KERRY ISN'T PROMISING TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME!

[Dancing_Dave]

Indeed, he's talking about sending more troops to Iraq!

Already most people think the Iraq conflict isn't worth it, it's a mistake, and the number of people who think that way can only increase as the casualties mount.

Kerry had better do a "waffle" and think again about this issue. Continuing to support the war in Iraq will really, really cause him to lose in November. The minority of Americans who still support the Iraq war at that point will be people who are religiously committed to Bush and his attitudes, they aren't going to vote for Kerry anyway no matter WHAT HE SAYS AND DOES.

The best thing you can do to support Kerry now, is to take "Bring the Troops Home", and "No Blood for Oil" protest signs to every Kerry speaking event. Make sure you get in close enough that Kerry can read your sign. He's has to think again and change on this, or he's just certain to lose in November.

Any THOUGHTFUL replies to this?

[tom_paine]

1. More dismissing the base, more pandering to the Reich Wing fantasy bubble

I no longer believe the Old American Republic can be saved.

However, I am still going to keep pretending that I don't believe that and working and donating my ass off! In case I am wrong. NEVER GIVE UP!

[LittleApple81]

2. I don't think that will help at all. You have to get him elected then

you can protest. I am sorry to say this, but you might end up destroying the country if you do what you propose. And that is just my opinion... and I do have a son who is 18 and draftable... so I will be protesting at the front... but now I just want BUSH out.

[Dancing_Dave]

9. If you want Bush out, help Kerry change AGAIN!

Remember, Kerry went from serving in the Vietnam war to serving in the Veterans AGAINST the War movement when he got back. He's gotta realize that the Iraq War is already a lost cause with the American people, or he'll just be blown away in November. Because as I said, THE PEOPLE WHO STILL SUPPORT THE WAR THEN WILL ALL BE PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR BUSH NO MATTER WHAT. Kerry's disagreement with his own base would cause Bush to have mighty energetic supporters, givin' us all the finger, and they will win.

Unless Kerry changes.
And he has changed before!

[no name no slogan]

14. But most Democrats and even most Americans want the troops out

Why on earth would Kerry want to take a position that's AGAINST what most Americans (not to mention most Democrats) want?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's like coming out in favor of pollution.

[ChompySnack]

3. NO KIDDING

It would be a disaster to bring them home now. Bush made sure that he got us into a mess that it wouldn't be easy to extricate ourselves from. Kerry is doing the right thing by pledging to bring in the UN and draw down our troops in a reasonable time frame.

I hate being there, but genocide of the Kurdish population would be *far* worse!

[mzmolly]

4. International troops. International troops... Say it with me

"International Troops"

[movonne]

8. Yes I agree, International Troops" I can't seeing walking away

and leave it in such a mess. I think we have done enough to the Iraqi people. I also want our troops home!!! If and when we get the International Troops in, I sure want them home then.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[theboss]

81. Where are these international troops going to come from?

This has always been my concern with this part of Kerry's message. It's not like the UN has 75,000-man army sitting in barracks in lower Manhattan. The French aren't sending anyone regardless of who is president without the promise of a big payoff. Neither are the Russians.

So, that leaves the US, Britain, Australia, and Poland (who are already there) and maybe some Pakistanis and Egyptians or something.

Even if we get "International Troops," it's still going to be mostly Americans under a different banner.

[Nicholas_J]

69. Yup

Kerry keeps saying that he wants to exchange Bush's so called coalition of the willing for a real intnernational coalition that will take the focus off of American troops having to provide complete security in Iraq and to place a larger portion of the economic burden burden for providing this security onthe member nations of the U.N. so that a large portion of U.S. troops can be replaced with an international coalition of peace keeping troops. So that as during the first Gulf War 85 percent of the cost of pproviding security in Iraq during the process of rebuilding it can be provided by other permanenet members of the Security Council, like France and Great Britain, as well as some of the wealtier members of the U.N. like Germany. One effect of this would be to immediately reduce thefederal deficit brought on by the massive expense and extra funds requested by the Bush Administration to carry ou thi war in Iraq. It is not poswsible to cut and run from Iraq, certainly not under international law. These laws obligate the U.S. to fix what it has broken. To fix what we have broken will either require either more American troops alone, and a very large bill to be footed by U.S. taxpayers alone, so that American Corporations like Haliburton alone will be able to reap the sole benfits to be gained from providing services to U.S. troops as well as getting and keeping the oil flowing.

Ot to do the absolutely unthinkable. To allow the French, the Germans, the Russians, and others to take away all of Halliburton's Bechtel's and other corporations from getting their hands on all of the money taken from the taxpayers. Absolutely and most certainly to prevent it from being used for such useless purposes as providing adequate fnding for schools, medicare and medicaid.

No, we just cant have that.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas_J]

73. Please delete some of these

I got an odd error message and te result was the same mesage being posted 4 times.

Thanks guys.

[JVS]

80. Body bags to every corner of the world!

Terrific. Let's just outsource the casualties!

[mzmolly]

82. Oh, and pulling out now will create world peace.

I get it. :eyes:

[JVS]

83. What would be so awful about pulling out?

[mzmolly]

84. Read up on it.

It's a friggin mess.

It's entirely possible were in a no win situation, but I'd like to leave the country and the people better off then we found them by "truly" internationalizing the effort,t as JK and DK, Dean and others have suggested.

The area is much too vulnerable to up and run. We could end up with another Taliban. *Women are losing their rights, people are without food and water etc...we've made the place a total mess.

I say internationalize the effort, and let the people of Iraq decide when we leave. 55% want Bush's army out now, but Kerry will revamp the process, and get us out in the good graces of the people of Iraq, under new internatial leadership.

[JVS]

86. My question is will it become less of a total mess if we stay

We've been there about 18 months. If no matter what we do, the place will be a mess anyways, we might as well leave now.

[mzmolly]

87. Part of me feels the way you do, and if Bush remains at the helm

it's not going to improve. If Bush remains in office, we need to get the F out, because his admin is to inept to repair the situation.

However, I have faith that Kerry can turn it around, and that's one major reason I am supporting him. I wan't to leave the Iraqi people with a different impression then the one Bush imparted on them.

Kerry needs to speak to the people of Iraq, internationalize the effort, empower the people of that country, and get us out gracefully.

I have faith that he can do that.

Peace

[LiveWire]

88. You cant take the troops out!

Here's what will happen if you do:
1. As the troop withdrawl begins, we lose all sorts of international credibility. No one in the world likes anyone who doesnt finish what they start.
2. With no police force or army, the country of Iraq will begin to tear itself apart, breaking up into tribal and ethnic states to the north, south, and center of Iraq.
3. With no governmental order established, the only source of unity comes with the many different religous orgs that run the countries. Soon, most towns are run by Mosques and religious heads of state.
4. No credible ties with Al Quaeda were ever established in Iraq. Now, however, the country is run by religious Right-wingers (sound familiar to anyone?). Al Qaeda is now accepted into Iraq with open arms. Most likely, the dominant religious figure takes power over Iraq.
5. Troops arive home, finally, to a country with a sluggish economy. Thousands upon thousands of troops refuse to renew their contracts in the National Guard/US Forces. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps recruits come in at only a trickle. Newly returned soldiers find it extremely hard to find any sort of job worthwild. While thousands of new jobs were created under president bush, working at WalMart for minimum wage seems not worth it to some. The jobs they used to have no longer exist or have been taken by other workers.
6. With smaller forces to work with, the US is even more unprepared than before 9/11. Now there is another state that fully sponsers Al Qaeda and any actions it takes against the US and its allies.

[Cocoa]

5. he held that position all through the primaries

and he won, big-time.

Second place in the primaries, was someone probably more hawkish, and less nuanced, John Edwards.

Why would they flip-flop now, if they didn't in the primaries, where the voters were more antiwar than the general election voters?

[no name no slogan]

17. Kerry won because of his personality, $$, and organization

NOT because he had the best platform. In fact, most Democratic primary voters liked the platforms of Kucinich and Dean more than Kerry's OR Edwards'. He hardly won "big time", either, if you actually count the primaries that had more than three candidates.

Why would they flip-flop now, if they didn't in the primaries, where the voters were more antiwar than the general election voters?


Last spring, the voters were LESS anti-war than they are now. But that was many months ago, and the war has gotten much more costlier in lives and resources.

Right now, fully 1/2 the American public disagrees with the war, and 4/5 of Democrats disagree with it. Unfortunately, the powers that run the party can't seem to fathom that, and somehow think that it's better to please their corporate masters than any potential voters.

[Uzybone]

34. He hardly won big time?

is that some sort of joke?

[no name no slogan]

59. In the contested primaries, no he didn't

Look at the numbers for the earliest primaries, when all the candidates were still "viable". Kerry never did much better than 1/4 of the vote. But because he had the momentum, $$, and a solid campaign staff, he was able to win the nomination.

If money were no concern in the primary races, Kerry would have faced much stronger competition throughout. But, since McAuliffe and the rest of the DLC gang don't like REAL democracy, their horse was the easy winner.

[Lexingtonian]

6. Where did you get these silly notions?

I'm hoping it wasn't RNC Team Leader emails.

[The Crazy Canadian]

7. The Iraq war is already lost.

Sending more troops is not going to improve the situation and i doubt you'll be able to get any international troops to fix this mess.

[Dancing_Dave]

20. The Crazy Canadian got it right!

All this B.S. about there would be genocide between Sunnis and Shi'ites or between Arabs and Kurds is just living in a U.S. created propaganda bubble, people in Iraq would much rather to be free from occupation forces and work out there own little disagreements amongst themselves. READ ROBERT FISKS INSIGHTFUL DISPATCHES FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. He doesn't play that misleading propaganda game.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/


Iraq is going the way of Vietnam. It is a colonial occupation against people who will keep fighting us as long as we are occupying them. The American People are not willing to pay the price in human sacrifice, their kids in uniform etc., NO MATTER HOW MUCH OIL IS THERE. That matters more to "the elite" i.e. Bush's leading constituency.

The Democratic party represents more communities with young people in the war (as Michael Moore pointed out). Our kids are being sacrificed to Bush's constituency....but then again Kerry is kinda part of that same elite. Maybe he just doesn't get it.

Many more people are against the occupation now than were in early primaries, when a concerted corporate smear campaign was able to scare in Democrats in Iowa etc. into thinking that Dean was "unelectable". The premise of that unelectability was that at that point the majority of Americans still supported the war and occupation, and Dean was definately out there against it. So we got a supposedly more "electable" soldier...but it that won't do us a damn bit of good as the war gets more and more popular!

If Kerry wants to win, he will have to do some careful thinking and change his position towards the war. The only majority he could win as the leader of is the majority of Americans who are coming to oppose the war and occupation. Michael Moore's people!

[blm]

10. NATO and UN won't go in unless Iraq is stabilized.

The only way to do that is with more troops immediately so they all can pull out sooner rather than later.

Leave now and you are handing over a nation and its resources to Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban, just like Bin Laden wanted for the last 8 years.

Sorry you don't like it, but not even Kucinich would pull out immediately without making it possible for the UN and NATO to go in.

[The Crazy Canadian]

13. What country wants to send their troops in that hell hole?

Even if Kerry is voted in, the bulk of the troops will be US even if NATO or UN is able to scrap together some troops.

It's time to declare victory and pull-out, let the chips fall where they may.

[blm]

15. Those "chips" are the lives of the everyday Iraqi citizen.

Sorry...some of us were fighting the Taliban and their oppression of women in Afghanistan back in 96. Your way will bring instant oppression or death to many Iraqi women and the Iraqi men who dare to support them.

[The Crazy Canadian]

19. The Iraqis have to determine their own future.

The longer US and other foreign troops remain in Iraq, the bigger the problem of radical Islamists will become.

Even if "democracy" is established, your still going to get a hardcore Islamist government.

People have to fight for their freedoms, not brought about by force of arms by foreign intruders.

[blm]

23. And if we had interceded in Afghanistan back in 96

and the Taliban had been crushed long before Bin Laden's alliance with them strengthened, maybe 9-11 wouldn't have happened.

But, no....the Republicans made it near impossible for Clinton to take any action. He could only impose sanctions and call for covert actions to take out Bin Laden, knowing that the GOP assholes would never support him.

It won't be the Iraqi women deciding their futures, will it? Why pretend it will with your magnaminous statement knowing that hundreds of thousands of women will NOT be making any kind of determination of their futures?

[Dancing_Dave]

31. OMG, can people really be so TOTALLY CLUELESS about what's really happenin

A rhetorical question about "had we interceeded in Afghanistan in 1996" comes up--but the CIA was interceeding WITH the Taliban then, the CIA TRAINED AND ARMED THE TALIBAN and in 1996 with help from our wonderful allies in Pakistan, those woman-abusing CIA trained dudes took over the country of Afghanistan.

Here's where you can GET A CLUE ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index.jsp

[The Crazy Canadian]

35. Totally agree.

9/11 is a by-product of US foeign policy which supported oppressive regimes like the Taliban. The continue to support oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

[blm]

53. LOL. Try and school me. I was with women trying to alert bozos

about the Taliban and the danger of Bin Laden using fundamentalism to gain power back in 96-97-98 and most of the country didn't give a flying fock till 9-11.

The CIA lost influence with the Taliban and it was long before 1996.

[CTLawGuy]

77. Kerry shouldn't have enabled Bush to

send our troops there.

[Dancing_Dave]

24. BALDER DASH!

With B.S. all over it!
<<Leave now and you are handing over a nation and its resources to Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban, just like Bin Laden wanted for the last 8 years.>>
:puke:

"Al Qaeda",Bin Ladin and the Taliban are not popular in Iraq, they have no constituency or following in Iraq, and they are condemed by the local Iraqi armed resistance, who wants nothing to do with them.

Once again, for students of Middle Eastern Politics (as we all should be now):

http://www.robert-fisk.com/

[blm]

54. Bin Laden and Saddam were enemies.

Saddam was ruthless in keeping secularism in place because he knew Islamic fundamentalism would be like a tsunami if it ever gained ground publicly.

Saddam was always on Bin Laden's hitlist. That's why it was suspicious to me that Bush would give Bin Laden exactly what he wanted.

[Dems Will Win]

27. That's right -- even Kucinich's Web site hedged all bets with the words

"in any case", meaning that if he couldn't withdraw the troops in 90 days he would lengthen the schedule.

The truth is this. It is a true mess. Kerry basically has three options:

1. Yugoslavian Solution - Leave and give southern Iraq to the Shia, who will ally with Iran. Leave Sunni areas to them and the Kurds get the north. A Yugoslavia solution leaves the Sunnis and Shia in two separate cities in Baghdad, where they either come to agreement or fight it out, violence most likely given that Saddam's top officers are running the insurgency and are well armed. In the end, Saddam's officers take over as American politics prevents a return of American military power to the country. If WMDs were spirited out to Syria and Lebanon, they now return to Baathist control. All al-Queda killed or ejected from Iraq.

2. Bosnian Solution - Dubya was too chickenshit to fight the real war and then he did it in his usuial idiotic way. Kerry could gather together NATO countries, as well as Russia, and agree on a kinder, gentler re-do in Iraq. The British taught everyone how to fight this war. Bush ignored it. Kerry won't. With a huge Special Ops force, he could try to negotiate, and if that failed, re-take Falluja, Ramadi and Anbar province, along with al-Sadr city, through negotiation or the British-type of house-to-house fighting by NATO Special Ops and Marines--without bombing or helicopters or heavy artillery (opposite of what we are dong now there). 8 weeks and Iraq is far more stable than it is now. Turn over a stable, centralized Iraq to NATO and UN reconstruction crews, who will then be given a first chance. Reconstruction contracts turned over to Iraqis first, and foreign countries if needed. All oil revenue goes to Oil Ministry and general budget of Iraq. Autonoumous control in federated Iraq. Extra troops tighten up borders while Israel-Palestine progress lowers regional temperature.

3. Continue Bush Solution - Continue to abandon key areas and cities of Iraq, including al-Sadr city, 3 million inside Baghdad, as well as the entire Sunni Anbar province (40% of Iraq landmass)--which includes the cities of Ramadi, Falluja and other towns. Hunker down in bunkers and emerge for strikes on identifed targets, while Baathist fighters and al-Sadr fighters gather strength and continue to receive Saudi and Iranian funding. (Don't forget this is really a war now between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran) Foreign troops refuse in this situation to come in. US troops eventually withdraw to just oil fields due to punishing losses. Al-Queda becomes permanent fixture in Iraq.

Other than a transcendent leap of global consciousness, leading directly to a regional peace conference and a Millennium of Peace, what the hell else could Kerry possibly be considering? I assume he will try all sorts of diplomacy first, but the situation seems far beyond that. The only hope of diplomacy succeeding at this point would be the gathering of the coalition, unfortunately. It really is a sad situation.

More troops would be needed for either Solution 2 or 3. Solution 2 is obviously the least amount of blood shed and likely what Kerry is considering. Solution 1 is several hundred thousand anti-Saddmites dead, after the civil war dead. Solution 3 is also hundreds of thousands dead, only it takes longer for them to die.

Solution 2 is first a peace effort, and if that fails, an intense 8 weeks of house to house with much less civilian casualties (British method) and then years of maintaining stability but with far more chance of Iraq democrats running the army and police and less attacks than now. It is the war that never happened in 2003. 10,000 fighters dead, 1,000 coalition troops. Then more death over the years, but from stragglers. Yet solution 2 lets you get the Americans out and other forces in and give Iraq some kind of a chance.

This is what Kerry, Edwards and Clark are looking at. Thanks to Bush.
If you think 2 is pie in the sky then Solution 1 is the only way to go. Just remember the Baathists will kill all they want, unlike the more humane North Vietnamese who did not massacre as many as predicted.

[Dancing_Dave]

40. Sounds reasonable, but there's one thing way wrong

This idea about the Sunni and Shia likely to have a terrible civil war is all wrong, it just comes right out of the propaganda mill of the colonial oppressors (in this case, the neo-cons).

I will once again link you to one great source that will get rid of many propaganda delusions:

http://www.robert-fisk.com/ :)

[AngryLizard]

11. He CAN'T bring all of our troops home

Do you know how f**ked over Iraq would get if we completely pull out all our troops? We broke it, we're under moral obligation to fix it. What is needed is a plan with like, oh, I don't know, realistic goalposts and deadlines and international help and cooperation, so that we can eventually get the majority of our troops out of there. Not all of them, because that will probably never happen.

[no name no slogan]

21. That's rather presumptuous, isn't it?

Are the Iraqis REALLY so incapable that they cannot manage their OWN affairs without the help of the US?

Even Howard Zinn said as much recently, that it's rather arrogant of the US to assume that somehow our departure from Iraq will leave a "vacuum". The parts of the country not under direct US occupation (including Fallujah) are doing alright without US intervention/occupation, considering their infrastructure has been destroyed by allied forces.

It's pretty ignorant to assume that the "only hope" for Iraq is a continued (or expanded) occupation. It reeks of Vietnam Syndrome, where we destroyed villages in order to save them. A continued military presence in Iraq will do NOTHING to bring "stability" to the region: in fact, it will only create more bin Ladens.

Right now, the #1 instability factor in Iraq is the US occupation, and the new "government" it has imposed on the country. Over 70% of Iraqis want the US OUT, regardless of the consequences. With such lack of support, there is NO WAY we will "stabilize" the country, unless we resort to massive force and bloodshed.

[GreenArrow]

78. our moral obligation

was to not go the fuck in there in the first place. We have NO moral argument to make here; this isn't about morals, it's about spreading and maintaining American power, influence and dominance over the rest of the planet. We need to pay for what we have destroyed, we need to punish those responsible, we need to take the blood money away from the profiteers, and we need to get he hell out.

[Brotherjohn]

12. Agree with most of the responses. First, he isn't president yet.

He needs to take office first, assess the situation, and judge the best way to proceed.

He has spoken of a plan to bring in international support and draw back our troops in a reasonable time frame. But he can only do so much as a candidate. You can bet your sweet ass Bush will move in exactly the opposite direction. If he is re-elected, chances are, he'll use Iraq as a staging ground for invading Iran.

Bush has, as someone else posted above, gotten us into a mess. It is not an easy mess to get out of. We DO now have some responsibility, whether we like bush and what he has done or not. Immediately withdrawing would get a LOT more people killed than it would get Americans saved, and likely result in a much more unstable Mid-East.

Don't fall into the trap that the Repubs are trying to set: That Kerry is no different on Iraq from Bush. Bush abandoned any form of international co-operation, which Kerry would not have done. Bush did NOT use war as a last resort (as the IWR called for), and Kerry would have. Bush has conducted the war (and his entire foreign policy) in ways immeasurably different than a Kerry administration would likely conduct it. I would trust Kerry in a second to proceed in the future in a way that will get us out much sooner, and safer, than Bush. Just because they both think troops should stay, for now, in no way means their positions are the same, or that their policy would be the same.

Making a rash "Bring the troops home now" pledge before he is even elected is just the kind of rash, black-and-white statement/position that we criticize Bush for.

[sandnsea]

16. So..... WHO IS?????

Ralph Nader? Dennis Kucinich? They all say we have to have a secure Iraq, elections and reconstruction. Kerry tells you the truth, it'll take US troops. Sorry, but Kucinich and Nader lie when they tell you there's 150,000 UN troops ready to hop right into Iraq. There aren't. We will need US troops in Iraq to meet the goals THEY say are important. The best we can hope for is an internationalized governing effort, internationalized reconstruction and NGO's, and with honest diplomacy and cooperation we will get a larger number of international troops. Doesn't mean ours will all be pulled out. Additional REPLACEMENT troops does mean the troops who are there can come home and not do extended and multiple tours. It's an honest plan and it's the only way for their to be a hope that Iraq doesn't turn into Afghanistan 2000.

[Ress12]

22. Agreed

We owe it to the Iraqi people to not leave until the country is stabilized and in at least as good shape as we found it. Anything less would be a criminal.

[Bad Thoughts]

38. Integrating Forces

"Sorry, but Kucinich and Nader lie when they tell you there's 150,000 UN troops ready to hop right into Iraq. There aren't."

It is more precise to say that there are 130,000 US troops waiting to join a UN or NATO force of unknown size.

[Bad Thoughts]

18. Withdrawing troops would violate International Law

While it is certainly true that the Iraq War was both amoral and reckless, withdrawing the troops would only compound the problem.

According to international law, the US has responsibilities to maintain security in Iraq. The US cannot abscond these responsibilities for any reason--EVEN IF THE WAR IS JUDGED TO BE ILLEGAL. It is up to the US government and military to stabilize Iraq, and WE WILL PICK UP THE BILL FOR IT IN MONEY AND LIVES. No matter what we believe, the US cannot turn the clock back on the last two years.

By all means protest any policies that would reflect profiteering. I do not think that Kerry has said that we should pay for the occupation with Iraqi oil (or anything worse). These messages would be more effective if they were directed into the general discourse rather than presenting criticisms of Kerry. Kerry knows he cannot "bring the troops home" because of law. Kerry knows that the Iraq economy must be preserved for the Iraqis. Say these things with him, rather than against him.

[bigwillq]

25. The rule aside, I think it's a no-win situation

I'm still mixed in my beliefs with this situation. I was against the war in the first place but if we are going to send troops and spend 125 and more billion then let's finish the job.

We started some of the mess and I think it's now our responsibility whether we think this war is right or wrong to patch it up.

If we withdraw, I think that'll make this country look weaker (especially our government, no matter which party is in control). The world already has an negative image of this country and I think we will look more foolish and weak if we just back out and leave a country that we destroyed to fend for itself.

[Bad Thoughts]

28. Could be no win ...

I think that we agree on many points. I was also vehemently against the war, but my country was not. Despite my protests, I bear responsibility for the war as do other Americans.

The chances of using an occupation to reform a political system are small. Withdrawing prematurely makes them much smaller. Getting NATO or UN involved will improve the chances (a little) for a democratic and unified Iraq, but both options would not bring US troops home--they would be absorbed by the incoming international forces. However, neither will come if the US withdraws. (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has some nice articles comparing the success of occupations and their long term effects).

[The Crazy Canadian]

29. Most Iraqis don't want your help or your sympathy.

They want control of thier future and lives. Not to be governed by some CIA controlled puppet regime.

The neocons really fucked up on their Iraq adventure and i somehow think they even knew we would be stuck their even if things failed.

The Iraq war was unjust and it is unjust to stay.

[bigwillq]

30. They will never get my sympathy

Because I never wanted to have troops go there in the first place.

They may not want our help either but speaking from a U.S. perspective

I think it has become our countries obligation and responsibility to stay and try to clean up this mess. That's all.

Sadly, I don't know how long we will have to stay, I don't think much is going to change over there.

So I think there will come a time when we must just withdraw entirely but I don't thin know is the time.

[The Crazy Canadian]

33. I give it a year or two.

By that time, public support and troop morale will be to low to continue. I don't hold out much hope that things will be improved in Iraq in the coming years, regardless if Bush or Kerry takes office.

[bigwillq]

37. I agree with the year or two timeline

And I also don't think that the siutation will change much in Iraq. I do think that Kerry will take a more Clintonesque approach to oversea matters, which I felt worked well for the U.S. during Clinton's terms.

How do you think Clinton handled foreign matters?

[The Crazy Canadian]

41. OK i guess.

But we face a much greater challenge in foreign matters these days and think a whole new approach is needed.

My main concern is how Progressives plan on tackling foreign policy matters.

[Dancing_Dave]

49. We are NOT "cleaning up"!!!

We are continuing to occupy and destroy a foreign country! The longer we are there the worse it gets! Snap out of your propaganda illusion and get a clue. As it gets worse and worse more and more American's say it's time to give up on situation that just gets worse and worse for both Americans and Iraqi's every day we are there.

As I said before, the only Americans who continue to support the Occupation of Iraq will be people quite religiously dedicated to Bush and his "values", people who would never vote for anyone but Bush this election no matter who says what or what happens between now and then.

Just snap out of those propaganda illusions about us "cleaning up the mess", get down with reality and you'll realize THE ONLY MAJORITY THAT KERRY CAN WIN WITH IN NOVEMBER IS THE MAJORITY THAT OPPOSES THE WAR AND OCCUPATION.

If Kerry was really smart, he would have chosen MICHAEL MOORE as his running mate. I'm not kidding a ticket with Moore as Veep really would reach deep into Bush's base and defeat Bush with the help of NASCAR fans. :)

[Bad Thoughts]

36. You cannot wash your hands of Iraq by blaming neocons

Yes, Iraqis want "control of their future and lives", but the options are not either anarchic independence or fascist oversight, as you portray them.

They want international funding. They want international respectability. They want security--first from an international force (including Americans) that will train an indigenous force and then allow that force to be free of foreign intervention. They want law informed by religion. Do they want the "Coalition of the Willing"? No, Iraqis would trade up in a heartbeat, but they do not want a power vacuum.

And no, it would be unjust--and illegal--to leave Iraqis to implode.

[The Crazy Canadian]

45. Read this article and see what you think.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0723-08.htm

Published on Friday, July 23, 2004 by Tribune Media Services
Saddam's People are Winning the War
by Scott Ritter

The battle for Iraq's sovereign future is a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As things stand, it appears that victory will go to the side most in tune with the reality of the Iraqi society of today: the leaders of the anti-U.S. resistance.

Iyad Allawi's government was recently installed by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to counter a Baathist nationalism that ceased to exist nearly a decade ago.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's regime shifted toward an amalgam of Islamic fundamentalism, tribalism and nationalism that more accurately reflected the political reality of Iraq.

Thanks to his meticulous planning and foresight, Saddam's lieutenants are now running the Iraqi resistance, including the Islamist groups.

[Dancing_Dave]

62. RE:Scott Ritter at Common Dreams

Thanks for bringing up that piece by Scott Ritter at Common Dreams. He is a very intelligent and well-informed writer and activist and sees why Iraq is sure to become another Vietnam--unless we negotiate our way out of their PRONTO! Every day we stay it just gets worse and we are more hated and more Iraqis and Americans die. The people there just want their country back!

Just like Michael Moore and all his fans here in America want our country back from Bush and his neo-con artists!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Bad Thoughts]

43. NO, SOMEONE WHO RESPECTS INTERNATIONAL LAW

HAGUE REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 43

[Bad Thoughts]

46. And please don't insult!

I put forth a legitimate argument based on laws. I am well aware of international laws as I a writing my doctorate on the occupation of Alsace and the Rhineland during the Two World Wars and the Inter-war period. Should these insults (or become worse) I will complain to the moderator).

[Dancing_Dave]

64. Sorry if I was insulting.

That was not a serious intent of mine. Do you have any link for this document you mention? In Europe everyone who should know says the U.S. war and occupation against Iraq is against international law the most clear, obvious and fundamental reasons--and there are a lot more people in Europe who really care about international law there than in the U.S.

[Bad Thoughts]

74. Hague Regulations of 1907

Article 43:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Article 42 defines occupation:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions contains a non-exhaustive list of some of the obligations of occupying powers.

[mzmolly]

47. Geneva conventions.

For one. :hi:

[Dancing_Dave]

66. No, the Geneva Conventions

Do NOT give any right for the U.S. to occupy Iraq as a colony, against the wishes of the vast majority of the Iraqi people.

The Geneva Conventions do apply to how we treat our prisoners of war in this war, that's where they are relevant. The Geneva conventions don't say anything that gives the U.S. or any country the right to invade and occupy another to steal it's oil. Absolutely not!

[mzmolly]

85. Actually the GC's require us not to leave the place in shambles.

Your the one inserting the word *colony* and other inflamatory language.

The Geneva Conventions deal with more then POW treatment, they deal with the obligation to rebuild a country once you've torn it down.

This war was wrong, illegal, criminal. But, we have destroyed a country and we are obligated to it's people to #1. fire Bush, #2. get international leadership involved in rebuilding, with honest intentions.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

26. This is only news if you haven't been paying close attention

I don't think he ever said he was bringing them home.
About the only candidate I heard being that bold was Kucinich.

[dolstein]

32. No responsible leader would

I'm sure that Kerry wants to stabilize Iraq and withdraw American troops as quickly as possible. But you'd have to be an idiot -- or Dennis Kucinich -- to promise a unilateral withdrawal by a date certain. If you did that, then the insurgents would simply hole up until the withdrawal date.

[The Crazy Canadian]

39. I don't think stabilizing Iraq is going to happen.

It's over. Now is the time to think about withdrawing and soon.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

44. If he does not take steps to bring the troops home ASAP after he is

elected,

Kucinich/Dean - Dean/Kucinich in 2008.

An new progressive organization has already begun within the Democratic Party.

[George_Bonanza]

51. Dean said so himself his Iraq policy is the same as Kerry's

Wake up and realize that Dean's campaign was a progressive movement, while the candidate himself is not a flaming liberal. In the overall scheme of things, John Kerry is more liberal than Dean.

[Zorra]

55. I understand that

very well.

But it would take a huge base to put pressure on an incumbent president.

And Dean has a large base of loyal followers.

If Kerry does not make an attempt to bring our troops home, and Dean is not willing to be part of an effort to bring them home, we'll have to find a different running mate for DK.

Hopefully we won't need to put this type of pressure on an incumbent Prez.

[JohnKleeb]

63. who says that DK will be running in 2008?

I think DK has plans to run for the senate.

[Zorra]

67. No one. It was a

theoretical consideration of a means for putting pressure on John Kerry if he does not make an effort to get us out of Iraq ASAP.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. So he has the same position he had when the Democratic primary voters

overwelmingly supported him. The anti-war candidates lost. Get over it.

[w4rma]

52. I have faith that President Kerry will bring the majority of them home

as soon as it is possible. I've read his background, and my gut feeling is that he wants to bring them home as soon as he can and that he will work tirelessly towards this goal among other goals.

[deminflorida]

56. Kerry MUST spell out his plan on Thursday to make Iraq an

International Operation. The swing voting public wants specifics. Wes Clark has a grand opportunity to make this case during his lead off speech. If these specifics are not spelled out to the American public, I fear the worst in November.

[oasis]

57. I trust that Kerry will get us out of the mess. Nader won't because

he can't win.

[fairfaxvadem]

58. New President and Europe will come a' callin'...

They are holding their collective breath waiting for us to kick Shrub to the curb. If we do, they'll be saying "okay, let's get this Iraq business squared away." Maybe it's crappy that they won't do it for Bush, but I don't blame them.

Kerry wins, things change in many, many ways.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Here's a thoughtful reply.

:boring:

[PVnRT]

61. If we suddenly pull out

we get Afghanistan II. The invasion has been done, it can't be undone. The best we can hope for is some measure of freedom in Iraq.

Personally, I would like to see Kerry persuade the UN, especially Arab nations, commit peacekeeping troops to Iraq to get our guys out. Violence against decadent Westerners is one thing, if the terrorists start killing good Arabs with as much frequency as they are killing Americans now, they will find their supporters dwindle very quickly.

[digno dave]

65. We fucked it up, we have to fix it!!!

[Dancing_Dave]

75. This is one of the liveliest discussions on DU

For quite some time now.

Thanks to everyone who contributed in one way or another!:)

I still am aware that "now we have to clean up the mess we made" is a false imperialist rationalization. Everyday we are there, the mess gets worse and more people die. The American people will ultimately reject paying that much blood for oil. The amazing success of "Fahrenheit 9/11", as well as a number of opinion polls, make that clear already.

By the begining of November, the only people who support continuing the war in Iraq, will be people devoted to Bush and his attitudes with a religious stubborness, people who are sure to vote for Bush over Kerry no matter what happens or who says what between now and then. And there will be a clear majority against continuing the war, who could elect Kerry IF he re-thinks his Iraq policy between now and then. Millions of people are having second thoughts about this right now!

So the best thing you can do to support Kerry is GIVE HIM A CLUE! Go to his speaches with a "No Blood For Oil","Bring the Troops Home", or '70's style Peace Sign, and make sure you get close enough to Kerry for him to read the sign!

[CTLawGuy]

76. How dare you

criticize our infallible candidate :eyes:

You must want Bush to win.

Off to room 101 with you!


/sarcasm

[DoomFook]

79. He'll Change Once Elected

Once he's in the UN will get on board and replace most of the troops there. The UN hates Dumbya; France is calling the shots and will work very nicely with President Kerry who at least speaks the language unlike Dumbya who can barely speak English. I wish they would do an investigation on how he got that Harvard MBA. I flunked out; man was it hard. Anyway, look for Kerry to get us out of there.