Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Kerry: He Won't "Cut And Run" from Iraq. Whoopppyyy!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:07 PM
Original message
John Kerry: He Won't "Cut And Run" from Iraq. Whoopppyyy!

Of course there is a huge difference between John Kerry and George Bush on Iraq. Bush is for "staying the course" in Iraq and opposed to bringing our troops home now.

And John Kerry says we can't "cut and run" from Iraq and will send more troops to Iraq if Generals want them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Kerry Faults Bush on Iraq, Draws Heckler
MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press

NEW YORK - Democrat John Kerry faulted President Bush for a
unilateral approach toward Iraq that has created greater dangers for the U.S. military, but the presidential candidate was heckled
Wednesday for failing to back the immediate withdrawal of American forces.

Later, speaking with reporters, Kerry dismissed the notion of
withdrawing American forces and indicated that if U.S. generals and other senior officials say they need more troops, he would back such a move. Bush at his news conference Tuesday night said he would
support an increase in the military presence in Iraq.

"I think the vast majority of the American people understand that
it's important to not just cut and run," Kerry said. "I don't believe in a cut-and-run philosophy." . . .

"The president made clear what we all share, which is a sense that the United States of America is going to be resolute and tough and make certain that we accomplish our mission," Kerry said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet John Kerry is picking up the support of millions of voters opposed to the occupation with his courageous and clear stand on Iraq.

Now we should all let up on that lying sob Bush and concentrate our fury and fire on Ralph Nader! After all, he's against the occupation and unlike John Kerry opposed the invasion of Iraq.

It sure looks like some posters who claim they are opposed to the Bush government are spending much more time attacking Ralph Nader than George Bush!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Anything other than the Bush strategy will be defined as "cut and run" ?
Seems to be the idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Kerry can withdraw troops after he wins. But won't win if he says it now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ripley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. That is my hope.
It's called "politics."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sspiderjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
76. Me, too -- Once Kerry wins, he'll get us out quickly, I hope .
If not, I'm going to be SOOOOOOO mad . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
72. True
Hell, Richard Nixon did that early in 1973. Also, if opposition to the war continues to rise you just may see Kerry move more toward a peace position. Humphrey did something similar in October of 1968; he gained significantly in the polls, and almost came back to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kerry voted for war,
then tried to run as an anti-war candidate.

Now it turns out he supports the occupation! Joy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
89. Just curious, but who's YOUR candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #89
107. Sigh. Kerry.
But only because * must be stopped.

I was active in Dean's campaign before he dropped out.

I like Kucinich, but I think he's a shill to keep the real progressives happy so they don't bolt and create an actual opposition party.

If * wins in 2004, a 3rd party must be created that represents the working class in America. Why continue to be a Democrat if they are going to behave like corporate-stooges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #107
116. Dean didn't vote for the war because he had no vote to give
..however, he was for it -- his only difference was waiting a few more weeks to do it. Then, HE ran as an anti-war candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #116
130. Excuses, excuses.
Go ahead and make excuses all you want. The fact is: When the cookies were on the table Kerry, the Vietnam veteran, voted to send our troops into another useless war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. facts, facts
If you really wanted an anti-war candidate, it wasn't Howard Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
134. I think Kerry has a good rationale.
I'm anti-war, but were I John Kerry, I wouldn't say that I was going to pull the troops out immediately. Ted Kennedy is right--we are in too deep to pull out now. Should we leave, the violence may only escalate (more than it is now).

Iraq has become Vietnam--we had two choices: either not go in or go in and finish it. Regrettably, we went in. Now we must see it through to the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markomalley Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's my point...
Kerry is just another Republicrat. A rich skull and bones Yalie. We need to support a truly progressive candidate that can make real change.

Sure, it's important to get Bush out. But if he is replaced with another Bush (aren't they cousins a few times removed), then what has the country achieved?

Nader seems like the best alternative for now...I hope somebody more viable pops up as we get closer to the election. I prefer voting FOR somebody than AGAINST somebody, know what I mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. boy do we know what you mean...
.........and we ain't buying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Fine. Then eliminate the middle man and vote for
Gee Dubya, but please spare us your verbal equivocations and your Bush-enabling prating about your so-called "consciences."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Nader Is Not The Problem In Opposing Bush, John Kerry Is The Problem
No, I am not supporting Ralph Nader's campaign for President.

However, if Kerry continues his rapid swing to the right and if self-proclaimed "progressives" continue their Republican like campaign of slanders against Nader I'm sure that many Democrats, independents and even some Republicans may just vote for Ralph Nader or the Green Party candidate for President, and not John Kerry.

Kerry and his supporters are not going to win any votes from Green Party or 2000 Nader election supporters by continuing their unrelenting campaign of smears, slanders and outright lies about Nader.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Interventionism is a left-wing policy.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 01:22 PM by LoZoccolo
The neocons stole it from us (or I should say, some of them took it with them as they moved right). This is not a "swing to the right" as you call it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. "RABID swing to the right"???
What crap.

I don't know why the Kucinich/Nadar types can't seem to get it thru their heads that the majority of DEMOCRATS do not want the US to cut and run, or pull troops out of Iraq immediately.

This is not a strategy or flip-flop on Kerry's part to pick up the indies or moderate Repubs, altho if it does that fine. But it's what he's proposed all along, and a major part of the reason he's getting the nomination.

You know, it's perfectly possible to be a progressive and still KNOW that pulling out of Iraq right now will turn it into a Taliban-like terrorist breeding ground. Or maybe two or three of 'em. I hate to think how many Iraqis would be murdered in the process. Gee, I remember when liberals actually cared about the lives and welfare of people around the world.

Good lord, even Clark and Dean, neither of whom supported going into this war, know we can't bug out now. I suppose you think they've sold out their progressive ideals. Or that they never REALLY had any.

Sheesh. The Repubs sure aren't the only party with wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
45. Been reading the news lately?
"pulling out of Iraq right now will turn it into a Taliban-like terrorist breeding ground. Or maybe two or three of 'em. I hate to think how many Iraqis would be murdered in the process."

Maybe having your children blown to bits by an occupying invader would turn you into a "terrorist" too. As for the "welfare of the Iraqi people" arguement, that never did wash and is gets more Orwellian by the day now that mainstream news is reporting on the murder of non-combatants that has been going on from day 1. Kerry is not only dishonest but is making a mistake. He can't out-warmonger the neo-cons. He COULD address making good our promises by bringing in the UN, which at least has troops trained for peace-keeping rather than killing, and taking other steps to build alliances, protect the populace, and reduce the hatred for the US.

Our national security is not served by the blood of Iraqi children killed by US troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. "troops trained for peace-keeping"?
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 02:31 PM by hf_jai
The UN has NO troops. They have no military planning staff to speak of. Anyone with any background in foreign affairs (ie not Dean and Kucinich) knows that. And troops from UN member-nations are no more "trained" for peace-keeping than ours are. In fact, the US Army usually provides the other nations everything in the way of peace-keeping training and doctrine.

And sorry, but I don't buy for a minute that there has been any American campaign to "murder" non-combatants. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, people who know nothing about the military will believe whatever serves their political agenda. Sort of like the chickenhawk neo-cons.

Edited for BAD spelling error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. I believe the US dissolved the peacekeeping 'school' before the war.
Not sure of the date, but remember reading about it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
66. Yes, I know the UN "has"
no standing army of its' own, that was hurried writing, as in the commonly read headline, "UN Troops to...". And I see a huge difference between sending in troops for peace-keeping and sending in troops to occupy a country and protect its' invaders. The nature of the mission does matter. And while the UN does not enjoy much credibility in Iraq, due to the Sanctions (which are estimated to have caused the death of half a million children, boy, that should have left a sweet taste in the Iraqis mouths re: US and the West in general, shouldn't it?), I imagine the UN looks a whole lot better than Bush and his corporate cronies at this stage of the game. And the same will apply to Kerry if he "stays the course" set by this rapacious, murderous regime.

However, my hurried mistakes notwithstanding, your essential point -
"I don't buy for a minute that there has been any American campaign to "murder" non-combatants. It just doesn't work that way. But of course, people who know nothing about the military will believe whatever serves their political agenda. Sort of like the chickenhawk neo-cons." is utterly meaningless. One doesn't have to call murdering children a "campaign" to make it a reality. And "deliberate" is debatable. When we send in troops to occupy an entire country, we put them in a situation where any person might be their killer. Then that is used to justify the slaughter of children and other non-combatants. And you utterly fail to explain how killing a people's children is going to contribute to peace in Iraq, or the welfare of the Iraqi people, or the stability of the region, or long-term US security.

Even were it a moral and ethical, much less legal, tactic, the blood of other people's children will not buy US security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aneerkoinos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #50
138. Peace-keeping.
"In fact, the US Army usually provides the other nations everything in the way of peace-keeping training and doctrine."

Crap. Finland, for example, has a long tradition in US peace keeping mission, and the Finnish troops are considered one of the most professional soldiers in world for peace keeping missions. US troops are not held in high regard, they are considered gung-ho, culturally ignorant and insensitive, and generally too confrontational, and worst of all, in habit of taking sides. I don't know if and how US army don't provide peace-keeping training and doctrine, execpt the bad examples of how not to do it, like in Somalia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
91. You are spouting Repug drivel now...
"You know, it's perfectly possible to be a progressive and still KNOW that pulling out of Iraq right now will turn it into a Taliban-like terrorist breeding ground. Or maybe two or three of 'em..."

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We don't have to bring our troops home in one week. Geez. Why not bring them home "gradually" and stop "pulling the strings" so the members of the UN can really take over. I'll bet the UN sanctioned elections that follow will be much more democratic if the USA just buts out and lets it happen.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markomalley Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Give me a break -- or ban me
What the h3ll is this?? I didn't say I was going to vote for Nader...I will do what I need to do. But why the h3ll couldn't we have picked a progressive??? I agree that Kucinich looked the best out of the bunch, but since he's thrown his support to K3rry...

As I said, "I prefer voting FOR somebody than AGAINST somebody, know what I mean?"

G'head...flame me some more...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Let's hear it for Kucinich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 01:35 PM by tedthebear
Rah, rah, rah! You Kerry people can rant all you want about how I should vote for him no matter what, but I'm not buying it. I have to TRUST a candidate before I give him my vote, and so far Kerry has blown that trust big time.
Changing positions and moving to the right may be smart politics, but it can back fire when a large minority becomes alienated as a result. Kerry can't have it both ways. You guys may think he deserves that, but I don't.

If Bush wins because I vote Green, you have just as much to lose as me. Compromise is a two way street, dudes. That's politics.

:kick:

edit for sp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Why didn't "we" pick a "progressive?" Maybe because you so-called
"progressives" are in the MINORITY in the Democratic party?

Maybe because a lot of us old-time LIBERALS consider the very word
"progressive" to be a sop to the right wing? An acknowledgement that they've demonized the word "Liberal" to the point where people who would have characterized themselves as proudly Liberal 30 years ago (if they'd been born then) now call themselves "progressive" instead?

And you clearly implied you'd vote for Nader and against Kerry, so perhaps you should clean up your rhetoric before you cry foul, que no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markomalley Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. I prefer voting FOR somebody than AGAINST somebody
I prefer voting FOR somebody than AGAINST somebody, know what I mean?

Excuse me...this clearly states that I will do what I need to do, but will be holding my nose as I do so. Otherwise I wouldn't have said this.

And, as far as Progressive is concerned...I look back on the Progressive movement around the turn of the last century...although I understand what you mean, I see a distinct difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe_sixpack Donating Member (655 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
141. We didn't "pick" anybody
That's just it. The primaries were embarrassing. There's a lot of political interest and enthusiasm on this board, but the rest of the Democrats out there were lethargic, at best. The only energy I saw from the Democrats this time around was the energy expended in tearing down Dean. Kerry won by default. A lot of people didn't want to invest the effort in really deciding who was the best candidate. Kerry won in Iowa, and so the rest of the country decided that was reason enough to pick him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Calm down, mr. moreliberalthanthou
Have you actually read what the word "Progressive" means, and when it came about?

Try a bit of history.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. As a matter of fact I haven't, nor do I give a
flying fuck what "Progressive" means.

BTW, do you know the classic definition of Liberal?

Didn't think so.

and BTW, I'm a woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Given that you're proud of your ignorance
I would suggest not attacking others when you don't even know what the word means.

And, the advice to calm down still stands.

Attacking those whose vote you want doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you talk to your conservative neighbors and friends that way, you sure won't make any converts.

And if you don't talk to them that way, then you certainly don't need to take your frustration out on us.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Well, I'll tell ya: I'm sick to death of trying to persuade my
"conservative friend and neighbors."

They've got their heads in the sand (or up their asses) so firmly there's no way to dislodge. Unfortunately, that seems to be the same for my so-called "progressive" friends and neighbors, who keep babbling about "energy" and "karma" while this beautiful bloody world goes up in flames.

So I'm goin to the matresses: Are you going to vote for the only "progressive" who has a chance to beat * in November, or are you going to whine and bitch and split hairs from now until Doomsday?

Cut to the chase, and kindly don't presume to lecture someone with three times your age and experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markomalley Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #44
137. Get off your high horse
First, he ain't no "progressive." Secondly, he aint * and is the lesser of two evils. Third, get off your high horse. When I care what you think or say, I'll ask. Until then, I'll watch what k* says and does...as long as he stays the lesser of two evils until November, he'll get my vote. But that is always subject to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I don't think that we should just let them fight it out...
...amongst themselves, and also have the people that helped us end up being targets (the way that the people in the mass graves ended up after we left them stranded from the first war) because I value the lives of the Iraqi people. It's not about taking over their oil industry or whatever for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. From a American security issue and morality I agree
We have an obligation to stay and try to establish some sort of stable government. I was as against this war as anyone but now that we are there we have to finish the job. I know I know we will lose more people over there but this ship has sailed and that is the situation we find ourselves in.

IF we were to "cut and run" Iraq could very easily become the host country of alQeda and all sorts of terrorist groups. That doesn't mean that it would officially host them just that as hard of a time as we are having finding the "terrorists" (ooops now that we are negotiating with them they are supposed to be referred to as "rebels") a newly formed government and judicial system would have no chance. From a strictly security angle we can't "cut and run".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Don't look now, but Iraq is already "the host country of alQueda"
That ship sailed.

Our obligation is to admit we were wrong, get the hell out of there, and help the UN with reparations.

We'll end up either leaving anyway, or embroiled in a world war.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Everyone knew that was going to happen
At least anyone who took 5 minutes to just think about how this thing could turn out.

As I stated below I know that we aren't pulling out of there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Tell That To The GI's And Their Families

Well underpants .... why don't you go tell that to the GI's and their families back home? I think their loved ones would run you off a military base if you defended Bush's extension of duty tours. And rightly so!

And while your at it tell the Iraqi people that you have an obligation to determine their destiny for them. On second thought you'd better not do that. They don't want you or any other Americans deciding what is best for them. Not you, not George Bush and not John Kerry. They have a right to self-determination and independence. It's their right to form whatever kind of government and economy they desire, and that would not necessarily be one that meets your good housekeeping seal of approval.

I have never liked colonialism, even "liberal" colonialism with a human face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. We must cancel the privatization of Iraq's resources...
...and let the Iraqi people decide who gets to own it. I think it's disgusting how Bush is giving American multinationals the rights to Iraq's infrastructure BEFORE the Iraqis even vote for a representative government. That is BS and nothing good will come of it.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I know
Look that is obviously the hardest part of posting something like that. I just think that is what we have to do, now when they are considered a sovereign nation (June 30th) we can get out but I don't think that is really the right thing to do and I KNOW that we aren't.

I feel as bad for the GI's families as anyone and that is hard to come to terms with but that is what is the correct moral and ethical thing to do in the macro sense.

I am certain that Iraq will eventually become a IRan-esque theocracy. The whole thing was not only a bad idea but the WORST thing we could have done.

I don't know what to say and it is hard to feel that we should stay we it was so obvious that we shouldn't have been there in the first place but that is what I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. I'm pretty sure a lot of them understand it already.
Now tell all the Iraqis that have helped us that we're going to abandon them.

Also, at this point, there would not be self-determination in Iraq if we pulled out; there'd be civil war. You don't get points for "effort" if your plan for giving them that ends up with tons of people dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #32
125. More Rethuglican carpet bagger talking points
Abandon them? To who? To what? Hussein is GONE. The Bathists defanged.

There would not be self determination if "we" pulled out? Pray tell, what would their be? What the fuck do you think a civil war is? When won't their be a civil war? When is the right time to "abandon" them?

You and your brethren keep saying shit like "now isn't the right time" but you never offer any measure by which to determine when IS the right time.

RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. It's a mess to be sure.
I am far from being a carpet bagger. I don't even own a car, much less have an interest in the oil industry there.

Give me answers. Don't theorize where mine come from; that's of no value. I want to know if what I say is right or wrong and why. I don't want to know who else might have an interest in doing a similiar thing for totally different reasons.

You nailed it, there would be a civil war, plus people who helped us would get attacked. I don't wan't people to die. I always thought that the anti-war movement was there to keep people from dying. I have a sense of responsibility towards a situation where people could die.

You're asking me to give a date when a volatile situation will be over - I don't have an answer for you. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be there until then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #129
136. So it's better that we kill Iraqi's than giving them the freedom
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 05:32 AM by RapidCreek
to do so, it that is what they choose to do? A true freedom which would not involve the deaths of US soldiers?

An army's purpose is to kill....or to threaten with death. Wanting people to die or not, isn't the issue. People die. They die of old age or they die from disease or they die from starvation or they die because someone blows the shit out of them or they blow the shit out of themselves...etc. etc. The question is when they die as a result of violence should it be violence suffered at their own hand or violence suffered at ours.

I didn't say there would be a civil war....I stated that the possibility exists.....and should such a civil war come to pass it is the Iraqi's civil war to have, not ours. You don't have the answer? Why don't you have the answer? How can you advocate occupation with no answers? One does not occupy with no answers. I'm asking you to give me a date when a volatile situation will be over? No not exactly, I'm asking for a date, when our presence will no longer perpetuate volatility.....and this is of course an impossible date to give. Because our presence by it's very nature creates volatility...and it will continue to do so as long as we are in Iraq. So you see, your lack of rational ties us into a cultural gordian knot....much the same as Israel. I suggest that this, as has been demonstrated for 45 years, is not wise or productive....unless your product is the causation of death and the suffering of retribution. Frankly I fail to see how that makes us or Iraqi's more safe. It does not. It is the intentional perpetuation of an evil based upon a fallacious conundrum. It is akin to murdering a drug dealer that sold your kid heroine but keeping him dosed yourself because you can't stand to see him go through withdrawal. That approach might make you feel altruistic and give your kid the impression that he is free of taking personal responsibility...but in the end it'll kill your kid or at the very least lead him to live a life of dependance...worst of all it'll make you no better than the drug dealer you killed.


RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #136
139. Um, we don't /want/ to kill Iraqi's...
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 08:03 AM by LoZoccolo
...but these different factions of Iraqis would kill each other.

A true freedom which would not involve the deaths of US soldiers?

I've said over and over that this wouldn't give them freedom to begin with. We don't have that option - we have a temporary occupation or civil war. I'm just guessing

Wanting people to die or not, isn't the issue.

It is for me. If this is going to become a debate about me respecting human life versus you thinking that people dying in a civil war isn't much different than them dying of old age, we've got a lot more to cover.

The question is when they die as a result of violence should it be violence suffered at their own hand or violence suffered at ours.

The amount of violence and death is not a question with you? You simply want to keep your own hands clean? That's not responsible.


You don't have the answer? Why don't you have the answer? How can you advocate occupation with no answers?

I didn't say I had "no answers". Read what I didn't have an answer about.

No not exactly, I'm asking for a date, when our presence will no longer perpetuate volatility.....and this is of course an impossible date to give.

I never said that this isn't a quagmire - it is. Our presence there is not an ideal situation, it's simply less worse than just leaving. But for the near term, if we weren't there to protect the Iraqi's from each other and from warlords and clerics from trying to grab power, there would be a significant loss of human life which we would have some role in because we destroyed the previous government. I've said before in this thread - interventionism is a left wing policy; we have a responsibility to people all over the world. We should be there until there's enough law and order established that they can start electing a government. At this point, your policy of having us leave and let them "work it out" amounts to rule by warlord juntas. I respect the Iraqi people more than to let them live like that. I would like to be able to just leave and have everything be alright there, but the reality is that would not happen.

Do you think that the decisions people make about their destiny in the midst of a desperate situation, a civil war, are the same as when their basic needs for safety are met?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. .
That attempt was a little bit too obvious...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Yeah, that's what I thought. Soooo predictable, as are most of
the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
42. Fuck Nader and his stupid ass supporters
They're nothing more than a bunch of dipshits!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. Not really...
Nader seems like the best alternative for now...I hope somebody more viable pops up as we get closer to the election. I prefer voting FOR somebody than AGAINST somebody, know what I mean?

No, I don't know what you mean. Me personally, I vote from rational best interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markomalley Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #49
126. Unfortunately, I will will probably do so as well
As I've already said, I hate voting against somebody. It is a lot better to vote "for" somebody or some idea. But, I understand the possible impact of my decision.
Go Kerry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. He was very strong, and what he's saying about the UN makes sense
We can't cut and run, we are now legally responsible for a stable Iraq.

Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. Remember, this is a TAR BABY. Bad if you do, bad if you don't.
AMERICANS allowed Bush to steal the election and become
the front for a criminal enterprise. HIS WAR IS A TAR BABY!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. I watched Kerry this am on MTP...
He has to be told he is muddling his message.

He is mixing his pronouns...and he has to STOP doing this..

The WE, he uses is when he is speaking about the United States but we're not sure until the end of his thought.

The HE, he uses is about George Bush. But we're not sure until the end of his thought.

The I, he uses is referring to himself as a US Senator or a Vietnam Vet or a Presidential candidate. But we're not sure in what capacity he is speaking.

The THEY, he uses is about the Bush Administration. But, who? we don't know.

He has to speak with more clarity in his speeches using definite proper nouns and pronouns so his thoughts are conveyed clearly to the American people.

I will vote for anyone except Bush...

if Kerry wants to win he has to take his game up a notch.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. Just one more reason
why I will neither work for, support, donate to or vote for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You're in a large company of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Yep, and most of us true Democrats
call 'em "Freepers."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. lol!
Do you even understand what the Democratic Party stands for? (Or once did.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. As a matter of fact I do.
As a matter of fact, I've been a Democrat since long before you were born, sonny boy. I've known a lot of real Democrats in my day. Real Democrats are my friends.

And you, sonny, are no Democrat.* :evilgrin:

*Courtesy Lloyd Bentson, 1988
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
65. I am not a sonny boy
And if you have been a Democrat long before I was born, you would be well into your 80's.

Maybe some Democrats enjoy the blood that drips from their hands, but not most.

Enjoy your warmongering bloodthirst while you can. We will take our party back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. Yeah, well, good luck. Hope your passport is up to date.
And FYI, I was born in 1943, and to paraphrase a great (and true) Liberal,


I've forgotten more about politics than you'll ever learn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #69
93. What in hell does my passport have to do w/this?
"America, love it or leave" is not a liberal slogan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. I didn't say it was, and kindly don't even THINK about using that
tired old RW canard against me.

What I said--and clearly--is that you are enabling a RW, Fascist government by whining about Kerry not supporting your agenda 100%, and by enabling those who claim that Kerry is no different than Bush blah blah ad nauseum or by supporting anyone but Kerry over *.

It's childish, it's counterproductive, and it enables the RW. What exactly don't you understand about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #97
103. I repeat
What the hell does my passport have to do w/this?

And no, I am enabling no one. I will not vote for whistle ass. I will not vote for Kerry. I will not vote for warmongers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #103
108. So--you're a sanctimonious Bush enabler who
refuses to compromise your ever-so-progressive "conscience," is that it?

Then say so, you gutless wimp. Tell us exactly why you'd rather your vote go to Dubya rather than to Kerry.

Tell us. Tell us now. Explain yourself. Explain yourself now. This I gotta hear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #108
115. You 1st have to tell me
what the hell my passport has to do w/this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #103
111. Me either.
Unless my fear of Bush packing the Supreme Court with RW bigots gets the upper hand.

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The White Rose Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
47. So, enlighten me. What do you suggest that's actually possible?
What do you *really* think will happen if the U.S. retreats from Iraq (because that *is* how it will be perceived)? Hearts and flowers and a peaceful, orderly transition to democratic governance? Fleeing Iraq would certainly save Coalition and Iraqi lives in the short run, but what then? A genuine world leader, which we sorely lack, does not have the leisure to react to the immediate and neglect the future. Given that we are in Iraq (and no matter how much we want to we can't wish it away), which strategy is the least likely to inflict further death and suffering on both the American *and* Iraqi peoples?

BTW, Kerry is the *only* alternative to Bush this year. No-one but Bush is going to win if Kerry loses. Do you honestly believe that the United States and the world can stand four more years of Bush while the Left waits for its knight in shining armor? I don't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. Guys, for a lot of people "cut and run" means totally fucking Iraq
There are a lot of people out there who had strong reservations for a call to just drop everything, leave Iraq in shambles and bail out.

It felt like we had come into Iraq, fucked everything beyond repair and left a wasteland, that suddenly completely withdrawing would be saying "well see ya later good luck with the mess WE made that is OUR fault - good luck with that!"

Now, over the last several months I have come to understand things differently - I believe that our continued military presence in Iraq is directly contrary to hopes for peace and stability. I believe that the longer "US" presence is there, the longer Iraq will go without any hope for stability. But it took me a long time to understand that point of view. For a long time it sounded like people who wanted "US out now" just didn't give a fuck about the horrible injustice we had committed against the people of that country, the amount of desolation and destruction we had rained down, the horrible state we would be leaving Iraq in. But now I understand that better.

See, in my heart what I want is for the United States to be forced to be responsible for its actions! I want our rash and totally unfounded decision to unilaterally invade Iraq to have consequences for the United States. Now, before you jump down my throat, the longer this occupations has lasted the more and more I've realized that the only people really suffering the "consequences" are innocent U.S. boys and girls dying in Iraq. And I want them out of there now - I don't believe their deaths serve a "greater" good of teaching the U.S. a lesson. At the same time, I seriously wish this war would cost us a lot. I wish we would lose all our war mongering contracts in Iraq, and then still be forced to pay for the reconstruction of everything we blew up! Yes, I realize that tax payers would foot the bill, but quite frankly, that's the price we should fucking pay when 70+ percent of people supported this ridiculous war when it started.

So for a long time I reacted negatively to the idea that we should just "drop everything and get out of Iraq" because it felt like there would be no accountability or consequence to the U.S. for those horribly unjustified choice for war. And I think we have to at least appreciate the fact that I am not the only one out there who might feel that way, and so when Kerry says we will not "cut and run" it feels like a good thing.

Now again, I say my opinions on this have changed has I have been convinced by others that our continued presence is Iraq is directly counter to hopes for rebuilding, peace and stability. But I want the United States to "feel the pain" of its completely and totally wrong action. We should be responsible for rebuilding what we destroyed, and if every solider was pull out of Iraq, justice would say that we should still pay "reparations" to a country we destroyed based on lies, deception and secret immoral motivations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. Good point.
I say: US troops out, UN in, and the US taxpayer pays necessary reparations for our destructive invasion.

I trust the member nations of the UN more than I trust Bush. But I don't know if the majority of the Iraqi people would. They rightly recognize the UN as a cover org. for the United State's interests.
In my version of a perfect world, the US would recuse itself from all Iraq matters and let the other UN nations do it all. BUT, all expenses will be paid by the US taxpayer, since it was our stupid government who invaded Iraq.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. I agree
I felt the same way at first - that the US should stay and rebuild, but now I think they should just leave. Let the Iraqi people choose their own government, and rebuild the country the way they want it using Iraqi companies and workers.

It would sure make a change to hear the US take responsibility for their actions, and clean up their own backyard instead of trying to change others.

But then - I'm an optimist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
46. Absolutely Correct, Selwynn!
I've disagreed with you over a few things, but on this your are completely correct, and have worded it exactly.

I, also, said to people: "My mother taught me to clean up my messes". But, the more I listened to Dennis Kucinich, the more I UNDERSTOOD the reality. While my mother was right about *my* personal messes, ( and her's.. hehehe), it doesn't always hold true in international affairs. As bad as it is now, we are in grave danger of messing it up further.

Dennis will be proved right on this score. He has shown himself to be a very wise man, and I sincerely hope that Kerry will listen to him on this. Oh, how I hope.

There is a saying about "throwing good money after bad", and in this case, it holds true about DEATHS. More deaths, both Iraqi and USian, will NOT make it better. It can only get worse from here.

Thank you for your words... you and I have little chance of influencing Kerry, but hopefully, as others see the reality of the situation, and minds and hearts change, Kerry will get the message.

BTW, did you see the thread that was started last night about what is coming down the pike if we DON"T get out? Scary indeed. We'll leave, sooner or later, but... later will be an even bigger catastrophe.

Thanks again...

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
70. Disagreed with me? Feh. Feh I say!
The sooner people figure out that I am always right the better this world will be.


(that is a joke, btw.) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
37. It's called responsibility
We owe it to the Iraqi people to give them the democracy we promised. I don't give a fuck who's president, it's the right thing to do for chrissake. Withdrawl of US troops is irresponsibile and might lead to one of the greatest human rights disaster of the century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. But what about if the US "gradually" removed its footprint while...
...the member nations of the UN took over. Then,the Iraqi people could determine the course they chose, while the UN helped make it happen. Of course, the US taxpayer would pick up the bill, not the UN. We created this mess, so we should just but out and pay for the damages.

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Nobody asked the UN
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 02:21 PM by Doomsayer13
We should bring the UN in, but the UN as an institution is self-intersted and flawed. I think it's incorrect to assume that the UN is some sort of benevolent institution that wants to clean up everybody's mess. Hell, they're so busy trying to make everybody happy that nothing can hardly get done there. Kofi has not said that he'd replace our troops, but he has said he'd help out. John Kerry wants to do this. But we can't assume that the UN and its countries will want to send their children into combant zone to replace ours, they all think, and rightfully, that this is our mess therefore we must bear the brunt of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. Wrong.
The UN is so busy trying to make the USA happy that nothing can hardly get done.
That's why most of the Iraqis don't trust it.

Cleaning up the USA's mess in Iraq is EXACTLY what the UN is designed for. You seem to forget that the cause (USA) of the destruction is not necessarily the best solution. Look what we've done up to this point with the best of intentions (?). It's a nightmare. I don't share your optimism that Kerry will do any better.
Whether it's led by a Republican or a Democrat, it's still Imperialism.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. Again, who asked the UN
I defy you to find a quote, or some sort of evidence which will lead me to believe that Kofi and the nations of the UN will clean up our mess for us. You have to realize that the UN as an institution only has as much legitimacy as the nations that are its members give to it. It's a coalition of good feelings pretty much, and I highly doubt, in fact, I'm almost positive that they're not willing to take over for us at this point in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. The UN will be more than happy to take over...
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 02:53 PM by tedthebear
...once it knows the USA and Britain will honestly let go of all their interests in Iraq. It's only because the member nations see through the USA's duplicity in this matter that they are holding back. They don't want to spend one dollar if it is to aid our imperialistic agenda.

You are buying the propaganda of our Fortune 500 oligarchy when you talk responsibility. I am pushing for responsibility without any strings attached, and that can only happen if the invader (us) buts out.

:kick:

edit for sp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Are you sure of that?
You are assuming that the UN doesn't have interests of its own. When those intersts come in conflict of doing the right thing, they spend years trying to pound out some sort of agreement. There's a reason why the UN is perhaps the most inept institution in the world, and that is becuase its members have an obligation to their own citizens over the acutal institution itself. No country in the UN wants to see their children sent into combat zone, to the most unstable region of the world in order to clean up the US's mess. That is why Kofi has not said that he'd replace US troops, beucase he knows none of the UN nations providing peace keeping forces would let him send in their citizens to die just like we are now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
75. Absolutely!
"There's a reason why the UN is perhaps the most inept institution in the world, and that is becuase its members have an obligation to their own citizens over the acutal institution itself."

And are we any different???????

Come on, dude. Get real.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. We are different
since Bush invaded iraq, now we have an obligation to their citizens as well as ours. It in effect made them temporary adoptees of the united states. We have a responsiblity to ensure their safety and that they have the opprotunities that we have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Just as Hitler had an obligation to Poland?
Who wound up cleaning that one up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Hitler did not invade Poland with the promise of democracy
more flawed pseudo-historical analogies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. HItler invaded Poland
over the guise of Terrorism if I remember correctly. Save your analysis. It doesn't fit. And it insults the Iraqi people to call them "adoptees". This war was based on a lie and only the Iraqis can bring democracy to Iraq. I'm under no illusions that we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Hitler invaded poland
to "liberate" Danzig which had a substancial German population but was separated from Germany by the Polish border. These America = Nazi Germany analogies are flawed, because only Nazi Germany = Nazi Germany. It's a psudo-historical analogy becuase none of the circumstances are similar now in comparison to Germany 70 years ago. Bush's reasoning is different, and on the surface our intent seems to be different. If we really were interested in Iraq as a terrority, I think we'd be setting down firm immovable colonial roots right now. As it stands, most of the US wants out, but just in the best way possible. There's no doubt this war was based in a lie, but that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing.

Adoptees was insulting? I don't think so. But if it is, maybe "temporary US citizens" is more like it. In the end, my point stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Food for thought
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 03:38 PM by camero
And if you think Bush is intent on bringing democracy to Iraq I should question your sanity. Excerpts of HItler's speech at Danzig.

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronog...

One thing has been clearly proved in the last twenty years; the Poles who had not founded that culture also were not able to maintain it. It has been shown again that only he who is himself culturally creative can permanently maintain real cultural performance.

Thirty years would have been sufficient to reduce again to barbarism those territories which the Germans, painstakingly and with industry and thrift, had saved from barbarism. Everywhere traces of this retrogression and decay were visible.

Poland itself was a 'nationalities State.' That very thing had been created here which had been held against the old Austrian State. At the same time Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people.

It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military. The fate of Germans in this State was horrible. There is a difference whether people of lower cultural value has the misfortune to be governed by a culturally significant people or whether a people of high cultural significance has forced upon it the tragic fate of being oppressed by an inferior.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Sometimes these parrallels are scary
no doubt about it. But I remain unconvinced that Bush wants a Iraqi colony. He may not have been overly concerned with Democracy then and now, but I don't think any sane person would want Iraq as US territory. The Iraq War and WMD was just an exucse for him to fulfill old vendettas left over from the first Persian Gulf War. Now, we're left with a mess that needs to be cleaned up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Then let the UN and Arabs do it
As long as we are there we will be seen as occupiers not liberators. Of course we will have to pay for the rebuilding as we should. Bush doesn't lie eh? You really think so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. BTW, the last paragraph is a real doozy
We are determined to carry on and stand this war one way or another. We have only this one wish, that the Almighty, who now has blessed our arms, will now perhaps make other peoples understand and give them comprehension of how useless this war, this debacle of peoples, will be intrinsically, and that He may perhaps cause reflection on the blessings of peace which they are sacrificing because a handful of fanatic warmongers, persons who stand to gain by war, want to involve peoples in war.

Yeah, these parellels are scary. Too scary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #96
104. Wow. Sounds like Bush talking about al-Sadr and the Iraqi resistance...
"a handful of fanatic warmongers" is exactly what Bush inferred in his press conference.
Not to mention the use of "the Almighty, who now has blessed our arms..." Bush says the same thing!

:scared:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. And we want Kerry to adopt this attitude?
:scared: is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. We???
We? "We" made no such promise. In fact, at least half the population of this nation and most of the population of the "Coalition of the Willing" nations were opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So please don't use the term "we". I and most made no such promise. The unelected Bush government of course made that promise. However, that was just propaganda designed to win support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Mind saying how your going to "give them the democracy" that Bush promised? Perhaps at the end of a gun. And "we" do not have much of a track record or history of "giving" people in other lands democratic rights and liberties. People have to fight for those rights, including the Iraqi people, they are not simply given by foreign occupiers.

Maintaining the occupation of Iraq can lead to a much bigger disaster for both the Iraqi and American people. Hasn't enough damage already been done? And how many more deaths of Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops are you willing to accept before you think we should bring our soldier home and end the occupation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. You're right... has anyone *asked* the Iraqis if they *WANT* a democracy?
Just like we did over 200 years ago, the Iraqis will have to figure this out for themselves.

Given our example, I wouldn't particularly blame them if they opted against democracy at this point. We're not making it very attractive.

How many more deaths, indeed. You have that right.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. They wont figure it out
if they aren't given a chance. Therefore we must ensure a stable environment for a handoff of government. Nobody's asked the Iraqis whether they want Democracy, but has anybody asked them whether they want to be under another violent totalitarian state like Saddam? Because that's what it's shaping up to be now if we cut and run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. I suppose dropping a 2,000 pound bomb on a suburb is your idea...
...of ensuring a stable environment. Be careful. You are revealing yourself to be an armchair general of the worst sort. Why don't you jump on a plane and go to Iraq if you want to ensure stability? It's sooooo easy to make decisions about what's best for someone when your own guts won't be spilled.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. That's low
I never said Bush's tactics were the right thing to do, and never have I advocated the death of Iraqi civilians. I support standing strong becuase I care about the Iraqi people, not becuase I wish to see them die.

I think, you sir, need to sit down and calm down. If you don't want a debate with me, then dont reply to my messages. If the best you can do is accuse me of supporting the death of civilians then this debate is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. Actually, while it was hard to take, the point was accurate
I urge you to read and ponder Selwynn's post, then read:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Selwynn and I have both had to change our minds, as have many, many people. It's possible to do.

Please, think through these posts.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. I will
Thank you for being polite. Trust me, I've thought long and had about the positions I take now, and I will surely do more thinking. I'm still a relativist to the core, I believe in debate and deliberation, so long as it stays relatively cordial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #73
102. You're very welcome. I'm polite to those who are polite to me.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 04:02 PM by Kanary
Strange how that works.

I've been here too long.... I'm beginning to respond to verbal violence with anger. And, since there's waaay too much verbal violence, it's a losing proposition.

Supposedly, we're all in this together...

Kanary, who would also suggest you read Kucinich's position on the matter.

edited to add: It's rather silly fighting about... neither you nor I have any affect on what Kerry will do. Bloodying each other isn't going to end the war one day sooner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. No. Our difference is that I don't trust our Fortune 500 oligarchy...
...to do what's right, and you do. I see you as an armchair general because you advocate further military occupation of Iraq, and I don't. It's nothing personal, just the way I see it.
Please use any noun of your choice to describe the error of my ways, I don't mind (as long as it's not a cuss word, thank u).

Bring our troops home NOW!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. very well
you call me an armchair general, I'll call you an armchair revolutionary. Let's call the whole thing off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Fair enough.
I do tend to be a socialist at times...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. It doesn't matter WHO made the promise
America now has a responsibility to the Iraqi people becuase of the actions of George W. Bush. It's tough, but that's the truth of it. Its all too easy for Iraq War detractors like me to say, I told you so, wave the peace sign, and call for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. Whats hard is coming to terms with the responsibility that America as a nation accepted the instant our soldiers set foot on Iraqi soil. We owe it to the Iraqi people to establish a stable and healthy democracy for them and not let the nation devolve into a terrorist state. As it's shown, the difference between the occupation of our troops and the occupation of these terrorist insurgents is that they're willing to target men women and children, even follow Iraqis for their own twisted goals. While the US occupation has led to some tragic collatoral damage, our troops do not intentially target civilians, and are genuinely concerned with the well being of Iraq. That difference in itself makes it essential we stand our ground against these insurgents.

So what? Becuase we have a poor track record that strips us of the ability to do the right thing in this case? As a liberal who professes to care aobut human rights, I'm not content to let Iraq devolve into a human rights disaster on the size of Rwanda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Wrong again.
Your argument was the same one we used to stay in Viet-nam. It won't work.
I say, let the UN and the Iraqis fix it while we pay the bill. We need to but out and leave them alone.

:mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. difference between this and Vietnam
Vietnam was a nationalist movement. If Iraq was anything like Vietnam, we wouldn't see 60 soliders dead in a week, we'd see 600. Or 6000. There is no evidence that even an absolute majority of the Iraqi people support these terrorist insurgents, who are content to kill their own people, including Iraqi policie officers, women and children. If this does indeed turn into a nationalist movent against occupation, and it becomes clear, like it did in 1968 that we cannot concievably install a legitimate government, I would support withdrawl of US troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #59
80. Give it time, dude. Give it time...
The sand in the hour glass is only half way down. By the time Kerry is in his second year, and pushing democracy in Iraq at the end of a gun, it will be worse than Viet-nam.

Remember, the Muslims see us as Israel's ally now. We are the wrong country to be occupying Iraq in the name of democracy. Nobody is buying our duplicity anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Well, we'll see
but you're assuming that all muslims have the hatred for Isreal on the level of Hamas. That doesn't seem to be the case. What we're dealing with here is a small minority that is content to use terrorist tactics to weakin US resolve. Now, if we steer our current course, Iraq has potential for becoming a new Vietnam becuase if we keep on killing civilians, even if accidental, we will in turn recruit more people to their causes. We need a new plan, a new strategy, but we cannot let Iraq become another Iran.

I say congress pass a bill compensating Iraqi civilian families killed in combat. That will give us some leverage with the population. I also think we shouldn't keep this "kill insurgents at all costs" tactic which is causing unneccsary loss of life amongst Iraqi civilians. These terrorist have no problem killing Iraqi civilians themselves, we must rise above them and prove that America can live up to its word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #84
99. Now you're talking.
"We need a new plan, a new strategy, but we cannot let Iraq become another Iran.
I say congress pass a bill compensating Iraqi civilian families killed in combat. That will give us some leverage with the population. I also think we shouldn't keep this "kill insurgents at all costs" tactic which is causing unnecessary loss of life amongst Iraqi civilians. These terrorist have no problem killing Iraqi civilians themselves, we must rise above them and prove that America can live up to its word."

I totally agree with you here. I just don't trust our politicians to do the right thing. You yourself said member nations of the UN put their own people's interests first. As long as we pull the strings, I fear even Kerry could end up mimicking Sharon's tactics in the end. The less control the USA has over the results, the better, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
38. Bush: In or Out.
One can support Kerry, or one can vote Bush, Nader, or equivalent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
58. Well Kerry did vote with Bush for the war.
So I guess Im not suprised, but I am dissapointed.

IMO, Kerry needs to get us out of that mess as asap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
61. This is George W. Bush's war
It always will be, even after he has left office.

Even if people continue to get killed after he has left office.

Even if Kerry has to send in more troops to clean up the mess after Bush has left office.

Even if it continues to cost billions and billions after Bush has left office.

Bush has left a huge mess for his sucessor to clean up. It will take many years. I have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to those on Kerry's left flank complain about him.

George W. Bush's war. Always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
68. Just heard a great piece on "How negative campaign ads work"...
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 03:00 PM by Junkdrawer
Seems the idea isn't to get you to switch candidates, but rather to make you question your own candidate to the point that you are not motivated to vote for that candidate. Clever, no????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #68
118. Actually, the rude supporters are doing that all by themselves
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
74. Why do I feel like being against the IWR
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 03:06 PM by camero
is becoming the "soft on defense" cliche? And the dems are just laying down and spreading em again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #74
98. You feel that way because you're seeing reality
Now that Kerry is the nominee-apparent, notice the shift?

It's no longer "cool" (or even welcome) to be against the war.

Gives us a lot to look forward to, eh?

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. It does
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #98
112. Whatever Kerry says, goes. And don't even try to question it.
:scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Aw, crud-a-rama, I forgot how to salute.
:)

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
78. Since when is Bush's mission and 'our' mission one in the same?
- Kerry is saying that Iraq has become OUR mission. Why must WE adopt an illegal and poorly planned invasion and occupation of Iraq?

- Kerry is lucky most Dems believe in ABB...or he wouldn't have a chance in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. Excellent question
Why isn't Kerry focusing on the National Security COSTS of the war in Iraq if he is worried about appearing "weak" on national security? The only reason most people support this war is that they swallowed the lies about it being "about" US security. Why isn't Kerry speaking to the security implications of increasing instability in the region, increasing hatred for the US, and alienating much of the rest of the world by US unilateralism?

Kerry knows damn well the cost of this war will endure for decades, not just the $ cost but the cost in lives, in the shattered mental health of troops who will one day remember the toddler, the ten year old, the old woman they shot or blew to bits. In the hatred for the US generating more and more violent extremists. Why is he not speaking to THOSE National Security concerns?

John Kerry asked how you ask the last man to die for a mistake. Why is he not asking now how you ask a man or woman to be the last to die for a lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
83. Guess you're still faced with the same choice you were five mins. ago
All the griping in the world can't change the fact that you can vote for the guy who can beat Chimp, vote for Chimp, or enable chimp by withholding a vote from the only guy who can beat him.

I assume that, in light of the shining brilliance of your post, you will choose the later which can best accomplished by either staying home or voting for the Wal-Mart enabling, union busting, lying, megalomaniacal St. Ralph.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
86. We have an obligation to fix Bush's mess
We have to at least try, and if that doesn't work, then hand it over to the UN. It would be irresponsible to leave now.

Remember that Bush is the bad guy here. He abused the IWR that Kerry and many Democrats voted for. The original IWR that Kerry refused to vote for would have still passed because of the Republicans plus Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #86
101. "We" Have No Right Or Duty To Be In Iraq

As Americans who do not support the Bush governments occupation of Iraq we have only one responsibility to the Iraqi people. And that is that we demand an end to the occupation.

And if you support the occupation, your objectively on the side of the Bush government and not the Iraqi people. And a few posters in this string have actually used some of the arguments advanced by the Bush government to justify the continued invasion of Iraq!

What right does the Bush government or a Kerry Administration have to dictate to the Iraqi people, at the point of a gun, what kind of government they may or may not have? That's a reactionary colonial mentality, not that of a progressive or true "liberal".

I remember hearing those same kinds of arguments against withdrawing from Vietnam during that war. Does anyone here think it was a "mistake" for Nixon to withdraw all troops from Vietnam and suggest we should have kept troops in Vietnam?

Stay in Iraq and you shall see a lot more of the following:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/year.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. It's great for America to pull its soldiers
but look at Vietnam now. The totalitarian dictatorship is still oppressing its people today. Of course we need to leave Iraq, but we need to let the Iraqis set up a government first.

Leaving now means chaos and bloodshed for years to come. Do you want that on your conscience?

It was wrong to go in, but its wrong to just leave now. A more international presence that includes Muslims would do a lot for the peace process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #106
114. Viet-nam now? Then why are we selling its national airline Boeing 777s?
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 04:32 PM by tedthebear
Or selling Coke there? Geez, I could cut your hypocrisy with a knife.


"It was wrong to go in, but its wrong to just leave now. A more international presence that includes Muslims would do a lot for the peace process."

But the only way we'll do that is by butting out totally. The Muslims see us as in Sharon's pocket now, thanks to Bush. They won't lift a finger to help us for now on.

:eyes:

edit for sp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #114
123. because we like money?
no matter how many Boeing planes we sell them, it doesn't compensate for their government oppressing its people. Coke doesn't come packaged with human rights.

If we "cut and run" then it will be anarchy and the strongest warlord will just kill everyone else and we can trade Boeings and Coke with him for oil.

If you want to cut my hypocrisy with a knife and then "cut and run" then go ahead.

will this knife do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #101
109. Rule of the strongest warlords = letting them pick their own government?
Your plan completely ignores the details of what's going on there, and what would happen if it were implemented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gpandas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #109
120. we don't have the resources to be world cop nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. That doesn't answer my question.
And your answer doesn't speak to the Iraq situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gpandas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. we should get out now
after all we did little militarily to determine the government of Uganda during idi amin, or the armenians when the soviets systematically starved ten million, or when china's purges nabbed thirty million, or in Kenya during the mau-mau uprising or the numerous tribal massacres of central africa. we got rid of the despot in iraq, now let them self determine their fate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. That's all for now, I guess.
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #101
110. If the results of our withdrawal from Viet-nam are so bad then why...
...do we consider it a valued trading partner now? Why are we allowing its national airline to buy Boeing 777's? And allowing Warren Buffett to sell Coke to the people there?

Gee. We cut and ran there and now Viet-nam is an acceptable recipient of our multinationals' investments. And it's a communist dictatorship to boot!
Regardless of who runs Iraq, the oil will keep pumping and they'll want to sell it to us. Who's to say a cut and run policy will be worse than what's happening now? Who's to say the UN (without our input) won't do a better job?

This may sound too pragmatic, but it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #110
117. Racism And The Occupation Of Iraq

The Black Commentator
April 15, 2004


American racial warfare was horrifically successful against Native Americans, Mexicans, Filipinos and many other victims of Manifest Destiny but was defeated, at terrible cost, by the Vietnamese. The Iraqis are thwarting them again. The American worldview, stunted and deformed by racism, does not prepare the nation to interact with non-white populations without reverting to type. Thus, the American military is a blunt instrument with limited uses. Only its machines make the US a military superpower. The human resources of the United States, civilian and military, are patently unfit to rule the globe. This elemental fact will become more obvious with every deployment even to Americans.

The U.S. can punish darker nations and peoples, but it cannot exercise lasting authority over them. Unless it learns to coexist with others on the planet, it will be shunned and eclipsed.

The Bush Plan for global conquest was doomed from the start, based as it was on peculiarly American delusions that are organic to the nations hyper-racist history. John Kerry doesnt have a plan for Iraq. Good.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/86/86_cover_pirates.htm...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #117
124. Actual quote from a conservative forum:
"Bombing brown people reminds me of whacking a piata on Cinco De Mayo, except the good, little palestinian boys and girls don't fight for candy on the ground. Rather they wrestle each other for an ear or an eyeball or, "Look, look Achmed, I got a kneecap!!!" And then they all shout with glee for their little bit of human trophy that will sure enough go on the mantle, above the fireplace"
-Wyatt_Junker-

If you want the exact link to the forum where you can find these comments, PM me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
119. More on Nader:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Nader was a miniscule part of Selection 2000. Yes, we should be mad at him. But I'm flipping tired of people IGNORING THE REST OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED. Nader shouldn't be the only name to get tossed into the fire.

And we're only going to get fooled again if we get our jollies off solely on Nader while the same vermin castrate us in the background. And this time, Nader will be guilty for none of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. Huh??????

That certainly was a powerful and effective response to the Black Commentator article or whatever it is your responding to in this string.

So .... do you support the Bush governments occupation of Iraq or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solidarity Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #121
132. Jimmy Breslin Letter To Iraq GI: "Neither Candidate Brings You Home"


Neither Candidate Brings You Home
by Jimmy Breslin
Newsday
April 15, 2004


April l4, 2004

Pfc. Matthew Caulfield

A Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment

3rd Stryker Combat Team

APO AE 09385

Dear Matthew,

I have to tell you that I am as nervous writing you as I was the first time. Anyway, I watched your two presidential candidates, Bush on television, Kerry in person, and I hereby issue my report:

I saw Kerry in person at City College on Wednesday afternoon and then I tried to see him at night at the Sheraton Hotel, but there were so many people there, begging to pay $2,000, that I barely got into the place. They pay that much money so their candidate can talk about you in the war.

On television on Tuesday night, Bush also talked about you.

At City College, Kerry came out in a dark blazer and a shirt with no tie. The first thing I remember Kerry saying was that he wasn't going to get out of Iraq so fast. I was sure hoping for more than this from the guy.

George Wallace, and I'm sure you don't know that name, but he was around in the 70s running for president as a third party candidate. He said of the other two candidates from the major parties: "There ain't a dahme's worth of difference between them."

Of course Wallace was right, and this season, the only political issue I care about is how we can get you home fast and safe. Fast makes safe. If Kerry and Bush both want you to stay there, then there sure isn't a dime's worth of difference.

Both Bush and Kerry have been saying that the best way to get out of Iraq would be for the United Nations to come in and help us with troops. You ask some 20-year-old from Norway, "How would you like to go to Iraq?"

"What for?"

Best, and keep your head down.

Jimmy Breslin

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
133. What is this John Wayne "Cut and run" crap?? It's an illegal war
WE are the bad guys and we need to get the hell out...NOW. We can do nothing but more harm by staying there. What God-damned arrogance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
135. It wasn't "music" to us Anti-Iraq Invasion Folks in the Dem Party though..
But, it's okay we are working on our own ways of dealing with it from the "Grassroots" up feedback within the Dem Party from the "people" that we are getting. The Dems that is. I'm not concerned about the Repugs.
I'm working for us not them....

Just wanted to clarify that not all Dems are going "Whoopee" over this.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
140. Yep, can you say quagmire?
Kerry is going to continue the illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign nation, much like another Dem did, namely LBJ. Better yet, Kerry is going to fall into the trap of letting the chickenhawks define who he is, thus, in order not to appear soft on terror, he will ratchet up the level of conflict, thus negating any hope we and the Iraqis have of insuring stability in the region.

What Kerry should do, if he gets in office, is to go begging on hands and knees to the UN, and beg them to take over not just the social/political end of operations over there, but also the security/"peacekeeping" mission. Otherwise any government established under the auspices of US occupation is going to be illegitamite in the eyes of the Iraqi people, and will be subject to a civil war once we leave.

For those of you who are in favor of staying, consider our recent lessons received in Vietnam. Much like Iraq, we were supposedly there to establish democracy, and to prevent Vietnam from becoming a hotbed of Communism. Several presidents felt compelled for political reasons to not just support the war, but also to escalate it. After all, one couldn't pay the supposed political price of looking soft on Communism. After years of playing political football with thousands upon millions of lives, public opinion finally became so overwhelming that it simply couldn't be ignored. So finally the US pulled out of this quagmire, leaving death, chaos and ruin in it's wake. Despite the dire warnings of the hawks that China or Russia would swoop in and make the entire of SE Asia Communist, in reality what happened was that after a short, sharp civil war, peace was finally established under a nominally communist form of government. And in spite of the US never taking responsibility for it's actions, despite no reparations, Vietnam has managed to pull itself out of the aftermath of war and join the world community. Communism didn't take over SE Asia, and life finally was allowed to peacefully flourish.

This is the scenario that is getting ready to play out in Iraq. With both Bush and Kerry promising not to pull out, the US is committing itself to another decade long quagmire that will kill millions, drain our resources, make our country less secure, and make the US a pariah in the eyes of the world. This is an unwinnable war. We are already seeing how various factions in Iraq are putting aside their differences in order to concentrate their energy on the overarching foe, the US. We are not going to win this war, as with any war of empire. The only question that remains is how much is the US prepared to sacrifice to stupidity and greed? Apparently with both Bush and Kerry, it is becoming clear that both are willing to go at least another four years into the fray. Can we, should we tolerate this, all in the name of voting for the "lesser evil"? As the body count mounts in paralell with the saber rattling it becomes obvious that neither man is a peace candidate. Kerry might provide us with the kinder, gentler version of the Iraq war, but war it still is, and death will remain the overriding reality.

No, we should get out NOW. With the help of the UN, if at all possible, but if they won't cooperate, without the UN. Yes, yes, conventional wisdom says that Iraq will fall into a civil war, topped with totalitarian rule. Be that as it may, is that any better than what we have provided in the past, and what our current policy promises for the future? In the past eleven years, US policy on sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs cost the Iraqis 500,000 lives, and reasonable estimates puts the tally at another 100,000 deaths since the war started, with some credible sources going up as a far as 500,000. If we pulled out and there was a civil war, I would venture to guess that it would also be a sharp, short civil war, and deaths would be minimized. Yes, it could very well wind up being a totalitarian state, but at least there would be an end to the death toll. Until that time though, the casualties on both side will continue to mount. At what point do people say enough is enough? At what point do people realize that our presence in Iraq is counterproductive at best? At what point do people realize that we are needlessly shedding blood in the name of Pax Americana and her corporate masters? How high must the body count go, 100,000, 500,000, 1,000,000? In Vietnam the toll mounted to 58,000 Americans, with 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead before the public outcry persuaded the politicos that enough was enough. Let us pray that we have learned our lessons from that time, and don't let the toll get that high this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC