Shias (?) in the US Bush, are far from liberal and don't guarantee human rights. But at the same time, I don't know what would happen if we pulled out right now. I'm absolutely clueless. If you're going to say that I'm furthuring a deception, fine, I may be doing that.

[JaneDoughnut]

23. That is really the only aspect we should continue to debate.

The invasion was wrong. Period. But yes, it is difficult to decide what the best option is from here. If we leave now, Iraq is likely to go through a civil war and many years of want.... but if we leave in 5 years, isn't the same thing likely? Yes, I think that point is still open for debate.

[Q]

29. Leaving Iraq unprotected...

...is not the only option on the table. An multi-national force and the UN would agree to police that shattered nation until Iraqis were organized enough to do it on their own.

The US should pay the Iraqis reparations...which they could use to rebuild their own nation...with their own workforce.

We need to stop this now...before the Bush* puppet government establishes dictatorial power and rules Iraq with a kinder, gentler Iron Fist.

[RafterMan]

38. Why would a UN/multinational force agree to do that?

And if they did, why do you think Egypt or India have the good of the Iraqis in their hearts any more than the Americans do?

I think the picture is too murky to share your absolutist position.

[Q]

43. They would do it once the US leaves Iraq...

...that view has been expressed before by the UN and others. It should go without saying that the reason they're not there is that they object to the invasion and occupation and the constant dropping of bombs. Once the hostilities ended...it would provide opportunities for the rest of the world to step in and 'supervise' as Iraq rebuilt its own country.

The only 'absolutist' opinion I've expressed is that the war on Iraq is a fraud and that the Democrats shouldn't support it. At the very least they should be demanding a plan for withdrawal over a period of months (not years) and begin negotiations with other nations to form a peace-keeping coalition.

[RafterMan]

52. I don't think it goes without saying

I think the main reason they don't want to go in is that they'd be in the same position the US is in now -- not a good one. You may say the threat of Iraq falling into chaos might be a motivating factor, but that's serious brinksmanship.

If they will come, I agree we should go. If they won't, I'm mixed about leaving. Sistani's new party platform has a plank to "negotiate US withdrawal". He's done a pretty effective job of maintaining order in the areas in which he holds influence. I'll be listening to what else he has to say on the matter.

[Q]

64. Something can't 'fall into chaos' if it's already there...

...And it's rather obvious why no other nation is offering to help right now. They're shocked at what the US is doing to Iraq. They want no part of it as long as the Bushies are making the decisions.

There will never be 'order' in Iraq. The Bush* Neocons can't afford order and peace...which is why they used 'shock and awe' instead of concentrating on just capturing Saddam. The Neocons will have no excuse to build their military bases in Iraq if peace broke out. That's why they're bombing entire cities in order to kill a few unnamed terrorists.

One thing is clear: the only real remaining supporters of this 'war' are those who started and supported it in the first place.

[JaneDoughnut]

77. Reparations, definitely

Whether we leave now or later, we definitely owe reparations to the Iraqi people.

I think we also need to make a promise to the Iraqi people that we have no permanant designs on their land, cease any construction of military bases or embassy palaces, etc.

And if it can be reasonably proved that this is a resource war (since we still don't really know BushCo's motivations), then it becomes obvious we must leave now, since we have neither the means nor the motivation to leave a functioning democracy in our wake.

However, our abandonement of the Afghan people after the war with Russia is still known as the Great Betrayal. I fear repeating that history, and I bet that fear is shared by a lot of Americans on the left and right.

[LynnTheDem]

28. The vast majority of Iraqis want us out. NOW.

What's to contemplate?

If bush is telling the truth about wanting to "spread democracy" (he isn't), then we MUST do what the vast majority of Iraqis want us to do; GET OUT OF IRAQ.

Did we worry over what would happen to the Poles if the GERMANS pulled out of POLAND?

It's the SAME THING.

Whatever anyone thinks about Iraq, the VAST MAJORITY of IRAQIS want us OUT. There WERE NO WMD; there WERE NO TIES TO 911; there WERE NO TIES to al Qaeda. And they want us OUT.

Pretty damn straightforward; WE are the PROBLEM in Iraq, not the solution. .

[Finding Rawls]

30. I'm not so sure that there won't be thousands slaughtered

I know, we're killing people right now, but I think there may be a difference which makes it difficult to determine what to do. The Sh'ia could slaughter the Sunni if we left. I'm worried about a genocide. Right now Sh'ia leaders aren't complaining because we're killing their enemies. They know that in a Democracy they're going to be in power. I'm not sure if this would occur, but I'd like to know more about the current tensions between the two groups.

[LynnTheDem]

34. When was the last civil war in Iraq?

When the Brits were finally kicked out of Iraq after their first attempt at invasion & occupaiton, was there a civil war in Iraq?

No.

The Iraqis didn't even rise up against Saddam Hussein the way they've risen up against us.

They want us OUT.

If a civil war results, OH WELL. That is UP TO THE IRAQIS.

Just like our civil war was OUR business, not the business of the French.

We have to leave at some point; the Iraqis will continue to kill us until we do leave. The ONLY QUESTION NOW is HOW MANY MORE DEATHS on both sides until we do.

[Finding Rawls]

35. I don't think that it is so cut and dry

Even if the Iraqis didn't "rise up" against Sadaam, I don't think that is relevant to the fact that there is extreme hostility between the Sunnis and the Sh'ias. I'm not sure if we can leave Iraq if it is likely that there would be genocide.

[LynnTheDem]

39. SO WHAT.

If they genocide each other, that is THEIR DECISION.

They ALL AGREE, they want us OUT OF IRAQ NOW.

We WRONGLY INVADED their country and they WANT US OUT NOW.

The Shia and Sunni HAVE NEVER in their THOUSANDS OF YEARS LONG HISTORY had civil war against each other.

They WANT US OUT OF IRAQ. It is NOT up to you or me or bush to decide AGAINST what THE IRAQIS WANT. They are NOT ignorant little children who need our guidance. "White man's burden" is BULLSHIT.

The Iraqi people want the USA OUT of Iraq.

There is nothing more to discuss.

[Finding Rawls]

40. When did Democrats become isolationist?

We don't care about genocide anymore?

And as to your point that there has never been civil war. In order for there to be civil war, people need to reside within the same state. Sunnis and Sh'ia have only been in the same recognized "state" since the west came in and carved up the middle east. They have not had real opportunity to have civil war. Either they both wanted foriegners out, or one group ruled as a tyrannical regime. I'm not saying that there's going to be genocide, but I'd like to know more about how hostile the Sh'ia are towards the sunnis.

[LynnTheDem]

42. THEY DO NOT WANT US IN THEIR COUNTRY

WTF do you NOT UNDERSTAND about this????

THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT US TO GET OUT. NOW. EVEN IF THAT MEANS CIVIL WAR.

It is THEIR COUNTRY. It is THEIR DECISION. And they WANT US OUT NOW.

Why do you think WE SHOULD IGNORE THE IRAQIS AND MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM, AGAINST what they want???

Do you think the Iraqis are TOO STUPID to MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS??? THEY WANT US OUT. NOW.

[Finding Rawls]

44. Sorry, my Caps Lock button doesn't work

By the Iraqis want us out of Iraq, you mean the majority of Iraqis want us out of Iraq. The majority if Iraqis are Sh'ia. The Sh'ia will run the country when we leave. If we can make it more difficult for them to slaughter those who don't share their religious beliefs, I believe we may have some responsibility there. I'm not talking about civil war. I'm talking about genocide. Once again, it may be true that we should leave. I'd just like some smart people to tell me that there won't be genocide.

[LynnTheDem]

53. Good grief.

The MAJORITY OF Shia AND SUNNI.

The MAJORITY of Shia AND SUNNI BOTH want US out of Iraq NOW and they BOTH feel attacks on US troops is JUSTIFIED. They're correct, legally. And they're correct, morally, imo.

You keep saying you want to learn more; FINE. GO READ WHAT THE MAJORITY OF IRAQIS SAY.

Good fucking grief.

Majority of Iraqis Want US Troops Out

Today 80% of the Iraqis want the occupiers out and distrust the motives of the Americans. ...

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002034.html

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

MSNBC - Grim Numbers

... A US-sponsored poll shows Iraqis have lost confidence in the occupying ...
that the majority of Iraqis want Coalition troops out of the country ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/

cached link:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:MIK8WzgVR1MJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/+majority+of+Iraqis+want+US+out+of+Iraq+&hl=en

What Iraqis Want Dec 2003

Two of threeIraqis overall--and seven in ten Sunnis--want US and British forces out of Iraq...

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article_detail.asp

More Iraq Hawk Myths Bite the Dust

The poll results also belie the notion that a majority of Iraqis want U.S. and British troops to stay on for an extended period. Instead, 57 percent want those troops to leave "immediately." Again, the contrast between the opinion of Kurds and Arabs is striking. Only 3 percent of Kurds want the forces to depart immediately. In the Shiite areas, the sentiment is 61 percent and in the Sunni areas it is 65 percent. (And in Baghdad it is a stunning 75 percent).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-18-04.html

[Q]

45. They're slaughtering each other now as the US watches...

...I believe this is a bogus argument...brought by those who can't admit that Iraq was a mistake and that war crimes were committed.

There will NEVER be a democracy in Iraq....especially with a puppet US government. Besides...the Bushies have no legal or moral right to national build and replace leaders that don't agree with their PNAC agenda.

[Finding Rawls]

46. I want to agree with you

The Iraq war was a mistake. I'll concede here. We should leave.

[debsianben]

55. Worse than Fallujah?

The idea that the Iraqis will inflict more casualties on each other than the U.S. inflicted in, say, the operation where "we" basically massacred the entire civilian population of Fallujah, is absurd. In any case, if a civil war breaks out, that's their decision.

[dpibel]

57. Interesting recent history

Go here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html#iq0020

This is the Library of Congress country study, circa 1988. A couple things to remember. (1) This was in the 80s, when Iraq was our friend. (2) In the interim, there was the DaddyBush "I've got your back, oops! I don't got your back" Shia uprising post DaddyBushWar.

Nonetheless, this very interesting little book does not appear to be terribly propagandistic, and may be one of the more level-headed treatments of Iraq available on the web.

From the section entitled "Sunni-Shia Relationships in Iraq":

Until the 1980s, the dominant view of contemporary political analysts held that Iraq was badly split along sectarian lines. The claim was that the Sunnis--although a minority--ran Iraq and subjected the majority Shias to systematic discrimination. According to the prevailing belief, the Shias would drive the Sunnis from power, if once afforded an opportunity to do so.



Nonetheless, the theory of sectarian strife was undercut by the behavior of Iraq's Shia community during Iran's 1982 invasion and the fighting thereafter. Although about three-quarters of the lower ranks of the army were Shias, as of early 1988, no general insurrection of Iraq; Shias had occurred.

Even in periods of major setback for the Iraqi army--such as the Al Faw debacle in 1986--the Shias have continued staunchly to defend their nation and the Baath regime. They have done so despite intense propaganda barrages mounted by the Iranians, calling on them to join the Islamic revolution.

End quote.

In other words, it may be that nationalism trumps sectarianism. It certainly does now. For the endless what-if-the-tables-were-turned exercise: If the mighty Muslim invasion force had taken the USofA, there's little doubt that the Dem/Repub and Fundie/Infidel forces would unite to toss them out. Once that was done, I doubt the various factions would set upon one another; more likely we'd return to our current state of nattering chaos.

What's more, it's entirely possible that the majority of Shiites recognize the fact that not all Sunnis were Baathists, and not all Baathists were members of the true ruling class. Just as we recognize that not all Republicans are blood-dripping neocons.

[LynnTheDem]

67. When Shia Najef was massacred by US forces, the SUNNI came with

food, medical supplies, etc. They WALKED to Najef; thousands of them.

When Fallujah was massacred by US forces, the SHIA came with food, medical supplies, etc. They WALKED to Fallujah; thousands of them.

The Shia and the Sunni have lived together for a very long time. There aer SHIA living in the "Sunni Triangle" and always have been...and there are SUNNI living in the south of Iraq and always have been.

There are SHIA married to SUNNI and SUNNI married to SHIA.

The rhetoric that a civil war will result if we pull out is the SAME BULLSHIT the US spewed in Vietnam. A good excuse to remain in-country and gorge at the trough.

It's BULLSHIT.

[dpibel]

82. This, too

"The ultimate reason for Shiite restraint, explained Ala Muhammad al-Muttarid in his March 18 op-ed for Iraq’s Azzaman, is the sage leadership of religious leaders and the nature of Iraqi society. Al-Muttarid pointed out that tribal affiliation is a major part of Iraqi identity, and sectarian diversity exists within the tribes themselves, as some contain both Shiite and Sunni members. According to Al-Muttarid, many families have both Shiite and Sunni members. Al-Muttarid opined that in any outbreak of civil strife, despite all the sectarian media hype to the contrary, Iraqis would be more apt to line up along tribal and familial affiliation than sectarian lines."

From http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1829.cfm, 4/1/04.

But then, why would we think an Iraqi writer would know anything about Iraq? After all, the US is only there to help, and it surely would not be there to help if it did not know for sure that help was needed.

[gottaB]

25. If you're going to polarize the debate in order to meet an objective

The smart way to go about it is to find the point where the opposition is outnumbered, and make that the dividing line.

Any move to kick people off of our end of the seesaw only works to empower the Republicans.

[Q]

49. It's no more complicated than telling the truth.

When did telling the truth become so unpopular?

I never wrote that we should kick anyone out of anywhere. I did say that supporting the Iraq war was tantamount to lying to and deceiving the American people. This is simply a true statement.

[gottaB]

54. I was talking about polarization

You know, one side is right, the other wrong. I'm saying that if your objective is to end US military involvement in Iraq, and you want to draw up sides to meet that objective, the best way to do that is to find the point where support for the opposition is weakest, and make that the dividing line. "Immediate withdrawal" is probably not that line, but I suppose one could present a case for it. Arguing that Kerry, the DNC et al. have done nothing but decieve the American people will not bring people to your side--certainly not in sufficient numbers to meet your objective. Demanding that Dems who supported war either admit that they were wrong or be branded as liars is tantamount to kicking people off of your end of the seesaw.

[Q]

56. Well...I'm not a politician and...

...I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. This is just a rant to express my opinion...something that everybody already knows but are too afraid to admit.

There should be no middle ground between lies and truth. We lie to ourselves when we try to rationalize why the Democrats have done little or nothing to stop a war they know is illegal and immoral.

[wyldwolf]

33. sure. There was the way Howard Dean wanted to do it...

... and the way Bush did it. Difference of opinion.

[Forkboy]

41. Deanophobia...the disease that can't be cured.

[gottaB]

47. Deanophilia....

A haemorrhagic diathesis due to a deficiency of coagulation factor D that is characterized by delayed congealing of the base and consequent difficulty in controlling haemorrhage even after minor injuries.

[Q]

51. And there were millions that didn't want to 'do it' at all...

...because they wanted a foreign policy based on reality and the truth.

There are no shades of gray here. Those who support the Iraq invasion, occupation and slaughter are deceiving themselves and the American people. All of us deserve better than this from our party and government.

And I seem to remember that Kerry was the candidate for president...at the time making him the defacto leader of the party. Instead of blustering about reporting for duty and killing terrorists...he should have told the truth. That the only terrorists in Iraq are the ones Bush* created. That his vote enabled Bush* to kill a hundred thousand civilians. That his one-liner "the last soldier to die for a lie" should also apply to Iraq.

[bread_and_roses]

59. Yes, yes, and yes.

There was never any legitimacy to the invasion and there is no legitimacy to the occupation. We are murderers and torturers, the slaughterers of children.

There is no grey here.

[XemaSab]

58. Two issues at stake....

I don't think there's a "difference of opinion" on going in. I think going in was a terrible idea, and most people I know think going in was a terrible idea. It was a gut reaction. Any politician who didn't have this same gut reaction.... I don't trust to represent our national interests.

On whether we should pull out immediately, I think that's something about which reasonable people can disagree. I personally think it's our baby now, and we have the responsibility to do everything we can to stabilize the place and move towards elections. I think pulling out right now would be a disaster, and would cause more harm to the Iraqi people than staying until elections are held. I think if we did that we'd see a bloody meltdown that would abolish all chances of democracy for this generation.

I think the immediate goal should be training Iraqis to be policemen. We can train contras to kill their countrymen at School of the Americas, why can't we train Iraqi police there?

Also, we need to stop being assholes. If we act like assholes, it's no wonder they hate us.

[Q]

60. It could be called the 'Vietnam Syndrome'...

...when millions of people are in denial over waging war without cause. America didn't learn a thing from Vietnam. They don't seem to understand that it isn't worth ONE LIFE to fight an unnecessary war.

Democrats shouldn't fool themselves any longer. The ONE biggest reason why Bush* is still in our White House is because Kerry and those who supported him couldn't muster a defense against the Iraq fiasco. In fact...they came off as simply wanting to wage a slightly different kind of war against 'terror'...one that still included Iraq despite all the evidence to the contrary.

It's easy to call something a 'terrible idea' after the fact. Wouldn't you rather have a 'politician' act based on truth than a 'gut reaction'? Bush* was caught in lies about Iraq BEFORE he invaded. They signed the IWR as troops were gathering on the border. There was ample time to stop him had Democrats had the desire. But only a few stood up against the warmongers and asked: Why Iraq? Why Now?

And to see so many fall for the 'democracy in Iraq' scam is disappointing. I can't believe people still actually believe that gambit. It's as credible as WMD, mushroom clouds and regime change.

We were in Vietnam for a very long time...with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded...because too many people didn't want to admit that their party was part of the lies and deceptions. It's not being an 'asshole' to demand the truth. And if 'they' hate us for wanting the truth...then so be it.

[Disturbed]

65. Iraq Invasion was illegal and immoral...

and it was based on blatant lies. Most Dems went along because they are weasles.

If the Iraqis want the U.S. out the U.S. should leave. If they have Civil War it's their business.

The U.S. wants control of oil flow, period. The 14 Military bases will be built and it does not matter who is against that. The Fascist Govt. in power in Anmerika backed by the Multi-Corps does not give a crap what anyone thinks or believes. They will do what they want to do.

[Q]

68. The Bushies install a puppet government that WON'T ask for the US...

...to leave. That's part of the deception.

But as we can all see...there are just enough Democrats that support this war to keep it going against all reason and sanity.

[XemaSab]

71. You're right

The new government will be a puppet government.

War is a shitty way of solving problems.

However, while I don't think there will initially be a true democracy there, I'm not sure it's as much of a pipe dream as WMD's. I'm not sharing Bush's view of a rosy future here. I think any government there is likely to face huge problems.

I think, since the war began, we've had GIANT policy SNAFU's that have shown the people that our intentions aren't very good there.

Also, by "gut instinct," I mean a dread informed by facts that resulted in immediate conviction that going there was a terrible idea.

The facts that lead to this are that Iraq is possibly the most watched country in the world as far as WMD's, Bush's dad had a bad experience with Iraq, Saddam is a secular dictator who has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and it was already, like Tito's Yugoslavia, an uneasy marriage of different ethnicities.

[LynnTheDem]

66. USA IN Iraq is the reason Iraq is unstable.

Iraq will continue to be unstable until the USA is OUT of Iraq.

It's that simple.

[XemaSab]

70. Instability

I think if we pulled out right now, there would be a power vacuum, and a nasty war. Even if we install a puppet president in a sham democracy, that's better than the sunnis, shiites, and kurds, all trying to kill each other in a battle royale.

[LynnTheDem]

79. it's WHAT THEY WANT.

Really...we sanctioned them to death for 12 years.

We bombed them daily for 12 years.

We invaded them.

We occupy them.

NONE of which they want.

Can we PLEASE JUST ONCE DO WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT US TO DO AND GET OUT of THEIR country???!!

[Q]

69. I brought this subject up because of a conversation...

...I had with my neighbor the other day. He's a Republican that stayed home rather than vote for Bush*. His main problem with Bush was his 'lying America into attacking Iraq. He said he couldn't support Kerry either because of his support for the war.

Here was someone that had voted Republican most of their life and even THEY couldn't accept the blatant lies for the 'good of the party'. If only more Dems felt this way.

[kentuck]

72. Excellent point, Q!

Many of these Democrats looked at the war from their traditional anti-war bias where if they were against the war, they would pay a political price. As if this illegal war was not different from other wars. But it is different.......

[crasmane]

73. And these are the people who aren't living in the real world.

Quote: Untold numbers of Democrats still support the Iraq invasion and occupation despite overwhelming evidence that it's an unprovoked, unnecessary, illegal, aggressive war based on fabricated 'evidence' and outright lies. end quote.

These are Democrats who should be called neocon republicans. They have no business in the party or in any reality based community. These untold numbers are the ignorant, the indifferent.

[tngledwebb]

75. Ask how it all began.

9/11 is the key. What changed then, how and why?

[JaneDoughnut]

78. It was our "catalyzing event"

As called for by the Project for the New American Century. In the Strengthening America's Defenses doc, it speaks of the need for a new Pearl Harbor before they can accomplish their military goals. 9/11 gave these men the political capital they needed to invade Iraq, which they'd been wanting to do since at least 1997. Why? I dunno... Oil, maybe? But fear made it all possible.

[Q]

105. There are few in the Dem leadership that will even talk about PNAC...

...and sluff it off as a 'conspiracy theory'...though the documents exist and the Bush* junta has been following it word for word.

What are we to think of a document that describes what ends up being the Bush* foreign and domestic agenda BEFORE 9-11? The fact is...the leadership doesn't call it anything because they refuse to talk about it in public. They also don't want you to know that many of them actually agree with it.

If the Bushies and Dem leadership don't want to discuss something...they simply call it a conspiracy theory and go on their merry way.

[Bouncy Ball]

80. I don't know a single Dem who supports the war in Iraq

and I live in a red state.

In fact, I have heard some bush voters refuse to defend it in debates and arguments and even express their own misgivings about it.

The war was and is immoral. That's more than simply a difference of opinion.

Where are these Democrats who support it? :crazy:

[Q]

85. For hell sakes...Kerry supported it...the DLC supports it...

...and many others too numerous to mention.

Where have you been?

[Bouncy Ball]

86. No need to be like that.

I thought you meant everyday Dems, not elected ones.

Sigh.

[Q]

104. My apologies...

...I seemed to confuse your post with another. But you're right...there are few rank and file Democrats who support this war. They have recognized the lies and deceptions from the very beginning. Which makes it even more amazing that the majority of the 'leadership' supports this 'war' against their will.

[tngledwebb]

108. By ommision, after 9/11 they all took a pass.

Signed on to Patriot Act I without battin' an eye. I think Wellstone was the only one who had a spine. Until something bad happened.

[gottaB]

109. Wellstone voted for USA PATRIOT Act

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

[tngledwebb]

110. Thanks for the correction, looks like Feingold was the only one?

Still need a Wellstone investigation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. They're still worried about "moral" issues about sex.

Rather than the immorality of murdering people for capitalists.

[dpibel]

84. Buyout

The US is spending something on the order of $6 billion a month in Iraq. That's the military budget. Congress appropriated a might $18 billion totatl for reconstruction, most of which has not been spent.

Does anyone imagine that taking that $6 billion a month and creating full employment, restoring infrastructure, and rebuilding bombed cities wouldn't go a long way toward creating tranquility? That figure is nearly triple Iraq's current GDP (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Econ), it's about 5 times the annual amount of the much-maligned oil-for-food program.

What's more likely to create peace and good will in Iraq? Six billion a month to reconstruct a country the US has spent more than a decade destroying, or spending 6 billion a month to flatten Fallujah and engage in other measures toward pacification by force.

One of the wonderful effects of living in a country that hasn't had a foreign soldier on its soil for 192 years is having no concept of what it's like to live in a war zone. It's just possible that the people in a country that's been in a state of war almost continuously for 20 years would not be so quick as people in this country to see more violence as a pretty good idea.

As for the naysayers on a multinational force: if they were just a substitute occupation force, of course they'd meet the same opposition. If they were there to administer 6 billion a month from the USofA, they might not.

[Q]

87. Bush*, the Neocons and Neodems can't afford peace in Iraq...

...which is why they're doing everything they can to cause death, destruction and unrest.

It's too bad for the Iraqis and the American people that we don't have a working justice system in the US. In a different time and place...the Bushies would go on trial for war crimes and corruption.

All of this is the end result of the Democratic leadership's enabling and appeasement of the Bush* junta since 2000. Imagine what four more years of not having an opposition party will bring?

[malaise]

88. Great thread

Sometimes life is uncomplicated. By every interpretation of international law, the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

The elections will be a farce because they are only needed for some more grabbing of the Iraqi people's resources.

No objective citizen of this planet should be supporting this evil act - just stop, pause and contemplate what has been done on your behalf.

The planet does not belong to one or two countries and people should be allowed to enjoy their own cultures in peace. Whether their leader was good or evil was/is a matter for the people of the sovereign nation of Iraq to resolve. This is all about divide, rule and loot - no one here can seriously believe this is about democracy. Indeed you may need to explain to the rest of the planet what democracy means anyhow. Is democracy the right of large corporations to bully the entire world because a close examination of planet earth in this historical moment would lead to no other conclusion.

By the way Ralph Nader is as correct with his interpretation on politics in the USA as he was about seat belts. Sadly he is fifty years ahead of most of the population.

When democrats, big and little globally wake up and see that they're all in bed with the devil incarnate, then perhaps democratic parties across the world will remember their raison d'etre and their base will actually want to return to the fold. There is one useful proverb to remember - if you hang out with dogs, ou catch fleas.

[Q]

103. This is why we're seeing the Bushies insist that the 'election'...

...being held as soon as possible...even though 'voters' might be bombed as they try to cast their vote. The final step of the charade must take place on schedule.

Too many Democrats refuse to think of themselves as Americans first and Dems second....where winning becomes secondary to truth and the good of the country.

[imenja]

89. There is right and wrong

but that can still be a difference of opinion. That doesn't mean both sides are equally correct.
I think many politicians know the war is a disaster but won't say so because they fear for their own political futures--particularly on the Republican side. There is nothing right about that.

[Disturbed]

99. The Rethugs and Neocons are clever.

They couch the colonization of Iraq as fighting for Democracy. To be against this illegal immoral invasion and the Occupation is to be against Democracy. After the bogus election that installs Allawi and his gang it will be even more difficult to be against the colonization of Iraq here in Amerika, Iraq or anywhere else because that will be deemed as being against Democracy.

[IndyPriest]

101. "Wrong War, Wrong place, Wrong time"

How many times did we hear Kerry say this? 100 times? 500 times?

Did the Dems roll over under puke propaganda? I'd say, yes. I wrote Carl Levin (D-MI) to tell him that if the Dems wouldn't stand against the lie machine, why the f- would I vote for them on incremental social reform? Spineless bastards.

Should the Dems be calling for Bush's impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors in advancing and executing the war? Yes.

My quesiton is: what do we do NOW in Iraq? Is wanting to leave Iraq in SOME better shape than we entered it, with SOME hope for stability, "supporting the war?" I don't think so. And I think painting Kerry as supporting BUSH'S version of the war, in BUSH'S frame of reference, and with BUSH'S intentions is just incorrect.

[Q]

102. And just how dumb did it sound when Kerry...

...said 'wrong war' and then went about describing how HE would fight it better? He was trying to out-bush Bush* in his war rhetoric. He voted for it but he really didn't mean it. The kicker was when he said he would do exactly the same thing all over again knowing that the war was a lie. It seems both Bush* and Kerry have a hard time admitting mistakes.

The issue isn't whether Kerry supported Bush's* 'version' of the war...but that he supported ANY version after knowing all the facts.

As to what 'we' should do about Iraq right now: Our side has to admit it was a mistake and move to correct that mistake in the best way possible. After the 'mistake' is finally acknowledged...our party should work day and night to pressure the GOPers into agreeing to a withdrawal date for the troops.

We could turn this whole thing around and use it against the Bushies...who would seem like obstructionists if they didn't agree to have a dialogue about withdrawing troops.

As it stands right now...more and more Americans are against the Iraq occupation. We can be seen as the party that gets the troops out of the quagmire...or the party that works with Bush* to get more Americans and Iraqis killed.

[IndyPriest]

106. Q: what does "fight it better" mean?

You want Kerry's statement that he would "fight it better" to mean that he would out-Bush Bush. If out-Bush Bush means an even greater use of lies, smears, force, deception -- it's just not the case. Kerry's position on the war is EXACTLY yours. This sentence from your post is right on the money: "Our side has to admit it was a mistake and move to correct that mistake in the best way possible." "Best way possible" is a neat ellision over every troublesome question we now have to face. I understand completely why we use phrases like that, but it doesn't advance the argument about what you think the ACTUAL difference is between your position and Kerry's.

[Q]

107. Valid point...

...but Kerry and other Democratic leaders have never said the magic words: That Iraq has nothing to do with the 'war on terror'. They parse words and play with the facts...but they've never even alluded to the fact that the war is unprovoked, illegal and aggressive.

If you've read my other posts...the 'best way possible' would mean: immediate plans for withdrawal of troops. Reparations...and let an international coalition 'supervise' as Iraqis rebuild their own country with OUR tax dollars.

Kerry was talking about sending MORE troops to Iraq and other places. He was trying to play both sides of the fence and it came back to bite him in the butt. He was just as deceptive as Bush* in that he could never admit that his vote for the IWR was not only wrong...but it helped put the PNAC doctrine into play.