In support of the WAR - The barbarity in Fallujah

[KurtNilsen]

What happened today in Fallujah was horrible. Little kids cutting pieces of dead bodies and hanging the pieces from telephone lines while dancing around is beyond comprehension. There is no way around it. It was depraved, horrible and utterly disgusting.

It was meant to be.

And the reaction has been predictable. The right wing nutcases want to nuke Fallujah out of existance. Some misguided "progressives" want to cut and run and abandon the Iraqis to their misery.

It has been a psy-ops propaganda operation executed so masterfully that Rumsfeld himself would have been proud to take credit. A large rent-a-crowd is at the scene as the operation commences. Cameras are rolling to catch every second of barbarity.

This has been done before. Somalia. It worked then. It cannot be allowed to work again.

Thank goodness we have a leader like John Kerry. He understands what is at stake. He understands the stakes.

Having supported John Edwards in the primaries, I must admit that I now really appreciate the fact that Kerry won the nomination.

It takes a leader like Kerry to not take the easy road. To blame the situation on Bush. Instead, Kerry has made it clear that the job must be taken care of. Bush and his cronies got America into this mess, but it will take a grown up like Kerry to get us out.

Should we cut and run?

It would be to stab every decent Iraqi in the back and redouble the crimes that have been commited against innocent Iraqies. In the most thorough survey yet conducted in occupied Iraq, only 15 percent wants the US troops to leave before a stable government is in place (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm).

I'll leave it to you to guess which group of people those 15 percent constitute.

If we let the atrocities of this morning make us abandon the people in Iraq, who do you think will celebrate?

Well, I can tell you who will not celebrate. The women's group who was assaulted in Basra the other day will have reasons to be worried. The socialist party in Bagdhad certainly will not be popping the champagne. The relatives of the hundreds of thousands in mass graves will not have cause to be happy.

I don't know which side you want to be on, but I know where I will stand.

I read a story in a Norwegian paper yesterday about the Norwegian troops in Southern Iraq. The troops could not even contemplate leaving. One soldier said that it brought tears to his eyes to see how they had rescued the livelihoods of over fifteen thousand of the marsh arabs by irrigating water for them to farm on. He said he could not even think the thought of having to go to the farmers and say that he had to abandon them. Norway was against the war. But, we now know that the Iraq must succeed. The world cannot afford anything else.

The Falluja incident was horrible. That was the entire point of the ones who commited it. This was atrocities made for TV.

Please, please, we must not fall for it.

[papau]

1. Iraq Cut and run is not Kerry's plan

giving up control to international - UN


and getting more international help


is the Kerry plan

[KurtNilsen]

2. I know. That is why this post is thanking god that Kerry

is the leader he is.

[tom_paine]

3. You know, I guess I agree with you

I wish Kerry would buy some damned adds to counter the Bushevik Lies, but yes, I am beginning to appreaciate both him as a person and his political skills.

Even if that wasn't the case, I'd still be working like hell to see him win.

[DulceDecorum]

52. The Kabbalah of Basra

"The leader of Persia," states the Midrash, "will attack an Arab nation and the Arab king will go to Aram for advice. The leader of Persia will bring destruction to the entire world, and all of the nations will be struck by panic and fear ..
http://www.moshiach.com/discover/articles/saddam.php

Along the way, the Left Behind books have drawn sharp criticism for elements such as an emphasis on the conversion of Jews and their focus on the brutal rule of the Antichrist, who happens to head the United Nations.
Glorious Appearing is the most anticipated and potentially most controversial novel yet: it is the installment in which Jesus returns.
Secular stores - among them Barnes & Noble and Wal-Mart - are planning major promotions as well. Wal-Mart has been giving away copies of the first chapter.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/books/article/0,1299,DRMN_63_2771047,00.html
p

Saddam was tricked, by April Galaspie, into attacking Kuwait,
http://www.iraqi-mission.org/prs-speech-12-07-02.htm
which had been drilling slantwise into Iraqi oil with technology supplied by the US.

As the exercise unfolded, the real-world movements of Iraq’s air and ground forces eerily paralleled the scripted scenario of the war game. So closely did actual intelligence reports resemble the fictional exercise messages, the latter had to be prominently stamped "Exercise Only." During the last few days of INTERNAL LOOK, Saddam Hussein’s forces invaded and captured Kuwait on 2 August 1990.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/internal-look.htm

The powers that be
are bound and determined to force the Rapture,
and with it, the end of the world.

Now that you have digested at least some of this, consider Bush's actions for the past several months. Without even needing to invoke a conspiracy theory, his behavior suddenly makes sense — in a bizarro world way. Thus you have his constant use of the words "evildoers" and his passage of judgment on other nations as "evil," his obsession with attacking Iraq and, if he had his way, also Iran (the modern-day counterparts to "Persia" — at least close enough for government work!), his willingness to use nuclear weaponry (after all, Armageddon is part of the plan), his creation of a shadow government, his seemingly inexplicable refusal to make any effort to restrain Sharon, his surrounding himself with fundies, regardless of their qualifications (only the "pure" can participate in the "glory" of the final hours!), his determination to knock down the wall between church and state, his encouragement of Ashcroft's prayer meetings in the Justice Building, etc.
http://www.unknownnews.net/apocalypsenow.html

Continuing the US military presence in Iraq = Continuing along the path to Armageddon.
Amen.

[bryant69]

4. Good post

Now that we are there, abandoning Iraq just isn't a viable option. But we damn well need to get rid of President Bush so that the situation will have more responsible and moral leadership.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[treepig]

13. yup, us westerners

have brought nothing but bliss to iraq over the past century

god knows the country couldn't do without us.

[bryant69]

14. Well, to be fair

The Iraqis have created plenty of bliss for themselves as well. You have to give them credit for that; it's kind of arrogant to assume that only the United States or the "west" are soley responsible for creating bliss.

[KurtNilsen]

20. Treepig.

I appreciate your insightful comment. It's truly a blessing that you have chosen to share it with us.

That said, in my opinion the fact that the west have played a large role in messing up the middle east, just makes the moral imperative to help sort it out even stronger.

Here Bush have made matters worse, there can be no doubt about that. The Palestinian situation needs to be sorted out ASAP. The exporting of wahabist propaganda from our Saudi friends payed for by our petroleum needs to be stopped.

Yet, isn't is infantile to expect a century worth of mistakes and deliberate abuse to be corrected in a jiffy?

[treepig]

26. the point is,

we don't have any fucking idea how to straighten out the middle east.

what are we going to do - install a government in iraq that 20 years from now is every bit as bad as saddam? (after all, he wouldn't have been in power in the first place without u.s. support).

with the possible exception of jordan, one is mightily hard pressed to name even one middle east country in which the u.s. has yield considerable influence that isn't teetering on the edge of a rather bleak future.

you got to face it, we're not helping!!!

[KurtNilsen]

70. I do disagree.

We do have some idea how to help out. It's just that we are not doing it.

I agree. In the middle east, the US have not been a force for good.

That's why I want it to change.

[IrateCitizen]

35. We don't owe a role to "sort it out"...

What we owe a role in is simply enabling them to rebuild their civil society to a decent degree, and then getting the f*** out of their affairs.

[KurtNilsen]

74. That IS sorting it out.

[KurtNilsen]

23. Thank you... I feel very strongly about this.

Now, that the situation is like it is. I think it is pivotal that everyone, regardless opinion in the run-up to the war unites behind finishing the job.

And the "job", doesn't end with Iraq. Bush has shamefully neglected the Israel/Palestine situation.

[redqueen]

25. Any chance you'll be answering my post below, perhaps?

:)

[PeaceForever]

56. Why is abandoning Iraq not a viable option?

Hopefully you'll give me a good reason, not a variation of the racist statement, "Because they can't take of themselves."

Thanks in advance.

[KurtNilsen]

76. I'll try to answer.

Because, at the moment there are too strong forces that want the area to go up in flames for the current Iraqi society to stand up against.

But, I do agree that the US should get out of there ASAP. It's just that ASAP isn't next month.

Unfortunately.

[PeaceForever]

107. That seems like a weak argument

What you're saying is that we should continue to kill and die halfway around the world because of what MIGHT happen. That's similar to the justification for us being in Vietnam, if you read the pro-war arguments from the 1960s.

[tedzbear]

121. Bad post.

We don't need to be the world's policeman. Let the UN do it. Time to bring our boys and girls home before it's too late. Just wait until Kerry reinstates the draft so he can do it the right way. It will be just like Johnson and Viet-nam. A big, unnecessary mistake.

I support the Kucinich approach. Kerry's policy is just the flip side of the chimp's coin.

:kick:

[KurtNilsen]

138. I agree, kinda, with Kucinich approach.

It's just that who do you think will need to provide the manpower for the UN...It's the US...

[Walt Starr]

5. Pack up and leave

That's our only option. Anything else is wrong, IMO.

[KurtNilsen]

7. What do you think will happen then?

[PeaceForever]

51. Maybe the Iraqis can take care of themselves.

Isn't that a crazy thought?!! They don't need the White Man to give them civilization?!

[KurtNilsen]

78. I think it is not very constructive to play the race card.

Frankly, despite the role the western powers have played in the mess that is now the middle east, the arab nations have not played a very constructive role either.

Someone needs to provide the impetus for change.

[sangh0]

97. Maybe? Let me guess

Sitting here in America, you're willing to let the Iraqis take that chance. Even more, you're willing to FORCE the Iraqis to take that chance

[PeaceForever]

109. Flip your argument around

Sitting here in America, you're willing to let US soldiers take the chance on their lives. Even more, you're willing to FORCE them to take that chance.

[sangh0]

175. That doesn't work

We have a VOLUNTARY army. No one is FORCED to join.

Try again

[Michael Costello]

124. The US supported Hussein after what they now call "atrocities"

After Hussein gassed the Kurds, the US kept sending him tanks and Apache helicopters. The US armed Hussein before, during and after his gassing. In other words, one could make the case that the US had a role in the attack on the Kurds - the US was arming the people who gassed the Kurds, and continued to do so after they were gassed. So who the hell is the US government to talk about atrocities in Iraq that Hussein did. Of course, the US is arming Turkey which, if you can believe it, has done even worse atrocities to the Kurds, which continue to this very day.

Give me a break with this crap. My Lai, napalming Vietnamese children, the Christmas bombing of Hanoi, the bombing of Vietnam's dikes. Never mind the US support for proxy wars - the El Mozote massacre, the murder of Archbishop Romero, massacres in Colombia.

The US is in no position to blame anyone of an atrocity. This war is an atrocity, just as surely as US support of Hussein after he gassed the Kurds was. The US should have NEVER BEEN THERE TO BEGIN WITH. They should pull the hell out and let the Iraqis run the place, not close down Iraqi union headquarters and try to ram in fake American business-run unions, privatize the whole country, give Haliburton kickbacks to running everything etc.

[formernaderite]

188. I'm sorry I just can't deal with humans who behave this way.....

...I was always against this war, and watching this type of barbaric behavior reaffirms my position. Frankly I couldn't care less about these people, or a culture that encourages barbarism. A cold position perhaps, but I don't think it's an issue of being able to teach them anything. What do I blame?

Religon.
As an atheist I'd have to say Islam is definitely one of the wackier ones in terms of human rights, womens rights etc. I don't see any hope here.

[adriennel]

9. call the UN

beg for forgiveness and request help?
PS I agree with you Walt Starr

[Walt Starr]

71. Precisely, our only option

We shouldn't be in there right now. Pull out and turn it over to the U.N.

[dogman]

89. Guess what.

We are the UN

[IrateCitizen]

10. What do you predict will happen in the aftermath, Walt?

Do you think it will be all wine and cheese for Iraqis from that point forward? Do you think that all the problems there will instantly disappear?

Would you be able to sleep soundly at night if the whole situation degenerated into all-out civil war shortly thereafter?

I know I wouldn't. I opposed the invasion as much as anyone. I'm also opposing the ongoing occupation, but I still recognize the realities on the ground over there do not simply permit us to "pack up and leave" without any sort of plan as to how to settle things down on the ground in Iraq.

Personally, I'd use a Provisional Governing Authority for managing NGO's helping Iraqis to rebuild their own infrastructure, while turning over actual governance to the Iraqis themselves. At the very least, local elections should be held, even if there isn't a strong central government. It would be nice to internationalize the peacekeeping force, but I don't see other countries jumping at the chance to send their own troops there.

But above all, the emphasis would have to be on simply facilitating the ability of Iraqis to rebuild their own infrastructure. Such would have to be in a spirit of complete generosity with the only self-interest being in an Iraq of true self-rule. No military bases, no meddling in their Constitution, no special contracts. All of which makes in impossible under the current administration.

[adriennel]

16. will there be wine and cheese

if the US stays in Iraq (for a year, two, 20, etc)? I doubt it.

[IrateCitizen]

18. Nor will there be if we just cut and leave

Note, I am much in favor of eliminating a large part of the military presence there and rather attempting to work through channels that are genuinely interested in helping Iraqis to rebuild their civil society.

The entire situation is completely fucked, I am certain we can agree upon that much. The solution lies in finding a way for all parties to make the tastiest dish out of this big shit sandwich we find in front of us.

That's not going to be a military solution, but it won't be a solution to be found in simply leaving Iraq to its own devices, either.

[adriennel]

32. I'm concerned

about the military solution...the bases planned for Iraq are supposed to be the biggest US military presence overseas (I think I heard this on NPR) This will certainly not help anti-American sentiment in the region. In fact, it seems like BushCo is trying to entrench our presence in Iraq for all eternity.
We do agree...too bad we have to share a shit sandwich!

[KoKo]

22. We should bring the UN/Nato in as in Afghanistan, take out our soldiers

and leave the "Private Mercenaries" we pay to be hired thugs there to keep the peace along with UN and NATO.

And yes! Bush should BEG them to come in and help clean up his mess.

[dogman]

94. We are UN/NATO

Is it moral to have others do our dirty work? We started it, we're screwed. B$$$co would love to tax us to pay for private armies.

[tedzbear]

123. Let Halliburton and Bechtel provide their own security...

...since they are making the big bucks over there. Stop this military subsidy for big oil! It's time the United States stops being the world's policeman and takes care of its own backyard.

[KurtNilsen]

139. Do you know that

these people who were killed provided security for emergency food shipments?

[KoKo]

160. That's what we've been told! How do we know the truth of it? How?

Unless you believe that this Administration is honest. Ha!

[KurtNilsen]

30. IrateCitizen - I appreciate your response.

I think that a stronger UN involvement which I know that John Kerry would be able to create would make it much easier to get more international support on the ground.

But, I think more preferable is for the Iraqies themselves to take a larger role in policing the place. That is wheter you belive it or not already slowly taking place. These things are not sorted out in a few months.

[IrateCitizen]

33. Forget about policing the place for a moment...

The Iraqis should be the ones primarily REBUILDING their infrastructure, too. We should pretty much just be providing them the funding.

It's not like we're dealing with an ignorant country here. Iraq was industrialized before the first Gulf War. They have plenty of engineers, scientists, technicians, and skilled laborers. If we strive to assist them in what THEY need, rather than take the "lead", we'll be much more successful.

If that were to happen, I would bet that a lot of the need for "policing" would disappear quite rapidly.

[redqueen]

43. THANK YOU, IC!

Damn right they should be doing the work!!!!

With so many unemployed Iraqis, the fact that we're bringing in people from outside to do the work only exacerbates the hostility.

I agree completely with your last sentence. Thanks for adding this point to the discussion!

:yourock:

[KurtNilsen]

82. I agree very much with you this.

The Bush administration's decision to along with all the dramatic changes Iraq goes through to implement a full on capitalistic society is dead wrong, and incredibly misguided. That's what happens when you let nothing but unadultared idology guide your decisions.

If there is something Iraq needs it it to utilise its vast human resouces. If it something that is not helpful, it is millions upon millions of unemployed people.

[KurtNilsen]

116. Hey IC... I just found this from the BBC survey.

"Creating job opportunities was rated more likely to improve security effectively than hiring more police."

So it seems the Iraqis agree with you :-)

[Columbia]

17. That option is also illegal

[theHandpuppet]

19. Just for the record, Walt...

... I agree with you.

[adriennel]

6. cut and run dilemma

I opposed this war from the very beginning. I opposed BushCo's trashing of the UN at the beginning of this war. I spoke my opinion and protested. the war went on as planned.
my question is this: the anti-war sentiment is often countered with the attitude "we can't cut and run. we got involved, now we must finish what we start". Did we "finish" in Vietnam? Why must those who opposed the war continue to sit back and accept what is going in Iraq? I am not advocating we leave Iraq high and dry. I don't know the answer to this situation. But many of us who want us OUT of Iraq ASAP (and never wanted us to go in the first place) are silenced by this kind of rhetoric.

[KurtNilsen]

15. "But many of us who want us OUT...are silcenced by this kind of rhetoric

I know. That was my intention :-)

But, seriously, I do respect your stance. Most of my friends took it. For goodness sake, most of the world took your stance.

Yet, the war went ahead, and we now are stuck in the current situation. I think at least the road ahead deserves debate?

I would be glad if some one could convince me that it was the right idea to leave. It certainly would be the easy option. So please, if you can, tell me how we should get out, and how you think that will be better than finishing the job.

In my opionion, not very educated I admit, Iraq is not Vietnam. I am opposed to drawing easy conclusions from historical comparisons. Yes, situations often share important elements. But, there are also major differences.

[adriennel]

28. silencing others

is nothing to smile about. But you admit it, so I'll give you a break ;)

staying out of Iraq was, frankly, the only plan I had in mind. Once the US got involved, I basically stopped knowing "what should be done". I am scared shitless that we (the American people and world at large) do not really know what is going on in Iraq based on the media OR what BushCo tells us. I'm pretty sure that BushCO HAS NO IDEA what they are doing in Iraq. Most assumptions taken with this war (it will pay for itself in xx amount of time, the people will greet us with flowers, Iraq has WMDs) have been proven WRONG. Therefore I completely mistrust every step BushCo takes regarding Iraq!

We do owe the Iraqi people. I'm a big fan of the UN (sorry right-wingers) and until recently used Kosovo as an example. Well I heard on the news the other day there is still tremendous violence between the various populations. I don't know what the answer is. I do think that the Vietnam War proved that despite the best intentions, staying year after year after year led to little more than a rising death toll. Sometimes it is easier to admit you were wrong and cut your losses instead of continuing to beat a dead horse.

[LandOLincoln]

172. Is the UN now in Kosovo? Or is it still solely NATO?

& BTW the last I heard the UN didn't want any part of Iraq, but at least a couple of the NATO countries were looking favorably on an Iraqi involvement.

[atreides1]

38. Not Sure If You Can Be Convinced!!!

I don't think anyone could convince you that it's the right idea to leave, you already seem convinced that leaving cannot be done.

You said, "So please, if you can, tell me how we should get out, and how you think that would be better than finishing the job." First off, what "job", would that be finding WMD's, well there are none to find, so that "job" is finished. Maybe you're referring to the removal of a dictator and giving the Iraqi people their "Freedom".

So we do that by appointing a hand picked Prime Minister(Dictator), who will do what the US tells him to do, we shut down newspapers, and TV stations that are considered anti-coalition. Would that be the so-called "Freedom" that we have given them. It would seem that "job" is almost finished also.

Once you tell us which "job" you are referring to, perhaps someone here more educated than I, could try to convince you.

You are right, Iraq is not Vietnam, not yet, the US is only in the early stages of that path, the US will appoint a hand picked leader, just like it did in Vietnam, it will depend on internal military and police forces, who will become corrupt. And then all of the Iraqi people under their religious leaders will start to become part of a movement to remove the foot of the US from their necks.

Before that time the members of the coalition military will withdraw their troops, one by one, just like the Australians and South Koreans
pulled their troops out of Vietnam. Then the US will be their alone, sure we'll lead raids into small towns and villages, US military personnel will burn down houses, and destroy crops, and possibly kill
innocent Iraqis in the process. And more US troops will die.

How do we try to stop this possible scenario, we go to the UN and our European allies, we sit and work with the leaders that the diverse groups within Iraq select. We let the Iraqi people decide their destiny.

So far all the US has done is to tell the Iraqi people, you will do it our way, and unless you do we will keep our army in your country,
we will shhot your women and children, we will not allow you freedom to express your views, we will take your property.

In other words "Let us win your hearts and minds, or we'll burn down your huts".

By the way, you do realize that the oil being taken out of Iraq is not being metered, in other words we don't know where the oil is going to or who's really getting it. But this war wasn't about oil, was it?

[redqueen]

"the oil being taken out of Iraq is not being metered"

My blood pressure just went up by about 10 points.

:grr:

Do you have a source for that which I could circulate?

Thanks!

[atreides1]

114. source

www.alertnet.org

[KurtNilsen]

62. Atreides1

Thank you for a good post.

I don't know if you convinced me to change my mind, but you certainly paints a belivable and depresseing picture.

I'll come clean and admit that I admire Friedman. Thus, I believe that helping to make the Middle East a humane place, IS attacking the root causes of terrorism. That is the "job" to which I am refering to. Are these just pipedreams? After reading your post one would tend to think so.

But, I do believe that if this is handled delicately and intelligently it can be done. I think you are right on track in your post. If that us your opinion, we are not very far apart. And if this could be done successfully, the reward for our own security, and for the lifes of millions in the region would be invaluable.

And, one thing...Iraq was not really a progressive paradise to begin with. I think it is worth to remind everyone that despite all the mistakes made uptil now, the majority of Iraqies today think they are better off than before the war.

[atreides1]

111. Yes

True, a good portion of them are probably better off then they were,
but now that it's their country again, they want to be the ones to run it.

And if that means that they make mistakes along the way, then so be it.

It took almost 20 years for the US to come up with a document that all of the 13 colonies could agree on, and in that time we almost went to war with France, our ally. We attempted to conquer Canada, and
got our butts whipped, and the Canadians did that without the British
to help.

Personally I don't like Friedman, more often then not he's an apologist for the Israelis. And he very rarely points out that the
problems in the Middle East are the fault of both Arabs and Israelis.

I like to think that peace in the Middle East is something that can be achieved, but not at the point of a bayonet, or the barrel of a gun. The underlying reasons have to be examined, if not then it's like putting on makeup to cover a tumor on your face, it may look
good, but you've done nothing to remove the tumor, you've only covered it up.

But was Iraq better off as three seperate entities, before the British
forced them by bayonet and gun barrel to become Iraq?

We'll never know, will we?

[tedzbear]

126. It sure seems to me that the USA is still supporting the Baathists...

...by restricting the Shiites from their rightful place in the nation's policy formation.
It's no coincidence that Saudi Arabia and its satellites are predominately Sunni and the only Shiite majorities are in Iraq and Iran. Maybe that has something to do with our fear of Iraq becoming an Islamic state. It will be the Islam of Iran, not of Saudi Arabia.

We would prefer a Baathist nonsectarian state rather than an Iran friendly Shiite one.

[0007]

187. Thank you for articulating the way I feel.

Halliburton must pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis build and straighten out their country. We could help with funding and leadership from the top. Our troops must pull out. If a Civil war is inevitable then it will happen if we're there or not there.

Regardless of what we may think of Saddam, he did run a tight ship, and it cost many lives with our help.

[PeaceForever]

55. The whole "we can't leave" argument is based on an assumption

That assumption is that the Iraqis are incapable of taking care of themselves. Basically it's a racist assumption.

[Walt Starr]

75. The last time I heard the "we can't leave" argument

it was 1971.

[sangh0]

102. And how did pulling out of VietNam affect the VietNamese?

Do you think they all had a wonderful time under the NVA regime once those bad ole Americans left?

[Walt Starr]

137. Actually, it was far better than when the U. S. was there

Compared to the U.S. approved puppet regimes, it was a cake walk.

[sangh0]

176. Wow, how persuasive

Now I can be sure those Vietnamese were better off because someone on the Internet said so!!

[Art_from_Ark]

145. "We can't leave" and 1902

The year 1902 was an important year for two countries that the US was occupying, Cuba and the Philippines.

Both of these countries were acquired from Spain as a result of a war that had been started by the explosion of the U.S.S.Maine in Havana harbor in 1898. There was no real investigation of the incident, but the yellow journalists of the day, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, saw the opportunity to get a good little war started for their imperialist masters, so they fanned the flames by claiming, without proof, that the Spanish government was behind the attacks. The Spanish were easily conquered and their island possessions were taken.

Almost immediately thereafter, the Filipinos said, "Thanks for helping us get rid of the Spanish. We appreciate what you've done. Now please give us our independence."

"Not so fast," said Uncle Sam. "You're not ready for independence. We have to stick around to teach you the fine art of becoming an independent country."

The Filipinos weere not impressed, so they started a bloody insurrection that was to last for 3 years. It was finally put down in 1902, the same year that Cuba was given its independence.

"Why can Cuba get its independence, and we can't get ours?" cried the Filipinos.

"Because, um, you're too close to China, and besides, the Japanese will take you over if we don't stay here. But don't worry-- we'll let you know when you're ready to be independent!"

[redqueen]

8. A request for clarification

"Some misguided "progressives" want to cut and run and abandon the Iraqis to their misery."

Is this supposed to refer to Kucinich? If not, whom? You may think that it's unrealistic to expect enough help from international forces to replace all of ours, but that does not make it a fact.

Calling his plan 'cut and run' is very insulting. In fact, just using the words 'cut and run' turn my stomach. Do you realize this is the same meme used during the Vietnam era?

[bryant69]

29. I don't know if he meant to refer to Kucinich

but certainly there have been many calls here at Democratic Underground for an immediate withdrawel. I don't know how you call an immediate withdrawel anything but cutting and running.

But i could be wrong.

[KurtNilsen]

36. Hi there redqueen.

Sorry being so slow to get to this post. Good thing you posted further up since I was trying to go from top to bottom ;-)

With some misguided "progressives" I was partly "trolling". After all i wanted to get some feedback to my little rant, which was built on my post to you on the other thread btw.

I was not thinking of Kucinich at all. He is frankly one of my favourite American politicians. I wish political reality in your country was such that he could actually stand a chance for the presidency. If life was a little bit fair he would play some part in the Kerry administation.

I would have to agree with you that if it was possible it probably would be for the better if US troops could be totally left out. American soldiers are probably some of the best and bravest on the planet, but there is so much animosity towards the US. A lot of it caused by the US strong support for Israel.

So who was I refering to?

Basically all of those who scream at the top of their lungs that the Americans should get out immediately. There have been plenty of posts with that message. People who are so blinded by hate for Bush that no matter what happens shout out that this is Bush's fault. I am thinking of people like John Pilger, who not even covertly root for the insurgents and celebrates each american life lost. He must be having a field day today :-(

I guess who I am particularly refering to, is anyone, whether they vote R or you vote D, who let's the "propaganda movie" out of Fallujah guide their view on the correct policy in Iraq.

I am too young to have been a part of the Vietnam era being born around the time of Watergate. So, I appologize for offending you with the cut-and-run terminology. It will henceforth not be used.

[redqueen]

40. You're so polite!

How refreshing. :)

Thanks for the explanation. I get a little defensive about that. I've spent so long trying to de-bunk that overused spin about his plan that I cringe anytime I see someone still clinging to it.

As for John Pilger, I must say I'm glad I don't read his stuff. Ew!

I guess I just tune out those that say we should just leave now no matter what. That's just ridiculous. I automatically assume everyone means what Kucinich means -- get international help and get our troops out of the Iraqi's collective grill.

If the BBC study is right, I feel much better about our country's involvement there once the criminals currently running the show are evicted from the White House. Goodness knows Kerry would be so much more effective that it would show bush's sorry excuse for 'leadership' to all the world to be the shameful failure it has been so far. I can't wait. :)

[FlemingsGhost]

57. An illegal, immoral invasion.

"People who are so blinded by hate for Bush that no matter what happens shout out that this is Bush's fault."

So, who is to be held accountable?

Choose your title, they are all the same person:
-----------------------------------------------
President of the United States
Commander-in-Chief
"Leader of the Free World"
"God-appointed crusader for all of humanity."
-----------------------------------------------

Another gem:

"I guess who I am particularly refering to, is anyone, whether they
vote R or you vote D, who let's the "propaganda movie" out of Fallujah guide their view on the correct policy in Iraq."

And yet, you use the very same footage as a foundation for your argument. What gives?

[KurtNilsen]

83. My whole argument is that the theatrics in Fallujah should

not matter one bit.

[Zorra]

110. But it is Bu$h's fault! How can you realistically suggest that it is not?

Obviously, you must not have been in the US during the six months preceding the invasion of Iraq.

Bu$h and his administration were on the media, month after month, day after day, hour after hour, lying to the American people about the imminent threat that Iraq was to the US. I heard them. If it is not Bu$h's fault, whose fault is it? (Oh, yeah - Bill Clinton's...right?)

I don't think so.

We had no valid reason to invade Iraq, and we would not be in Iraq if Bush had not lied. Congressman Kucinich said this in Nov. 2002:

November 2002 issue
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich
Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

Even I could tell Bu$h and his cronies were lying.

Every life and limb lost, every dollar spent, every action relevant and subsequent to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is unquestionably Bu$h's fault. He clamored for, and was selected to, the position of Commander-in-Chief. And that is where the buck stops.

He is directly responsible for every tragedy that has occurred in, and is relevant to, the war in Iraq since the invasion and occupation began.

And yes, dragging dead bodies through the streets is a horrible thing.

But this is what happens during bloody revolutions, wars, and occupations. People see their loved ones, friends or comrades killed and maimed by bullets and bombs. Their hearts get cold and they lose their normal reasoning ability. Ethics and morals are temporarily put on hold in the face of blinding rage. It happens to soldiers, and it happens to civilians.

We should never have been in Iraq.

I have a solution:

Let the entire body of adult Iraqi citizens vote democratically on the issue. Question: Do you want US troops to leave Iraq immediately? Yes or No. Paper and pencil balloting, UN election supervision. Let the Iraqis deal with the consequences of their own decisions.

Do you think they are "too ignorant" to decide this for themselves? Does the "Great White Father in Washington" know what is best for his Iraqi children?

[KurtNilsen]

112. I think your solution has a lot going for it.

But, as far as whose at fault....I was basically thinking of someone who started another thread at claimed that the events in fallujah was Bush's fault because he said bring it on.

I find such analysis juvenile.

[ugarte]

11. If you feel that strongly, why don't you enlist?

With a big enough army and enough eager volunteers we could invade Syria. Then Iran and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. After we've liberated them, then on to North Korea. Hey, why not China or Cuba? Don't they need 'liberating.'

Right-wingers made your same arguments back in Vietnam. No, no, we mustn't 'cut and run', mustn't 'turn tail and run.'

If it were up to you, I suppose we would still be in the rice paddies, still fighting, still dying.

[bryant69]

21. What a fair response

Vietnam and Iraq are not parallel, and more than right wingers made those arguments back in vietnam.

The fact that he favors finishing the job now that we are in Iraq, says nothing about how he feels about invading other companies going forward. Heck he might even have opposed the war in the first place; but now that we are in he feels a moral obligation to stay the course.

And your title line is a rhetorical canard, similar to a right winger asking "If you love paying taxes so much, why don't you pay extra?"

[KurtNilsen]

48. I failed the medical,

in the Norwegian armed forces.

That said, the situation in North Korea is absolutely heartbreaking. Zimbabwe is mess. The genocide in Rwanda should not have happened.

But, invading a country to set things right is very seldom an option.

I appreciate the defence that I got by another poster regarding your post.

But, I admit to supporting the war. Both on the grounds of WMD and for humanitarian causes. I do think the situation in the middle east deserves particular attention, since trouble in this region have a tendency to spread to the entire globe.

As for Vietnam, I think the parrallel with Iraq are imperfect.

[treepig]

54. ooh the domino theory

"I do think the situation in the middle east deserves particular attention, since trouble in this region have a tendency to spread to the entire globe.

and you deny parallels with vietnam? he hehe

[FlemingsGhost]

61. LOL... treepig.

Having fun?

[PeaceForever]

60. They're hiring independent contractors

So if you really wanted to, you could go to Iraq.

But you'd rather sit comfortably behind your computer screen, typing out pro-war sentences while others go and die.

[KurtNilsen]

84. Yeah, you are probably right.

Certainly nothing I can say can make you think otherwise.

[tedzbear]

127. You failed the medical???

Then why don't you contribute to the democratic cause in Iraq by enlisting with the peace keepers who are providing food in Falluja? I'm sure they could use the help now that 4 of their guards are missing.

:kick:

[KurtNilsen]

140. They sure could.

I now you are trying to be unpleaseant, but I agree I really should.

[PeaceForever]

58. They won't enlist because . . .

as the saying goes, war hath no fury like a non-combatant.

[tedzbear]

129. Welcome to DU, PeaceForever.

You come right to the point and don't dilly-dally. I like that in a liberal.

:bounce:


P.S. What was the Mark Twain quote about politicians and war??? I think it would be an apt perception here.

[FlemingsGhost]

12. I have no doubt John Kerry will "complete the job."

Meanwhile, at what cost?

Just remember, none of this had to happen. And I don't blame the Iraqi people one bit. They have nothing to lose, and that alone will spell a miserable defeat for the U.S. Think about that when you're "choosing sides."

Our fall will be epic...

[KurtNilsen]

86. I think you read the situation wrongly.

It wasn't the Iraqi people who went on a rampage in Fallujah.

In fact, the majority of the Iraqi people happens to agree with me. See the BBC study.

[MadProphetMargin]

24. Jeebus. I hope that was satire...

[redqueen]

27. Given the current thinking in Dem leadership

why would you think it was?

[KurtNilsen]

88. What is your opinion then?

[Dhalgren]

31. We should pay reparations for all the killing,

maiming, and destruction we have wroght, turn all recontruction over to the UN and the EU - completely divest ourself of any profit derived therefrom, and begin swiftly rotating our guys out and other, UN sanctioned "peacekeepers" in. As soon as the Iraqis can set up their own government (whatever that is), the UN can pull out all but the personel the Iraqis want to remain. Start this now.

[Sugarbleus]

34. Frankly, I was pretty upset with what I saw today in Fallujha....

I may feel differently tomorrow and have to eat crow, but today I side with the nuke 'em crowd. That buisness with the aid workers was totally uncalled for brutality and insanity. I don't believe that it was a set up either (by us). I'm sick of all the conspiracy/apologetics shit . Some stuff is just what it looks like.

I didn't want us to go into Iraq in the first place. I want our people outta there.........but, I'm not made of wood, I have feelings and emotions just like everyone else. What I saw today enraged me and made ME want to kick some ass. I hate Bush; he made all this come to pass, but I'm no pacifist either.

It's one thing for Iraqi dissidents or whomever to hit soldiers they don't like (and that pains me too), but it's quite another for attacks like this new one in Fallujah to be allowed to stand when done to aid workers and UN people. I say that little crud hole of a town ought to be put down! There's no difference between doing that and killing people in towns who harbor OBL and taliban in Afgahnistan. Dark hearts are dark hearts where ever they dwell.

[DrWeird]

37. I don't see any difference between you and them.

nt

[thebigidea]

42. oh, Doctor... are you losing your MORAL CLARITY?

WE are better than THEM, we can only hope that one day these poor, simple people will accept our gift of freedom.

[Cocoa]

39. it wasn't aid workers

it was mercenary fighters.

[plurality]

41. those weren't 'aid workers'

they were mercenaries. Aid workers don't wear body armor, carry automatic weapons, or Department of Defense credentials. Try reading, it does wonders.

[Don Claybrook]

45. Have you seen the Iraqi kids, babies, blown to pieces?

There are plenty of pictures of dead Iraqi children available for viewing if you're so inclined. Take a look at some of them.

And then tell me...

Who is it you want to nuke when you see these other photos?
Who should be melted into oblivion for these unspeakable crimes?

Or are those murders somehow different, somehow less serious? Is it more sanitary if the death is launched from 30,000 feet or from 150 miles, rather than hand-to-hand?

Or is it possible that the Iraqi kids died during wartime, which was justified, but these Americans died in the new and peaceful Iraq, which was wrong?

Please don't think I'm accusing you of anything. I just wonder what you think about the flip side of this situation. And on the flip side, we've been much, much more efficient with murdering human beings than the Iraqi mobs have been. I saw the wartime vs. peacetime thing mentioned on these pages today and couldn't believe what I was reading.

While I could never excuse what happened to these Americans, I certainly can understand the anger that fueled the hatred--it's all apparent if you look at some of those pictures mentioned at the beginning of my post.

[treepig]

64. you don't seem to understand

jesus wanted mr. bush to kill those iraqi kids, so it's all good.

and just thank god we can do it with minimal risk - what's the current ratio - about 50 dead iraqis for each dead american?

[redqueen]

49. Please don't fall into that trap

The media showed us these images to get just this reaction.

Please, know that violence never solves anything. If we did as you say, there would be countless more extremists lining up to continue the cycle of violence.

Think of the children, all over the world, and what's best for them. Nothing else matters.

[MadHound]

80. Don't be a tool of the propogandists

Yes, what happened in Fallujah was horrific. War in general is horrific. Remember how the US paraded the bodies of Saddam's sons across the airwaves and through the papers? That appalled the population of the ME, just as we Americans are appalled by the acts we see today. In addition, there are reports of further atrocities being performed by the US troops, and some horrors committed that we won't know about until this war is long over.

By becoming so enraged that you side with the "nuke-em crowd" all you have done is allowed the propogandists win. Why do you think this is getting so much air time? Why do you think it is getting so much attention? Yes, part of the reason is because it is a horrific story. But also the airplay is deliberately designed to rally the American people, to sway the fence sitters, to blind us with such hatred and xenophobic fury that when the administration does lower the hammer, all the good sheeple will cheer and holler with jingoistic glee. Don't be a tool.

Understand historically that such atrocities are part and parcel of war, on both sides of any given conflict. Body mutilation is one way of showing your hatred both for the person you killed, but also the whole faceless mass of "the enemy" US forces did it in GWI, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, battling the Native Americans in the West(ironically, the stereotypical act of scalping white settlers was a habit that the Native Americans picked up from the Americans), and back throughout history. All cultures, in all time periods have done this. It is, in the end, one of the simple horrific brutalities of war.

Don't be a tool.

[Sugarbleus]

90. Okay folks...I accept all the critisims but I'm still sick of all of it..

I remember Somalia still........

Yes, I've seen ALL the pictures of the children and families blown to bits. Its disgusting..all of it. I'd like to parachute Bush into downtown Fallujah this morning. I watched a heart wrenching documentary on Democracy Now showing all the children of all the wars..even those wars between other countries where we didn't participate. The children weren't, in many cases, dismembered but they were scarred emotionally.

You cannot deny me my feelings though. While we have NO business being in Iraq, we have to try to put it back together somehow, someway (part of me wants to just get out and let the chips fall where they may--that wouldn't be politically correct either I suppose) We tore up that country we have some responsibility. I understand the Iraqi anger. However, all the people that go there to try to rebuild or bring aid, or healthcare, whatever needs to be done, even the UN, are NOT there to hurt them...why should they be a target? It's ALL barbaric, whether WE do it or THEY do it. .........Bringing your children out to participate while human flesh is cut off??????????? whats up with that? Would YOU do that if we were raided and occupied?

I think there is going to be a piece on this on Nightline this evening. I'm sorry for riling you all, I'm just sick to death of all the killing. Obviously, we cannot nuke anyone.......*shudder* that reminds me of the pics of Japan after "the bomb".

[KurtNilsen]

91. Then you are falling into the trap that they want you too.

Certainly I understand the way you feel though :-(

But, the people behind this are a small minority.

[PeaceForever]

44. For everyone who supports the war . . .

Go to http://goarmy.com Sign up.

What's that?? You don't wanna actually sacrifice YOUR life on the streets of Fallujah? Then don't make other Americans sacrifice theirs!

[leftofthedial]

46. provide aid, assistance, help rebuilding

but get the troops out now.

This country needs to find its own equilibrium. Given the circumstances that introduced chaos to the region, violence is inevitable. The Iraqi Civil War is happening now. We can't stop it. We can only inflame, make matters worse, get caught in the middle of it, spend obscene amounts of money, and continue to lose international respect for occupying a country where we are not welcome.

I'm happy for the 15,000 Marsh Arabs the Norwegians helped, but the number who are dying and will continue to die as this travesty unfolds is--alas!--much, much higher.

[PeaceForever]

47. I love the logic of the original poster

The Iraqis are obviously too dumb to take care of themselves, so we need to build democracy for them.

The fact that Iraqi people are killing our troops is proof that we should stay.

I suspect that if you go to the library and read newspapers from the 1960s, you'd find pro-Vietnam War people making a very similar case.

[BillZBubb]

50. AGAINST THE WAR-- do we occupy Iraq for the next 100 years?

We shouldn't even be there.

Bush* made this mess.

Americans will pay for it, in blood and money.

Can't the 85% of Iraqis who want a decent life stick up for themselves? Why do we have to do it long term?

The longer we stay, the more that 15% continue to grow.

Might it be the the people of Falluja and elsewhere believe they are fighting for their freedom from an oppressive occupation?

The U.S. needs to turn the whole mess over to the U.N. quickly. Bush* is responsible, so we are obligated to fund the U.N. effort. We also will have to provide some of the troops, but at a much lower level and in concert with the U.N. plan.

Damn Bush*!!!!

[PeaceForever]

53. Yeah, of course we should stay . . .

The fact that they're killing our troops is proof we should stay.

The fact that they're non-white and non-Christian means that they need us to build democracy for them.

Makes perfect sense.

Hey, we can't just "cut and run," ya know.

BTW, isn't it interesting how the pro-war people aren't flocking to their nearest Army recruiter?

[ugarte]

66. Yep, ask them to enlist and they say

it's not fair, it's not my job.

[MoonRiver]

59. I DO NOT support this war/imperialist invasion, and we should exit

asap. That being said, I believe we have to get a safety net in place before we leave. The best thing would be for a UN or NATO force to take over this despicable situation, which is 100% the fault of George W. bush*.

[Bread and Circus]

63. Kurt, are you Norwegian? If so, can my wife and I move there?

I've been to Norway, and right now it seems a lot better
than being lied to on a daily basis as an American by our
President and the bought and paid for media.

:(

[KurtNilsen]

67. Hi there familydoctor.

Yes, I am Norwegian and there is plenty of room here. It is infact pretty nice now as spring is approaching.

You guys are more than welcome :-)

[treepig]

68. and jobs are probably available

too in norway's expanding whaling industry:

http://www.intfish.net/iwc2002/articles/02d.htm

it's great for americans who love killing, but are just a bit squeamish about being killed themselves (i.e., whales are a bit less able to defend themselves than iraqis are)

[KurtNilsen]

72. I see you are one of those "constructive" people.

Good for you!

[KurtNilsen]

73. That said I do support whaling.

I like to make my policy decisions based on reason, not emotion.

[treepig]

79. i do have to admire your consistent stand on the issues!!

in particular, the advocacy of killing done for the sake of the procurement of oil - we all know about iraq, and whale oil isn't exactly an obscure topic either:

Whale oil. The words conjure up romantic adventure on the high seas. Moby Dick, wooden sailing ships, living before the mast and bustling 19th century seaports like Nantucket and New Bedford.


But how many people realize whale oil was sold by a United States company as recently as 1978? And that that company, Nye Lubricants, is still selling the most highly refined synthetic oils in the world?

http://oh.essortment.com/whaleoil_redd.htm

[MadHound]

95. At the risk of threadjacking to an entirely different topic

Why do you support whaling? It isn't like we can't get the products that whales provide from other, non lethal sources. These are creatures whose population is scant, and dropping daily. Member of species like the right whale have been hunted to near extinction, and whose continued existence is very much in doubt(there are only 350 right whales left in the world).

These creatures fill a vital niche in the ocean's ecosystem. Why kill them needlessly?

[KurtNilsen]

106. Actually the issue with whaling and Norwegians is whether you

belive it or not slightly relevant to this thread.

Support for whaling in Norway is very strong. And, I tell you the more the international community, and nations such as Australia and the US tried to impose their will, the more we will support it.

It is generally not a wise thing to try to impose your will on a proud people :-)

That said. There are two primary arguments against whaling.

1. It's inhumane, and the animals suffer too much. They have a degree of intelligence.

This argument is to me the strongest. Even though with the modern methods use this has become less of a worry, and certainly no less than a whole host of other industries. I am not card carrying PETA member, I'll have to admit that. I love my steak too much.

2. The second argument is the extinction one. Well, that one doesn't hold water at all. The minke whale stocks are in the hundreds of thousands and is still growing rapidly all the while whaling has been going on the last couple of decades. The right whale? I must admit I don't know much about it, other than it's not being hunted by Norwegians.

So in my opinion, if you pick argument one, you have a case to argue. You might be right or you might be wrong. Afterall it comes down to an issue of judgement. If you pick argument too you are wrong.

Cheers.

[dpibel]

148. Illustrating once again the vast differences 'twixt Norwegians and Iraqis

Edited to make to too

First, you say that you prefer to base your arguments on reason, rather than emotion. Then you say, "Support for whaling in Norway is very strong. And, I tell you the more the international community, and nations such as Australia and the US tried to impose their will, the more we will support it." Now, I could be wrong about this, but it sure sounds to me like a rather irrational form of resistance: You guys say potayto? Well, trust me, we'll say potahto all the louder.

Since you seem to be an intelligent person, I have to believe that your next line is intentionally ironic: "It is generally not a wise thing to try to impose your will on a proud people :-)"

Surely you can see the humor in injecting that line into a discussion of how desperately the benighted Iraqis need the assistance of the US in becoming civilized and how ungrateful they are as we kindly, gently offer them a helping hand.

As to your binary whale argument: Why do I have to pick one or the other? If either is true, it's a pretty strong argument. (Would you mind pointing me to some source on the amazing health of the Minke whale population? Seems it's the only thing in the ocean that's doing well these days.) Also, in presenting your either/or, you seem to have neglected option 3, which is pointed out to you by another poster: the products of whaling are available from other sources. Your ancestors hunted whales so you should too? Hell, my ancestors stoked coal on steam trains. Sometimes things just lose their utility.

[Stone_Spirits]

149. hear, hear! n-t

[KurtNilsen]

182. I am sorry.

My argumentation is going down hill. I cannot cope with 10 discussions at once :-)

Suffice to say that you cannot get a juicy whale burger from a cow ;-)

[KurtNilsen]

183. And, I'lll look up that link for you..

Just a few minutes.

[MadHound]

153. Well, you still didn't answer my question

As to WHY YOU support whaling. You also chose an incorrect answer in your "extinction is an invalid arguement" line of reasoning. The minke whale population is actually on the decrease, again due to whaling. Apparently after the larger great whales were hunted to near oblivion, scarcity turned their eye to the small minke whale. Yes, there are roughly 2-300,000 minke whales left in the world. But their population is on the decline due to intensive whaling.
<http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/speciessection.cfm?sectionid=193&newspaperid=21&contentid=551> In fact ALL whale species are in decline.

And I would still appreciate an answer to my original question as to why you support whaling?

[BringEmOn]

189. Proud people?

"It is generally not a wise thing to try to impose your will on a proud people."

I guess that doesn't apply to proud brown people.

[Bread and Circus]

147. For those bagging on Norway's whaling....Norway is a liberal's

wet dream.

That place is so together. It's gorgeous, clean, safe,
and seems to share its prosperity amongst it's people well.

Good social safety net.

As for whaling, I can't weigh in on the issue because I haven't
really studied it. However, if the Norwegians have a whaling ancestry,
I think we should be careful to throw stones. These people
are not barbaric from what I saw when I was there.

---

P.S. I saw Kurt Nilsen win World Idol...that dude can sing.

[Mandate My Ass]

65. Another misguided progressive blinded by Bush hatred

signing in to say, yes we can and should get out and hand the whole mess over to the UN and cancel every US contract and then pay for the Iraqis to rebuild their own country and set up whatever form of government *they* choose without interference.

We can always explain away all the needless death from shock and awe by saying we're pretty certain SH had intentions to develop weapons of mass destruction related programs activities and I'm sure the Iraqis will "get over it" and "move on" and "get united behind finishing the job."

[Mari333]

69. People who debate that we should stay there dont have a kid there

period.
They will change their tune when Bush implements the draft.
www.bushdraft.com

[BillZBubb]

77. Good point Mari333

I just wish everyone who supported Bush*s miserable failure of a war would get a bill from the U.S. government every January to pay their share of the annual bill.

Since Bush* is paying for it with borrowed money and the borrowed sons and daughters of the "lower classes", the rah, rah right wing doesn't have to invest a thing. It's easy to be "patriotic".

I wonder how many of the yahoos would have voted for the $87 billion last year if they knew they would divide up the cost evenly amongst themselves?

[JanMichael]

81. The U.S.A. simply CANNOT maintain any semblance of peace in Iraq.

It just won't happen.

The only way to get our tainted troops out would be to replace them with either a UN sponsered force or an all Arabic peacemaking force.

Both of which we're now obligated to pay for.

Then we'd have to give up the booty too.

Tough shit I say. we should've never Invaded Iraq in the first place.

[Guaranteed]

85. Alright, I agree with you....but I gotta say that

I can't stand it when people write like that. It sounds like propaganda.

[KurtNilsen]

96. What strikes me is that I think there is more agreement

between people on this thread that is at first apparent. Get the UN in ASAP (Not that that is somekind of magic bullet for that matter), let the Iraqies take charge, and get the US out as soon as humanly possible.

I just happen to think, that if the US pulled out prematurely, John Kerry would be left with an even bigger mess than the one we have to contend with at present.

[sweetheart]

87. The neoliberalism stinks in this thread...

"we" don't need to sort out anyone. Geesh, we can't even sort
ourselves out holding fair elections. We can't sort out fair
elections in pakistan, saudi arabia, jordan or egypt. What the heck
suggests we'll sort them out in iraq. Our occupation is wholly more
sinister.

We can steal oil and demand bases if we leave...so we'll stay. Any
government we leave in place will be a puppet... and soldiers will
keep dying.

THe military empire planners will not accept "no" bases in iraq, so
we will not leave an open remit to the UN, rather, like the soviet
union in east-germany after WW2, we're sticking around to loot the
country to pay for our righteous indignation.

Think of it on more personal terms. Are bases in iraq, or iraqi oil
worth your death and dismemberment at the hands of angry locals. If
not you, would you send your loved one for your great idealism.
Unless you are prepared to be tomorrows victem in this criminal war,
then the moral neoliberalism is really an empty hollow.

I suggest an altogether more complex plan. Support Kurdish national
independence, let the kurdish part of iraq separate, and establish
open relationships with the world as a new state. This would simply
be a policy "angle" on leaving iraq, as we pack up and go.

Kurdish independence, would put a spanner in the works of several
nation states that have done great genocidal evil, syria, turkey
and iran to repress kurds. The new state would open a whole issue
for those nations, and force them towards democracy and equal rights
for kurdish peoples.

With kurdistan out of the picture, the sunni/shiite issues of iraq
will be easier to settle as a UN nation building exercise after the
US has left. The supporting of a free kurdish state, would force
all nations in the middle east repressing minorities to think twice
as a new precedent would be set.

We should not stay in iraq one more day, but when we leave the bases,
the bribes and the oil contractors should go with us. If the new
nation invites them back in under civilian auspices, so be it.

As it stands, many y'all are simply saying to keep the bases and
leave. THis is occupation... and no government can be formed that
would survive democratic scrutiny given this strong arm ploy.

As long as you've got the tinyiest bit of emprire-thinking (as our
british allies are more than aware of) regarding iraq,
the "liberation" will be a disaster, like it was before and the time
before that.. (when the british liberated iraq).

[Jacobin]

98. Man you got that right

The distance between the neo libs and the neo cons is about one inch.

They are both delusional and believe we have an obligation to go blow up people to make them "all better" and that other nations have no way of sorting out their own messes and that "we are from the government and we are here to help you" is "real".

[sweetheart]

130. What do you think of the independent kurdish nation idea..

Its in the middle of the post, but i've rather come to think its
a good one... ?

[G_j]

146. sounds sensible from my limited POV

in fact it sounds like the only real solution. I don't imagine Turkey would be too happy about it.

[sweetheart]

154. Turkey has been committing genocide for too long

its time they had to come clean. Syria would also. The kurdish
state could be a strong US ally, if we supported their independence,
and provide a very helpful "real" ally in a region where surrounding
states are allies by antidemocratic forces at best.

[G_j]

157. it reminds me of the Palestinian tragedy

peoples in limbo, without a home.
Independence for both these peoples would help bring stability to the ME, in my opinion.

Palastinian

[MadHound]

92. It is obvious that you are no student of history

For if you were, you wouldn't have posted such an inane, insane post.

As in any other imperial conquest, our continued presence in Iraq only harms the chances for the Iraqis to rebuild every day that we are still there. This is a population that, for the most part, are intent on reclaiming their country for themselves. To that end, they will be fighting the US every step of the way. How much real, constructive "nation building" can be done when our forces are continually under fire? Especially in a society that we don't, and don't want to, understand.

Now we can impose our will by brute force, appoint the puppet leaders, enforce the laws, keep the peace through sheer force of arms. Yet in the end, as in the British empire, we will be kicked out, and the nation that we are leaving will be no better off than it was before we came.

Or we can take the Vietnam route, with President after endless President not wishing to appear soft on terror, and thus throwing endless lifes and endless money into a quagmire without end, spreading sorrow and death throughout the middle east, bankrupting ourselves in the process(reminisant of the Soviet Union vis a vis Afghanistan). And when the sway of public opinion finally forces the warmongers to bring the troops home, Iraq will be a gutted shell of itself, no closer to self rule or democracy than it is now.

If we are smart, if we have learned from our history, we should pull out now. By all means, go crawling to the UN begging them to take over. By all means, the US should pick up the entire tab for rebuilding, it is the least we could do. But by all means, get our troops the hell out of Iraq NOW. Otherwise we are doomed to learning another bloody, pointless lesson in remidial history.

Let's prove to ourselves and the world that we are smarter than that.

[Jacobin]

99. Yeah, but but but reality sucks

and I'm gonna put my fingers in my ears and shout lallalalalalalala.

The neo libs and neo cons don't live in the real world and they cause lots and lots and lots of bloodshed and damage in the name of doing "good"

[MadHound]

104. I think that this is why the US has waited an entire generation

To get involved in another quagmire war. Memories are short, they can claim that the situation has changed, and few are the wiser, especially among that prized draft age demographic.

Sadly, as always, the historical realities remain the same.

[mmonk]

93. I believe we hand over power this summer

and we keep our military bases (I believe this to be permanent). The question is, where do we go from here? Will the bases be effective enough to attack other countries. How much do we string ourselves thin and how much of the treasury will be needed? Those are the questions I'd like answers to.

[CabalBuster]

100. Don't forget, Kerry and Edwards voted FOR this war

I believe they are responsible for the mess. Would Kerry get us out of this mess? He has not said that he would, he has promised to get others into the mess though. Kerry will stay the course, unfortunately.

[G_j]

101. Iraq under the U.S. thumb

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040324.wnaomi0324/BNStory/International/

Naomi Klein

Iraq under the U.S. thumb

[KurtNilsen]

108. I would be very hestitant about having Naomi Klein as some

sort of oracle of wisdom.

To quote an English magazine, "... for an angry adolescent, she writes rather well. It takes journalistic skill of a high order to write page after page of engaging blather, so totally devoid of substance. What a pity she has turned her talents as a writer to a cause that can only harm the people she claims to care most about. But perhaps it is just a phase."


;-)

[G_j]

117. and what RW magazine might that be? n/t

[KurtNilsen]

118. It's from the Economist.

It's my guilty pleasure. If it's good enough for Mandela, it's good enough for me :-)

But, seriously, I am no fan of no logo.

[G_j]

119. whatever,

it's sounds pretty RW to me, nasty and without substance.

Then am I to suppose you are with Kerry on NAFTA also? :eyes:

[KurtNilsen]

120. I don't know enough about NAFTA to really say.

But, I'll have a go anyways...

Free trade is as a rule always good. The poor are generally the biggest beneficiaries. I am against the EU, because of its undemocratic structure.

That said, free trade creates change. Change causes problems for people. Here it is a progressive government's role to make sure that people don't suffer as a result. With paid for reeducation etc. Clearly in America today, you don't have that, and the fat cat corporations are the biggest winners whilst many ordinary people suffer.

So, it's not a black and white issue, but on the balance of things I support free trade.

[IrateCitizen]

155. You obviously don't know much about "free trade" then...

You're talking in the same kind of overgeneralized, gobbly-gook-speak that is put forward by pundits and politicians when expounding on the virtues of "free trade".

The problem is that the entire system is much more complex than that. Different nations at different stages of development have different needs. Free trade between, say, the EU, Canada, US, Australia and Japan isn't that bad of an idea. But completely free trade between, say, the US and Bolivia is a BAD idea, as has been shown with the virtual grinding-to-a-halt of economic growth within Latin America and Africa as these "free trade" ideals have been imposed on developing nations.

It is quite ironic that the countries who have experienced the greatest economic growth -- US, UK, Japan, South Korea, and now China, for example -- have done it through highly PROTECTIVE economies in order to steward their developing industries. The whole rubric of "free trade" is now an attempt by the industrialized nations to "kick away the ladder" so that nobody else can use it.

Why else do you think that the US and EU keep their agricultural markets completely closed to developing nations and subsidize their own farmers, while at the same time insist that intellectual property rights and financial liberalization be imposed on those same nations? It's because the system has no interest in truly fostering "development" -- but rather in maintaining status quo relationships.

Furthermore, all of these "theories" of "free trade" promoted by the ministers at the WTO, IMF and World Bank are all based on purely mathematical models rather than on real-world examples of what works and what doesn't. This then enables these ministers, when their plans fail spectacularly (just review the performance history of the IMF over the past 20 years for countless examples) to cite the reason as "crony capitalism" or "corruption" or something else -- rather than actually looking themselves in the mirror and realize that something might be wrong with THEIR approach.

Albert Einstein stated that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting a different result. Obviously the proponents of "free trade" as it is currently practiced never heard this quote before. I'm not saying that trade is not a good thing, because it most certainly is. But it should be pursued in a manner that recognizes the different needs of different nations, and also honestly seeks to create arrangements that produce a mutual, rather than largely one-sided benefit.

[KG]

103. look! another lame justification for mass death and destruction.

how cute!

signed,

a misguided progressive.

[Mattforclark]

134. So if you had your way

and we left Iraq, you would happily take exactly the same kind of responsibility for death and destruction that might result from, say, a civil war, that you demand from him for death and destruction that may result from staying?

[RichardRay]

105. What do 'get out now' or 'finish the job' mean?

I strongly support moving the multilateral/multinational forces into place as quickly as possible and getting all US forces/interests out of Iraq as quickly as possible. What I do not support is backing troop transports into Iraq tomorrow, loading everybody up and sailing/flying home on Friday. I think we have a little more responsibility in the situation than that.

To the extent that 'finishing the job' makes sense I believe it means doing the work to get the AL, the EU, the UN and ???? involved before we apologize and leave. There's going to be plenty of work to do to get to that point the US is far better equipped to negotiate for those commitments that the Iraqi's are themselves. It would cost us politically, economically and militarily, but I don't know what else is right at this point.

I think that too many 'get out now' folks would like to have it be a year ago and get everybody to make a better decision about starting the war. Unfortunately we're not here now, we're here, and we have to make the best of a genuinely disastrous situation. (and no, Red, I'm not accusing DK of anything.)

[dogman]

113. We've been here before.

We have created a quagmire. Kerry of al people should have seen this coming. We are one of the multinational forces and can't turn our troops or our responsibilities over to another entity. Our first problem is getting B$$$co out and getting leaders in who understand the problem. This is why so many of us supported Clark. I just hope Kerry gets in and can get people of his caliber to figure this out.

[Mandate My Ass]

115. rush to get out VS rush to get in

In the US, as well as in International Law, there is the presumption of innocence to the accused. It is not enough to declare someone (or a country) of being guilty, the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.

The anti-invasion people (rightly) declared that the pro-invasion people had not made their case for war. If this had been a criminal trial (as it rightly should have been) the pro-invasion people should have *proved* that WMD existed before an invasion could have been mounted.

Bush now states that despite >1 year of searching we have found NADA in terms of WMD but he is still correct to have called for the invasion because he thinks that "intentions to create WMD-related programs activities may have been in place."

It is misguided to rain death upon an innocent populace because a US-propped puppet (Saddam Hussein) may have had evil thoughts against the US of A.

Someone convince me, please, that the rush to get out is a greater evil than applying the death penalty upon an innocent populace for the unproven crimes of one individual.

[diamond14]

122. that was NOT staged....it was the REAL feeling of most Iraqis....

"Please, please, we must not fall for it."

these words reek of insanity....I fully expect bush* to continue his uncontrolled KILLING in Iraq...THOUSANDS of innocents Iraqis have been MURDERED by bush* and his minions...so what can you expect?

even today, bush* said he would KILL more...bush* has ordered cluster-bombs dropped all over Iraq...bombs that spin out LOTS of mini-bombs, which spin out thousands of large pieces of spinning HOT metal that chop off arms, legs and KILL many innocent people...bush* ordered BOMBS and missiles dropped on the Baghdad water treatment plant, flug bombs with tiny metal pieces into Iraqi's electrical systems to render them un-usable forever, dropped a 'new and improved' napalm on Iraqis (HOT tiny pieces of metal mixed into flaming plastics that KILL in the most horrible manner, looking much like those charred bodies that horrify you today, BUT THE PEOPLE REMAIN ALIVE for a long time before dying....OUR troops in Vietnam described the effect, that the moaning is so horrible, they shot the napalmed Vietnamese for mercy....)...AND bush* ordered the hospital ship (with surgeons and modern operating rooms) returned to USA port shortly after 'shock and awed' bombing Iraqis, and left the Iraqi hospitals (some with bomb holes, all with no medical equipment) to treat the Iraqi injuries, leaving so many to DIE for lack of adequate medical care...

what you saw in the news today differs very little from what America has done to innocent Iraqis (and the dead mercenary combatants are NOT innocents in bush* war - they are there to KILL for money, with no rules or restrictions)...

[KurtNilsen]

125. You are wrong,

Please to the thread regarding the BBC survey....

or use this web page at abc:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/PollVault/PollVault.html


Or, perhaps facts that contradict your views are best avoided?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

128. Perhaps what you believe to be facts is simply more propaganda...

...from those that control the media.

I'm curious how you might react if the U. S. was invaded and your friends and family begin to be killed by the invaders.

[KurtNilsen]

131. Off course you can choose not to believe anything,

but then you better move out to a cave somewhere.

Certainly my statement, that all Iraqis don't feel this way is more strongly supported than the competing view here that all Iraqis feel this way.

But, I am too tired to discuss this any further tonight.

I live in Norway, and I have thought through your question....I grew up pretty close to the border with the Soviet Union. It was in the middle of the cold war, and facing invasion was a real possibilty back then.

I always thought that if the russians come, I'll be sure to have a vodka to wish them welcome. I guess I am a coward. I certainly would not run around like a mad dog desecreating the bodies of the dead. But, who knows...I think that I have heard stories here in Norway about German soldier who where killed and mutilated by the Norwegian resistance...

Hate is an evil thing. :-(

Good night.

[dpibel]

150. But why?

Edited to correct a really reprehensible spelling error

Why would Norwegian resistance fighters do something so depraved, horrible, and utterly disgusting as kill and mutilate German soldiers?

Could it have had something to do with having their country invaded and occupied? Think?

What do you think would have been the response if you'd gone up to one of those resistance fighters and said, "For shame! This is depraved, horrible, and utterly disgusting!" What do you suppose that would have done to your lifespan?

BTW: Wouldn't it be interesting to have seen the results of a poll taken during WWII? What percentage of Norwegians do you think would respond to a nice German stopping by the house, by saying, "Oh, fine! Just fine. Ever since the Nazis came it's been pretty cool!" Seems to me there might have been some who would have thought it'd be a pretty good idea to tell someone from the invading nation just that. Maybe even 56%. Suppose?

Here's the deal: I don't think you get away with saying, "Oh, yeah. I've seen the pictures of dead Iraqi children and all that. But this! This is just shocking beyond words!" How can you really be more shocked at the depraved behavior of killing 5 people and not have your head explode at the killing of thousands? Heck, with a decent piece of aerial munitions, you don't have to drag body parts through the streets--they've already been blown all over the block.

I don't excuse either behavior. But I'm not about to pretend that one is perfectly civilized and (although awfully unfortunate) acceptable, while I should mount my high moral horse over the other.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

166. I keep recalling all of the photos of the Iraqi civilians who were...

...killed or wounded during our bombing campaign. That is part of what's caused the violent reaction by the Iraqis, along with the continued occupation by the U. S. and UK.

[diamond14]

141. American TV ???...polls are meaningless and contrived

since you have said that YOU ARE NOT IN AMERICA....polling the Iraqi people? when it's not even safe on the streets? and when people are so afraid that they must say what the pollsters want?

a word of caution: this is America's war, bought and paid for by American tax dollars, and mostly American blood....

here in America, many people are beginning to realize that we were fooled by a madman named bush*.....the polls, the American newsmedia (radio, TV, newspapers) are owned by bush* supporters...

bush* learned all this from his grandfather, prescott bush*, who made the bush family fortune by personally supervising slave labor at the Auschwitz nazi concentration camp in Poland...the Silician coal and steel was prescott's specialty, worked people to DEATH....

read about it here, prescott bush* CONVICTED of 'trading with the enemy hitler'....bush* learned how to control the press and the polls from grandpa...this was researched by the President of the Florida Holocaust Museum....
http://www.clamormagazine.org/bush.pdf

[Media_Lies_Daily]

168. Good post.

[Cleita]

132. Made for TV?

I laugh as I type this. When things this horrible happen, it is the duty of the legitimate journalists that are left in our country to question the White House, particularly since they started this, to explain themselves. GET THE BUSH UP THERE NOW TO EXPLAIN THIS AND NEVER LET GO UNTIL HE DOES!!!

[Mattforclark]

133. Thanks for the sanity

I was against the war (is there anyone here who wasn't?), but it is a bad idea to do a pullout now that we are there. While there are some similarities of the current situation to Vietnam, the situation is different enough that there isn't justification for a monolithic analogy between the two cases. Staying in Iraq is not "just like" staying in Vietnam. All cases like this should be examined individually on the individual and specific merits, not decided on whether they in any way resemble Vietnam. The individual merits, I believe, lead to the conlcusion that we must stay because the negative consequences of not staying so vastly outweigh the gains.

[Junkdrawer]

135. So, do you think "we" could use some allies for this job,

even if it means "we" have to give up a few reconstruction contracts?

[Posinegativeman]

136. Fall for it???

Are you saying it was staged and was not real barbaric hatred and murder? It sure looked real to me and the ones that did it will be hunted down like animals and taken off the street. Right now the photos of the cheering and complicit crown are being studied...

[rfkrocks]

142. Here is my point

we are in a guerrilla war period-no country wins such a war without massive war crimes on the population committing the guerrilla attacks,eg,Roman destroying Israel and scattering the Jews-the white government systemically eliminating the Native American population-absent our commitment to "nuke" Sunnis which will not happen- the USA is faced with certain defeat. In the American revolution only 1/3 of the population supported the revolution yet that 1/3 outlasted the largest and best military of the time, the British empire. 1/3 of Iraq does not want us there-2/3rds don't like us but want us to stay-even with that breakout we cannot win. Its that simple-try to give an example of an occupying power successfully controlling such a situation in history-there is none-to give an example of our weakness-the bodies were burned and celebrated over and our military failed to get control of the town-in other words we stood there and let them (the Iraqis) rejoice over the bodies-horrible as it sounds unless you are willing to give another 150,000 troops armed to the teeth with no restrictions on destroying civilians-we will not succeed. But of course this war was the single largest foreign policy disaster in the history of America ,except for the war of 1812. Sorry we need to bring the troops home-we lost

[KurtNilsen]

164. Well, you bring up some good points, but I belive it can be done

The key is to get the Iraqies to do this. Forget about capitalism for a while. Get all the unemployed iraqiees. Get a third of them to work security, and the rest to work on reconstruction.

Problem solved. Well, at least a good start.

[RichM]

143. Fuck that. Let's cut and run, let's pay reparations, &let's give them back

their country that we stole. Also, let's apologize to the world for this terrible crime we committed; let's prosecute everyone in our government that helped instigate it; and let's stop invading other countries. Let's swear that from now on, the term "preemptive war" will be regarded as being precisely equivalent to "aggression."

FYI - we don't "have a leader like John Kerry." He's just the nominee, and in any case, his ideas for Iraq are not much different than Bush's. He's more inclined to share the loot with allies; that's the only difference.

Your concern about the welfare of the socialist party in Bagdhad is very touching. However, Saddam took care of all real socialists decades ago. That's one of the reasons the CIA was so fond of him.

About those "mass graves" - didn't you know? That was Daddy Bush's doing, when he encouraged the Shiites & Kurds to rise up against Saddam at the end of Gulf War 1, then had Schwarzkopf stand down and just watch, as Saddam mowed them all down. IOW, the idea that the US is in any way trying to help or protect the relatives of those dead is ludicrous, because the US was instrumental in getting them all killed in the first place.

[indigobusiness]

144. Bush Faces Ghastly Legacy

---BUSH FACES GHASTLY LEGACY---



http://sludgereport.blogspot.com/ Broken News

[dudeness]

151. christopher hitchens runs this same argument

and I disagree totally..a colonial invasion can never be justified and these natives are just not falling into line, nor will they..having already thrown one empire out of their country they will do it again..leave Iraq now and let it sort its self out..offer assistance not by military means but by humanitarian means..we owe iraq bigtime..1 million dead iraqis demand this..

[KurtNilsen]

163. Who is Hitchens?

[Vladimir]

185. A 'left-wing' columnist

who became a bit of a cause-celebre by supporting the war. One could argue that there is a lot of money to be made these days by being a left-wing columnist in favour of the war, but I wouldn't want to be unfair to his Hitchness. ;-)

V

[Capt_Nemo]

152. Let me see, Kurt,

A group of mercenaries on the aggressor's side goes strolling
arround in the frontline of a war zone. What did you expect to
happen to them? If you go swimming on a shark infested sea you
must accept the risk of being shredded to pieces.

That is what happened to these guys. Is it horrible? Yes, Kurt,
welcome to war! It is as horrible as dying in a shelter hit by
a 2,000 lb PGM. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
And you haven't yet seen the half of it...

And no, I don't take at face value polls taken in war zones. The
Iraqis in the pictures seem somewhat more genuine than the numbers
in a PR exercise by western media.

[KurtNilsen]

162. If you bothered to read the methodology of the poll

you would have realised that it was conducted only by Iraqis in collaboration with a Baghdad univeristy....

But, I know..It's no fun when the facts contradict your "religion"

[Capt_Nemo]

178. I don't trust ANYTHING comming out of a war zone at face value

There are 2 things in wars called "propaganda" and "fog of war".

I am as skeptic about this so-called poll as I was about the dossiers
we were bombarded with before the war. I've seen more forgeries
and half-truths about Iraq in the western media than I ever believed
I would see in my whole life.

Then there is this amazing concept of polls being made in a war zone.

My skepticism is well founded and has kept me closer to the truth
than the western media coverage of world affairs.

on edit:edited title

[markus]

156. When we leave Iraq will go the was of Checkoslovakia

It's only a question of how many years, or decades, we are prepared to keep the from each other throats.

Anyone who thinks that one we are gone, anything but a pro-Iraq, Shiite government will be in place (a government equally unacceptable to the 15%, and to the Kurds) has not been paying attention.

There will be civil war, next month or next year or next decade. And we will either let it takes its course and watch tens of thousands die, or we will be back.

Pretty much all of the solutions to this problem will involve the pacification (read liquidation) of anyone who stands in our way. So, either we become the murderous rules of Iraq, essentially replacing the old Saddam with one of our choosing, or we cut-and-run and all hell breaks loose.

Welcome to the Great Game. It was the end of the British Empire and the Soviet Union.

It will be the end of the United States as we know it.

Thank you George Bush.

[KurtNilsen]

158. Go the way of Czechoslovakia?

Well, I'll be darned. That would be a blessing.


BTW, there is no American empire.

[RichM]

159. If there's no American empire, why do we have 800+ military bases

in over 100 countries, and a fleet of warships sailing on every ocean, and why have we toppled governments we disapprove of (& then installed our own puppets) in dozens of countries over the last 50-odd years? How many countries in the world can such a thing be said about?

[KurtNilsen]

161. Pretty much every base the US has is there on the

invitation of the host governments. We in Norway would get livid if you would think of leaving. Also, just witness the situtation in Germany at the moment. They are panicking when now there is talk about reloting troops away from germany.

This isn't rome. This isn't the soviet union.

[RichM]

167. Often, host governments "invite" us in, because if they don't, we change

the government. In many situations, we treat the corrupt ruling elite of a country well, giving them license (and weapons) to brutally repress their own population. The elite "invite us in," because we prop them up against their own people - like in most Middle Eastern countries. We got thrown out of 2 big bases in the Phillipines 12 years ago, but pressured the government enough, so that we're working our way back in. They hate us in Okinawa, where our soldiers regularly rape the local women, but the Okinawans have no power to do anything about the fact that their whole island is a US base.

Some of the relationships - for example Norway - are far more benign, and are primarily residues of the Cold War. In Germany, I think local opinion is rather divided, though it may well be that most of the business class favors the US bases' staying.

You're right that this isn't the Soviet Union -- the USSR was never brazen or aggressive enough to dream of attempting anything like this.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

171. "Invitation"?? If you knew how your government has been...

...bribed/bought off/intimidated to give bases to the U. S. troops, you might change your tune.

The only reason the locals like the bases is because of the added kick they give to the local economy. Privately, the locals, like the Germans, talk about the Americans like they were assholes.

It doesn't really sound like you've been paying attention to what's happened in the U. S. since December 2000. First, there was the bloodless coup and the establishment of the illegal NeoCon government. Second came the $1 billion cuts in Federal funding to EACH of the United States creating strains on the economy. Third came 911 which many people are now suspecting was an inside job. Fourth came the Patriot Act legislation allowing the NeoCon government to do pretty much whatever they wanted to do to anyone, including unlimited detention. Fifth came the attack on Afghanistan even though the FBI has stated that they could find no link between the alleged hijackers and Al Qaeda. Sixth came the illegal war on Iraq because of WMDs that Iraq NEVER had.

No, this isn't Rome, and it isn't the old Soviet Union. But, it is the American Reich, and they have additional plans of conquest for Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and any other country that want to attack.

[markus]

170. Meant Yugoslavia n/t

[Vladimir]

165. Read the following about the BBC survey

and some of the points will apply well enough to the ABC one you have posted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1177327,00.html

V

on edit: Actually, even if the poll was completely representative (and I don't think it is), it would be wrong for the occupation to continue IMO. The notion the the West has a duty to bring democracy to the third or any other world is a joke, a perverse revamping of the white man's burden packaged in a ciabatta roll for the new-age middle classes to chew on. The only responsibility the agressors have now is to leave the country immediately, and agree to pay war reparations and provide civilian aid for the forseeable future to whatever government Iraqis choose to install. A fragmentation of the Kurdish parts is in any case inevitable barring a very-long term Western military occupation, which is the only thing on the cards if the troops stay in - take Bosnia as a model (still effectively a protectorate) and multiply the problems a hundred fold and toss in some oil.

[KurtNilsen]

169. Thanks for a good link Vladimir.

It brings up some good question marks, but I would still argue that this survey (btw, the BBC and ABC are behind the same survey), is still more reliable than incidental interviews being conducted by Al Jazeera on the street... Which seem to be the source for alternative views. I mean, there are weaknesses in ANY methodology implied. Every researcher knows that. I think the guardian writer is totally wrong if he/she thinks that these possible question marks are even close to discounting the survey results.


I disagree with you that protecting human rights is not the "World"s resposibility. I wish for the day when the UN can actually be more than a talking club, and actually make the world a better place.

To quote Kofi Annan, "The time for talk is over. The time for action has come"

[Mandate My Ass]

173. The UN is a talking club, huh?

George W Bush called it a debating society. Coincidence? :think:

[KurtNilsen]

177. Did you watch Bill Clinton at the UK labour party

conference in 2001?

He made the same point.

Oh, and by the way I am not a crazy person who believes that whatever Bush says, the opposite must be true.

Is that how your moral compass works?

[Mandate My Ass]

181. Hey, I was just asking a question

Touchy, aren't ya?

If I choose not to believe a demonstrated serial liar, it's not because I lack morality but because I possess an analytic mind. :shrug:

[KurtNilsen]

184. I must admit that I have become edgy the last couple of days.

The reaction here to what happened in Fallujah upset me. I guess that should be obvious from the posts I have been making.

Are you talking about Clinton btw? I admire the man.

[Mandate My Ass]

186. Your slip is showing, Kurt

Oh my it's just hanging waaaay out there.:hi:

[Vladimir]

174. A couple of points

I don't think it disproves the survey results, but it does raise the issue that you cannot base policy on it. The more serious implication, and I think this is a harsh if fair thing to say, is that under occupation there is almost no way to find out what the Iraqis really want or think. So I don't think you can make impartial judgements on the basis of this poll, because while it hasn't been proven wrong, the article highlights that it is impossible for us to call it representative. It may or may not be, but we can't tell from the data given.

The world will be a better place when the third world collectively tells the West where to shove it. The time for action has indeed come, but its not us who should be acting.

V

[KurtNilsen]

179. I agree with everything in this post. :-)

[rumguy]

180. That Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on

I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong, but the way they are doing this seems to fly in the face of basic human nature.

We love and revere our Constitution because we an emotional link to it. It is part of our heritage. WE fought for it and WE wrote it.

Combine this basic human nature with native pride, and well, I just don't think the outcome is looking good right now.

I see Americans running everything behind the scenes.

I see big corporations and private armies.

I hope we can find a way to to make this work, or better yet, find a way to get out of the way so the Iraqis can make it work (while still providing support).