Progressive Sen. Boxer shills for neocon wet dream, dividing Iraq against Iraqis will

[yurbud]

I'm deeply disappointed that my generally progressive senator, Barbara Boxer, is shilling for carving up Iraq, a http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/11/brooks-partition/">neocon wet dream also advocated by corporate tool Joe Biden, despite polls consistently showing Iraqis oppose the idea (see below).






She doesn't bother to ask what Iraqis themselves actually want:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm">September 2007 poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm">

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm">BCC STORY ON SEPTEMBER POLL


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm">March 2007 poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm">

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm">BBC STORY ON MARCH POLL

If Boxer, Biden, and flat-earther Brownback really want to stabilize Iraq, they might demand that Bush pressure Saudi to stop sending 45% of the foreign fighters into Iraq who likely are fomenting ethnic violence to make partition look attractive.

Early on when mosques were bombed, Sunni and Shia clerics got together to condemn the attacks. Despite several years of ethnic violence since Bush invaded most Iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) want to remain one country.

How would we be teaching them democracy by dividing their country against their will?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

1. Interesting. An attack on Barbara Boxer. Thanks, "yurbud" for your contribution to progress.

:crazy:

[jgraz]

4. Your point being...???

If he's got his facts wrong, please point out where. Otherwise, your post seems more like a barefaced attempt to intimidate a critic.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

14. Oh, gee,...no point. No point intended, at all. Well, except the obvious attack,...

,...on a progressive representative. Other than that, I have no other point.

If you consider my post a barfaced (*LOL* NOT BARF I MEANT BARE) attempt to intimidate, you must consider the OP the same. Right?

:shrug:

But, hey, listen,...I am not important or valuable or powerful or anything like that. So, why take my perspective, at all, seriously or impactful? IOW, chill. I am just another worthless human being posting my take on an OP that appears to attack, without conscience or nuance, a progressive representative.

That's all.

[jgraz]

15. If Boxer is doing something we don't agree with, what's wrong with pointing that out?

I was incredibly disappointed with her campaigning for Lieberman. Are you saying that I should have refrained from mentioning that in my posts?

My problem is with replies that make no factual refutation of a criticism but simply take issue with the fact that it's been posted. This seems to be anathema to the purpose of an open discussion board.

[yurbud]

21. don't worry, I'm not usually intimidated by mindless cheerleading by some low level staffer in DC

[JackRiddler]

55. The point: You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.

One might have thought the OP was about Iraq policy. By linking a Democratic politician to a position she actually holds, however, it is divisive, something "we" cannot afford during an "election year" (oh, I'm sorry, was I under the impression that it was 2007?).

A number of the posters here believe there is no room for debate on policy on Democratic Underground, or among the Democrats. Critique of positions held by any Democrats can only be construed as attack on the person, and therefore work on behalf of the enemy. Only persons who are less than real work on behalf of the enemy. Hence even the OP's moniker is put in quotes. It couldn't be that he's really chosen "yurbud," even that's suspicious and somehow to be treated as fake.

To suggest there might be alternate opinions within the same party will give headaches to the moderate majority and hapless regular folks who will, immediately on reading such a thread, run away go and vote for Fred Thompson. This will be your fault.

There is also no need for Democratic politicians to persuade anyone of anything. You are to cheerlead for "our" candidates without reservation, preferably using affectionate nicknames to suggest a happy cozy community of Democrats with shared values, and childish insults for the other side (Repugs, Repukes, Rethugs, etc.). The function of the message board is as an echo chamber for the same affirmations that Dem=good, Rep=bad, with no room for describing the actual political situation let alone nuance.

Also, it's axiomatic that whoever runs into a thread first and pukes on it wins.

[yurbud]

16. are we just supposed to vote and then shut up?

[jgraz]

2. Boxer's no stranger to shilling for neocons. Remember her support for LIEberman

Of course, he's more of a shitstain than a wet dream...

[Totally Committed]

25. I will never forget she shilled for Lieberman over Lamont....

Ugh.

It made me sick... and now, this.

It does make me wonder, if ANY politician is fit to hold office.

Ugh. how disappointing.


TC

[yurbud]

30. I missed that at the time. Damn.

[JackRiddler]

56. Must people here be so unrelentingly vulgar?

Do I need these images over breakfast?

[jgraz]

58. Sorry, I try not to mention Lieberman unless it's absolutely necessary

Oops, see I did it again.

[VP505]

3. I could be wrong

but it seems to me that any "carving up of Iraq" ought to be the sole prerogative of the Iraqi people and our elected should absolutely not get involve unless specifically asked by Iraq in a country wide vote to do so..

[Zhade]

64. You'd think it would be up to them to determine what to do with THEIR oil, too.

But this Congress - Dems included - betrayed the Iraqi people on that, too.

[hlthe2b]

5. Well, it is either that approach or... a new US-appointed dictator

aka Strong Man... I see little other alternative to constant civil war ended only by genocide/ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and installation of a Shia theocracy, with the Kurds likely befalling the same fate at the hands of the Turks some day in the near future.

[yurbud]

23. there was no civil war before we invaded, and Saudi foreign fighters are fanning flames

Polls have also showed that Iraqis HATE al Qaeda because they aren't stupid. They see that they are attacking Iraqis and sowing ethnic division, not helping to dislodge the occupation.

[hlthe2b]

44. And your point back to me would be?

:shrug:

[yurbud]

46. you hardly earn the right to decide how to fix something because you broke it

at most, you have an obligation to apologize, pay for damages, and assist in a manner that the VICTIM decides not you yourself.

For Washington to decide how to stabilize Iraq is like a rapist trying to figure out how to help his victim recover from her trauma.

[hlthe2b]

48. I doubt ANYONE here disagrees with that... but, as you KNOW...

our government is NOT going to cede the "right" to determine outcome... So, once again, what is your answer?

[yurbud]

50. how about allow Iraqis actual sovereignty on small issues like kicking out Blackwater for starters?

Then pull our troops out of populated areas to our big bases, deploy some along the border with Saudi to keep our ally from sending in more suicide & car bombers, and stop efforts to privatize Iraq's oil.

[hlthe2b]

66. these expectations are not mutually exclusive...

I doubt anyone here disagrees, once again...

For the life of me, I don't know who you think you are arguing with...:shrug:

[HeraldSquare212]

6. But she's right that the constitution sets up a federal system

but it's dangerous, because in my opinion this kind of talk encourages forced migrations and ethnic cleansing. I sort of think that's what the Admin is doing now, as they make alliances with local groups they turn a blind eye to what those groups do, have done or will do in forcing other religions out of the areas they control. Whether because that's the quid pro quo or they think that will be the fastest route to stability, I don't know.

[oasis]

7. Iraqis want peace and tranquility most of all. Whatever it takes. (eom)

[yurbud]

19. it is not our place to decide what it takes, and peace is not the goal anyway.

It is to make it harder for them to resist the oil companies.

[dailykoff]

26. You got that right.

The only just "solution" IMHO is immediate withdrawal and negotiation of war reparations.

[oasis]

29. "our place" is to do the best we can repairing that which "we" screwed up. As far

as the average Iraqi is concerned, I'm quite sure they would choose to live in peace with their family, without fear. Slicing up the country for safety and security is a modest price to pay.

[dailykoff]

32. If what your TV is telling you was true, maybe.

But it isn't. All those hacked up tortured bodies showing up in Baghdad morgues every morning are killed by Pentagon, CIA, and probably mercenary forces, not "sectarian violence." The only thing that will help Iraqis "live in peace with their family" is if we pull our goons out of their country.

[Inuca]

40. Unfortunately I do not think you are right n/t

[yurbud]

34. they'd probably get all the peace they want if they gave up the claim to their oil too

the goal of partition is not to fix anything for Iraqis, and you know that.

[oasis]

38. Biden has been ther at least half dozen times. He knows better than you, or me.(n/t)

[yurbud]

42. Bush has been there too, and Rummy, Cheney, and Paul Bremer. visiting doesn't equal pure motives

[Zhade]

65. How magnanimous of you to decide the fate of the victims of this war crime.

Surely they must appreciate your grace!

FUCK your White Man's Burden bullshit. As if the Iraqi people aren't capable of deciding for themselves what to do with THEIR country!

[oasis]

70. The "Iraqi people" have grown weary of the bloodshed.More hand wringing is not the solution.(eom)

[Inuca]

8. Absurd characterization

Boxer does not shill for anybody, nor is Biden a corporate tool. And the idea has merits. I do not know enough to fully agree or disagree, but it may the only thing that may quell the craziness that is going on over there and give Iraqis the actual "breathing" room that the "surge" obviously has no chance of achieving. People need to stop hating each other, or at lest hate each other less ,in order to be able to cooperate, and on order to stop hating each other they have to first stop killing each other.

And the poll results mean close to nothing IMHO. First, I think that given the situation over there, not only the violence, but the cultural differences, etc. it is very difficult if not impossible to find a small number of people that is statistically representative of the whole population. Second, how people respond will obviously be colored by their own agenda, and agendas over there are often written in blood. When you think that you can control everything, why would you be in favor of some form of separation? I bet that a huge percentage of those that said that they favor some form of federalization are kurds.

[Disturbed]

10. The US Occupation needs to end.

Let the Iraqis sort out their mess with the help of the UN & ME Nations.

[Inuca]

13. I agree, it needs to end

and this MAY be a way to end it. I really do not know how I feel about this, but I trust Biden and Kerry of foreign policy, and to a lesser extent Boxer as well.

[yurbud]

17. I admit, shill is harsh for Boxer, but tool is rather kind for Biden.

[Inuca]

39. No, I think it is highly inappropriate

but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

[JackRiddler]

57. "I do not know enough to fully agree or disagree..."

Then go find out before expressing certainties.

The driving force behind the killing in Iraq are the foreign forces who invaded and destroyed the country and armed the factions. They need to get out, pronto.

[Zhade]

67. Biden's not a corporate tool? Oh, how quickly some forget the Bankruptcy Bill...

...that FUCKED the poor and middle class for his biggest campaign contributor.

Try opening you eyes.

[Stop Cornyn]

9. "We the Senators of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union in Iraq, do Superimpose

our Will and Establish this Constitution for the United States of Iraq."

That's not how a constitution is supposed to begin.

It's not how a nation is supposed to begin.

The Biden-Brownback-Boxer Amendment is a gross imposition of our will and our vision over another sovereign state which seems wholly disinterested in our meddling. We may as well re-design their flag and pick them a new national bird while we're at it.

Can't we just leave before we break something else?

[yurbud]

35. Biden-Brownback-Boxer...that's the full spectrum of our political establishment and they're uniting

to toady to corporations, not help Iraqis or the American people.

It's pathetic.

We have to scream and shout and send a million letters and protest to get them to make even a token gesture toward obeying the public will.

Business interests barely need to clear their throat and tap their glass to get pols to rush over to fill it.

[Mz Pip]

11. Well, gee

if Boxer isn't good enough for you, who is? Honestly, if Democrats had to pass some kind of progressive purity test before they got elected, we'd be looking at about 95 Republicans in the Senate and 5 Democrats.

Good grief, Boxer is someone who is looking for a solution to the Iraq conflict that might just lessen some of the deaths due to the sectarian violence. That makes her a neocon's wet dream? Amazing.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[yurbud]

18. she is supporting one of their wet dreams. I would like to think Boxer is someone we could vote for

then let her go on autopilot, but this indicates that she does need some voter supervision to keep her from jumping on the corporate bandwagon on key issues.

[Zhade]

68. Pointing out the gross arrogance and immorality of this is a purity test?

If so, I'm glad to be pure - saves me selling my conscience like some do to excuse this kind of imperialistic insanity.

[PDenton]

12. Iraq is FUBAR

We could have the Iraq policy written up by Meathead and it wouldn't matter.

Bush has put the eggs in the scramble, there is no going back. Saddam Hussein's Iraq WORKED, whatever you want to say about rape rooms and torture and the like. It wasn't falling to pieces. People went to markets and didn't worry about being blown up. Shias didn't kill Sunni's. Instead, Rummy sat there while Iraq burned, and he made stupid quips about freedom. While the Shia Imam Husayn shrine in Karbala was damaged, the administration sat impotent in front of a gaping sectarian wound.

The only alternative to partition and ethnic cleansing, is staying the course in Iraq, and ethnic cleansing. The only question is, how much money should American taxpayers and citizens expect to pay, in dollars and their youth, for a war that was based on lies, deceit, and wishful thinking?

[yurbud]

51. maybe Bush did nothing in the face of ethnic strife because it was doing his job for him

We don't have to kill them when they are killing each other.

[Virginia Dare]

52. Precisely...

the current situation is working well for lots of folks, just not the Iraqi or American people.

[yurbud]

54. eerily similar to ethnic violence in Yugoslavia after decades of peaceful co-existence

[calteacherguy]

20. I read Clark comment on this idea some months ago...

He said if it happened it would have to come from the Iraqis themselves, it couldn't be imposed without forcing people from their homes.

This idea is a no-starter unless we plan on forceably moving people to the "ethnically cleansed" regions.

[MadBadger]

22. Barbara Boxer is the coolest Senator. She was on Curb your Enthusiasm this season. Girl can act.

[Hobarticus]

24. Actually, support for a central gov't seems to be falling...

While Iraqi support for regional states with a central gov't or seperate states are trending upwards.

But that's probably inconvenient to point that out.

[moondust]

27. The problem with those polls

is that they ALL think that THEY should be in control of the "central government" ruling over that unified Iraq.

These disparate groups in Iraq have no desire or intention of living with each other in peace.

[yurbud]

31. like they were doing for decades before Bush invaded?

[moondust]

37. Under the thumb of a thug.

See: Yugoslavia/disintegration.

See: Soviet Union/disintegration.

[yurbud]

43. Iraq held together when they had a president they liked too, Kassem.

[moondust]

49. Yeah, I almost forgot about those 4-1/2 years of bliss.

.
.
.
1958 A military coup overthrows the monarchy, kills King Faisal II, and declares Iraq a republic. General Abdul Karim Kassem becomes Iraq's leader, and begins reversing the monarchy's pro-western policies (July 14).

1961 The Kurds, located in northern Iraq, revolt and demand autonomy; fighting between the Kurds and the government continues for decades.

1963 Kassem is killed in a coup led Colonel Abd al-Salam Aref and the military as well as members of the Ba'ath party (Feb. 8). The Ba'ath party, founded in Syria, advocates pan-Arabism, secularism, and socialism. Colonel Aref becomes president, Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr of the Ba'ath Party becomes president.

Aref purges the government of Ba'ath party, including President al-Bakr.

1966 Aref dies; his brother, Abdul Rahman Aref, takes over the presidency (Apr. 17).

1968 Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr overthrows Aref in a bloodless coup. The Ba'ath party again dominates (July 17).

.
.
.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline1.html

[Virginia Dare]

53. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening again any time soon..

Iraq will end up divided, whether it's under our guidance or theirs, and despite what the people want. The situation is so fucked up, it's beyond any amicable solution I'm afraid. The United States on it's own will never be able to keep the peace there long enough for any stabilized government to emerge.

[Inuca]

41. Exactly n/t

[rucky]

69. It worked well for the Sunnis under Saddam...

that's why they're overwhelminly for it.

A majority of the Shiites believe if there were a true Democracy, they would be in majority power. That's why they're 50-50 in support of coalition forces and 60-40 in favor of a unified Iraq.

Sorry Kurds.

[David Zephyr]

28. I've advocated this since 2004 here at the DU and I am no neo-con.

First of all, you must truly clap your hands and repeat to yourself that your believe in the artifice named "Iraq" that the British created in the 1920's out of disparate tribes and ethnicities in order to control the oil fields in Mesopotamia.

There is no such thing as Iraq. It is the invention of the West in our adoration of the "nation-state" and was done in secret after World War I with the French getting Syria. The British artifice called "Iraq" provided leverage against nearby Iran/Persia where BP (originally British Persian Oil Company, then later British Petroleum and now just BP) was also busy working the Shi'a until Churchill and Allen Dulles settled on a coup to overthrow the democratically controlled government there in 1953.

The U.S. should not be the chess player at the board of Mesopotamia when it breaks up (which it already is). It will require the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Kurds and the Turks all working together with the U.S. butting out.

Just because the Neo-cons want to break up Iraq doesn't mean that it is not the only solution. Even a clock is right twice a day.

A loose federation with power decentralized to the three main parties there is the smart solution.

[yurbud]

33. it should be up to the Iraqis, not something we push when we have over 100,000 troops there

[David Zephyr]

36. Which is why I said it would require us "butting out"

"The U.S. should not be the chess player at the board of Mesopotamia when it breaks up (which it already is). Itt will require the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Kurds and the Turks all working together with the U.S. butting out."

[BringEmOn]

45. Geez...maybe they'll put Iraqis onto reservations.

That worked so well for Native Americans :sarcasm:
Give them all the land with no oil or water.
If oil is found on their reservation, they can be forcibly removed.

[yurbud]

47. It's working in Israel too, in a remarkably similar process: settle on someone else's land,

act shocked when they get upset and fight back, push them onto a smaller piece, then repeat until they are gone.

[David Zephyr]

60. Duh...that's exactly what I am suggesting.

If you were aware of the history of the artifice of Iraq you wouldn't be so quick to draw comparisons to the genocide by whites against native americans.

The reality is, if you really want to know about Iraq, is that over 1 million have already moved out of the country and 1 million more are already dead from our illegal invasion.

The partitioning has already begun and it is being done by Sunnis, Shi'a and the Kurds, not by the U.S., Henry Kissinger or socialists like me who are interested in preventing the bloodbath that will make the current violence look like child's play.

Anyway, continue on with your smugness and faux sarcasm, but mark my words, it will be the Arabs who live in Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a along with the Kurds who are moving to partitioning the country.

And by the way, how is it that you support the vile British invention of Iraq which never was. Your supporting the artifice of Iraq at the cost of millions of deaths so you can keep a pretty little "nation" on your globe shows only your servitude to the imperialism of the early 1900's.

What's your solution to prevent millions more from dying? You have none, but guess what? The Sunnis do. The Shi'a do. The Kurds do. And so does Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel.

Anyway, keep your Iraqi flag flying high. And keep that silly sense of history while you are at it.

[BringEmOn]

61. Oops...posted in wrong place.

By the way, I am Native American, so shove your silly sense of history comment up your ass.

[dailykoff]

63. We made it, so we can break it?

And kill millions while stealing their oil and plundering their artifacts? I don't think so brother.

[murbley40]

59. Have you read th e entire plan?

It is not partition.

It is not an imposition. It is consistent with Iraq's constitution,which already provides for the 18 providences to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day to day issues. Prior to the British Colonial period and Saddam's military dictatorship,what is now Iraq functioned as three largely autonomous regions.

[David Zephyr]

62. Thanks for your thoughtful input, murbley40.

Unfortunately, many here can't think out of the box that Iraq would be far better off being a loose federation with decentralized power and, most importantly, self-governing and self-policing. It would look more like the area did long before the British and the French carved up the Middle East after WWI and created the artifice of "Iraq". Your post is a breath of fresh air.