Reply #16: I am not that hard-headed

[Zodiak]

as to only demand an immediate pull-out. I would support an immediate ending to all US-sponsored hostilities and an invitation to the table for all parties involved. I think that a serious, concerted effort at diplomacy CAN work in the area, but it requires an ending to US hostilities. Defensive is fine, but no more bombing villiages. And Bush can't do it...that much is certainly clear.

Diplomacy would entail releasing our stranglehold on Iraqi resources and our insistence on privatization. I would also say that UN troops from non-hostile nations should oversee a REAL Iraqi election without any US sponsorship or influence. This can all be done with the US troops present to ensure the proper defense, but no more death squads, no more bombings, and for God's sakes no more "Terror in the hands of Justice"!

It is a compromise I would listen to, but for diplomacy to work, the death has to be kept at a minimum. If Clark is supporting that, then I will back him (but understand that this will not realistically begin to happen until 2009 at the earliest, barring a massive change in both the house and the senate in 2007. That is a lot of death at the hands of Bush until that time.

We still need to have calls for immediate withdrawal, though, for such a demand may gain resonance and force the Chimperial Majesty to follow this compromise. Clark is great for taking this tack, but the grassroots needs to still play "hard-ball" so we don't get less than we want. It is simple positioning in anticipation of a compromise.

Properly conducted diplomacy just MIGHT head-off having an entire region hating us for centuries to come, but it cannot be done by Bush.