Will Pitt, Antiwar.com has a message for you

[Domitan]

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1903

One of the most vocal opponents of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, William Rivers Pitt of Truthout, has fallen into the trap set by the War Party.

Pitt declares:

If we haul stakes and leave, we risk having the country collapse permanently into a Balkanized state of civil and religious war that will help to create a terrorist stronghold in the mold of Afghanistan post-1989.

This is the trap the War Party sets every time they invade a country. They create a quagmire, then argue that it will be a disaster if we leave.

During the Vietnam War, many in the Antiwar Movement argued against immediate, unconditional US withdrawal for exactly the same reason, that it would create chaos. Cries of "Negotiations Now" competed with the principled "Out Now" stance of committed antiwar activists.

But Pitt forgets this important point: the US has no right to control the future of the Iraqi people, at any time. His argument that we can't let Iraq become a balkanized or unstable government is identical to the neocons' current argument for staying in Iraq.

Pitt asks to hear feedback from his supporters on what to do to resolve his dilemma:

It truly is a perfect storm Bush and his friends have dropped us into, and there are no easy answers. "Leave now!" is the wrong answer, but so is "Stay!"

Please tell him.

[Vladimir]

1. "Out now!" is correct as the short term achievable goal

but "Out now - reparations later" should be the long term policy position IMHO.

[Tigress DEM]

29. Sigh. Democracy. Diplomacy.

There are negotiations going on with some of the lesser factions who at least want stability for their areas. Think of them as the equivilant of our Blue states.

Time table people. Don't publish it to the terrorists, but there should be one on the tables of those that make decisions and the committment should be toward helping a little on the way out clean up the mess we made.

Geese, are these the same people who cry over Iraqi dead that won't demand we at least turn the lights on before we go?

Sensible, common sense solutions. What * has been fighting is heavy on strategy towards bilking as much oil as possible and keeping the heat on Iraq and away from all the bizzare appointments he's making.

No real plans allowed - Intelligence? What would he want with that if it didn't make him money?

[Vladimir]

61. The problem is that you are turning the lights off

on Iraqis' lives, day after day. I refuse to live in a dreamland where the USA suddenly becomes a big friendly giant and starts giving a shit about something other than its interests. And nor is my call motivated in any way by wanting to reduce Western casualties in Iraq (although it would be a positive side effect of it). I have simply done my own realpolitik calculation of what will kill the least Iraqis, and concluded that an immediate withdrawal is it.

I have no hangups about the political direction that Iraq takes after the withdrawal, mainly because I do not wish to engage in any more of this modern-day white man's burden we seem to have fallen in love with. Democracy means the people decide - their people, not ours. And you can clean up the mess once you are out, by paying reparations through the UN and other international bodies for reconstruction.

PS I would rather not think of any part of the world as one of the 'Blue States'. The semantics of it are not appealing, for reasons I am sure you find obvious.

[bush_is_wacko]

2. Leave Now is the ONLY answer at this point!

I actually think the "terrorist" are ONLY there to create havoc for the US! If we leave the "terrorists" will leave.

I get the feeling though that the "security moms" and Evangelicals think the "terrorists" are best off staying in Iraq and not following our troops right back to American soil.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. DINGDINGDINGDING we have a WINNAH!

I actually think the "terrorist" are ONLY there to create havoc for the US! If we leave the "terrorists" will leave. :thumbsup:

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Exactly

They know the truth about this "war" and that's why they are defending their land to not let the neocons take over it. Why else after two years is it just getting worse and not better? I do believe that if we pull out they will stop. I remember watching Brokak's MSNBC special on all he's seen over his years. He was in Iraq in the very beginning before everything got horrible. He saw a group of young men standing around talking and he went over to them and asked one of them what he thought. The young man said: "I'd like to fight the Americans. Not the PEOPLE but the GOVERNMENT."

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Never mind that bu$hCo Inc brought the 'terraists" to Iraq.

Since the Korean War, the sentiment has been, "We fight them there so we don't have fight them here." Wasn't valid then and it isn't now.

[BuyingThyme]

3. Just because it's a trap doesn't mean

it's not real.

[Frederik]

4. No, "leave now" is the only answer

An illegal occupation is an illegal occupation. The American presence is in itself the main source of instability in the Middle East.

[lonestarnot]

17. OUT NOW PONCHO! OUT NOW OUT NOW OUT NOW OUT NOW N/T

[clem_c_rock]

5. It's the oldest trick in the book. The same, also, when any colonialist

country (and yes, this is colonialism plain and simple) invades, they always tell their public they are trying to help the people they are invading. If you say otherwise you would have an army deserting lickety split and the possibility of a civil war.

[Fovea]

6. I believe you can hear the same thing said

in Russian as the Afghanistan pro soviet government fell from power.
The British felt the same way about the colonies rebellion, no doubt, and really needed the cotton, tobacco,tar and timber. We and the French agreed about Vietnam.

Iraq is not post war Japan, and we are not the greatest generation.
Our occupation perverts the spirit of America, and causes unspeakable misery on the Iraqis. Why is this? Because our motives are guilty. They will never be a nation, or even 3 nations while we stay, they will be a client state until the last drop of oil is sucked from the ground.

And while we stay, the situation in the middle east, not just with Syria and Iran, but with Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia grows ever more precipitous. There is no way to win, because even if we win, we set up a soap bubble democracy in a land ill prepared to sustain it.
If we wait until we are victorious to walk out of Iraq, we might as well get it over with and declare it our 51st state.

We would turn America out of the trough if we unilaterally left the middle east to work out its own destiny and nationalized the oil industry, like our ally in democracy, Putin did.

[chlamor]

9. Civil War Myth is excuse for Continued Occupation, Theft, Murder

Actually we in the US have zero right to even decide this issue and the Iraqi people have made their decision clear. Get out of our country America said 90% in Pentagons own survey. The war itself is a rationale for the construction of energy point security positions aka military bases.

Plugging Iraq into globalization and bleeding the US treasury for Lockheed. If you support the continued occupation you are also tacitly saying it is okay for our health coverage, childrens lunch programs etc. etc. etc. to be sent to KBR in the form of "supplemental". That is another aspect we must not forget. Here is more and a link to an interesting article on this topic. Good post.
Here:
One of the most insidious aspects of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, or of any hostile military occupation for that matter, is that it forces every citizen in the country under occupation to make the wrenching choice between collaboration and resistance. Although 70 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties are inflicted directly by U.S. forces, according to a recent Iraqi Health Ministry report (Miami Herald, 9/25/04)*, there are also daily acts of violence committed by Iraqis against other Iraqis. The question is whether these are essentially a by-product of our military occupation, or whether they are the expression of a latent competition for power between Sunni and Shia ethnic groups that would erupt into civil war if the occupation were to end now.
<snip>
Americans have been led to believe that the persistent failures of U.S. military ventures in the "Third World" have been attributable to a lack of commitment of either money, blood or political will, and that, given sufficient investment of these commodities, there are no limits to American power. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is myth, not history. In reality, it is in the countries where the United States has made its most extensive commitments that it has experienced its greatest failures, from China in the 1940s to Korea, Lebanon (twice), Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Iran, Somalia and now Iraq. In each case, policy has been formulated around myths of democracy and American power in place of accurate analyses of resources and interests relative to the history, politics and culture of the country in question, even though such analyses were always readily available. The result has been that popular movements in all these countries have frustrated American ambitions and won military and political victories in spite of huge economic and military imbalances in favor of the United States (Confronting the Third World, Gabriel Kolko, 1988). The only exceptions to this record of failure during the past half-century have been in small countries in the Caribbean basin that already had quasi-colonial relationships with the United States.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/020505Davies/020505davies.html

[seemslikeadream]

18. OUT NOW

[katinmn]

10. Creating a mess doesn't give us a justification for staying in Iraq!

Immediate withdrawal is the only rational thing to do.

We should not have been there in the first place.

It's been one outrageous mistake after another.

[bpilgrim]

11. Support Our Troops - Outsource the War - To Iraqis - NOW!

that is the only answer to end our involvement in this ILLEGAL WAR, imo.

will pitt writes like an insider wannabe on occasion and this is another one of those occasions.

hopefully he'll see this and post his thoughts.

peace

[Sterling]

13. I don't see what the big deal is?

I just can't get worked up over Will Pitt's opinion's. To me he is no more or no less than any other DUer. And yes that is a compliment to Will and DU. I don't find Will's ops any more enlightened than the rest of DU so I don't get upset when he has a ill informed or hypocritical opinion. something he writes I agree with in the future as well.


Sometimes I agree sometimes I don't. So I really think posting a special thread to complain about people disagreeing with him.

[bpilgrim]

16. agreed

but he gets the most attention, deservedly so, and he certainly makes mistakes... shoot he even has a thread today on GD appologizing for his recent mistakes.

i'm glad that the debate is happening no matter whos name is used to kick it off.

:hi:

peace

[HereSince1628]

12. I think Pitt's is a traditional do "least damage" argument.

And I think the merits of "staying the course in Iraq" can be argued with varying success.

But, I'm old enough and was personally involved enough by the outcomes to appreciate that the ONLY way the US got out of Vietnam (and I was sent home)was as absolutely simple as folks in DC deciding to leave.

People can argue the damage would have been less or worse for Vietnam if we had stayed. There is no doubt it would have continued being costly for the US if we had stayed.

But, it's really this simple the US can't leave by deciding not to go. Ultimately, we've got to go.

[bpilgrim]

15. "least damage" is the argument of political insiders and silly on its face

we've killed over 100,000 iraqi civilians and counting not to mention destroyed a whole city fallujah (our nanking)

obviously the damage will be worse the longer we stay and contiue to kill and destroy.

remember the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge? they are a result of our behavior and direct and indirect support.

In accord with the same principles, it is natural that vast outrage should be evoked by the terror of the Pol Pot regime, while reporters in Phnom Penh in 1973, when the U.S. bombing of populated areas of rural Cambodia had reached its peak, should ignore the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of refugees before their eyes. Such selective perception guarantees that little is known about the scale and character of these U.S. atrocities, though enough to indicate that they may have been comparable to those attributable to the Khmer Rouge at the time when the chorus of indignation swept the West in 1977, and that they contributed significantly to the rise, and probably the brutality, of the Khmer Rouge.

These achievements of "historical engineering" allow the editors of the New York Times to observe that "when America's eyes turned away from Indochina in 1975, Cambodia's misery had just begun,'' with "the infamous barbarities of the Khmer Rouge, then dreary occupation by Vietnam" (incidentally, expelling the Khmer Rouge). "After long indifference," they continue, "Washington can play an important role as honest broker" and "heal a long-ignored wound in Cambodia." The misery began in 1975, not before, under "America's eyes," and the editors do not remind us that during the period of "indifference" Washington offered indirect support to the Khmer Rouge while backing the coalition in which it was the major element because of its "continuity" with the Pol Pot regime.

U.S. relations with the Khmer Rouge require some careful maneuvering. The Khmer Rouge were, and remain, utterly evil insofar as they can be associated with the Communist threat, perhaps because of their origins in Jean-Paul Sartre's left-wing Paris circles. Even more evil, evidently, are the Vietnamese, who finally reacted to brutal and murderous border incidents by invading Cambodia and driving out the Khmer Rouge, terminating their slaughters. We therefore must back our Thai and Chinese allies who support Pol Pot. All of this requires commentators to step warily. The New York Times reports the "reluctance in Washington to push too hard" to pressure China to end its support for Pol Pot-with the goal of bleeding Vietnam, as our Chinese allies have forthrightly explained. The Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs rejected a congressional plea to call for a cutoff of aid to Pol Pot because the situation was "delicate." U.S. pressure on China "might irritate relations unnecessarily," the Times explained, and this consideration overcomes our passionate concern over the fate of Cambodians exposed to Khmer Rouge terror. The press explains further that while naturally the United States is "one of the nations most concerned about a Khmer Rouge return," nevertheless "the US and its allies have decided that without some sign of compromise by Vietnam toward a political settlement Eon U.S. terms], the Khmer Rouge forces must be allowed to serve as military pressure on Vietnam, despite their past"-and despite what the population may think about "a Khmer Rouge return."

more...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Necessary_Illusions.html

peace

[WilliamPitt]

14. Thanks for the heads up

I have some friends over tonight - gasp! a social life! :) - and will have a response to this for the morning.

[jbnow]

21. Well I have a response

What is it people want...a journalist that always just agrees with them? That just speaks out against whoever they are against?

Right wingers might get that on Fox. Don't know, don't watch it. Is that what we want on this side?

Declaring you have "fallen into the trap set by the War Party..." because of your opinion shows that WE are falling into a trap of wanting a media that parrots what we want to hear.

What we need are those who speaks the truth as they know it and give their truest opinion. Those opinions can differ without someone "falling into a trap".

You are looking at a complex situation and giving your thoughtful and informed opinion. Thank you for that, Sir Dude.

[Califooyah Operative]

48. get 'em will. nt

[Paintedlady]

19. The only answer is, Leave Now!

The US can never "win" this war, we can not impose stability on a people that doesn't want us to do so.
Judging from the video "Message From The Resistance", these people will rather die or waste the oil than let the US steal it.
Here's a quote from the video:

We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.

I say they are doing a good job of draining our resources and manpower, and the war is bankrupting our country. Can't say anything about the will to fight since we never get to hear from the soldiers, but I have a feeling they are getting us there too.

The video and transcript are here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

[diamond14]

20. the nixon/ford "Peace with Honor" exit from Vietnam (PHOTOS)

war-profiteers were able to drag the DEBATE about 'WHEN and HOW TO LEAVE' for 14 YEARS....14 years of discussion, and then finally, Congress cut off the war-profiteers blood money, as OUR country sunk into economic ruin.... and the Vietnam War finally ended...we trained the Vietnamese to 'guard' their own country, we ran faux elections, we gave them lots of weapons...and then, they turned against us and we lost....bush* is doing exactly the same thing...IRAQmire....


April 1975, the end of the Vietnam WAR....14 years to get to "Peace with Honor".....IMO, bush* is on the same path, bush* just delays the withdrawal for his WAR-profiteers...bush* will argue forever for his war-profiteers, as OUR troops continue to walk into the CANNON-FODDER rotating blade....

[TeddyKGB]

22. People who can't understand dichotomies are scary.

Liberals or conservatives.

The situation is a little bigger now than it was before Bush invaded. Will's correct, and antiwar.com comes off a little nutty.

[seemslikeadream]

23. dichotomy?

MASTERS OF WAR

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

-Dylan

[TeddyKGB]

24. Black and white thinking.

You might be one of those people, I'm afraid.

It's a bigger picture than just our perspective on it. We never should've gone in the first place, but leaving before we're asked makes things undeniably worse.

[bpilgrim]

28. lol

before we're asked?

NEWSFLASH: we're running the show.

and so it goes...

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[TeddyKGB]

32. Sorry for being so reality-based.

This is how it is. Care to deal with the situation as it is or how you would like it to be?

[bpilgrim]

36. yeah, everything is going swell over there

http://images.globalfreepress.com

later

peace

[TeddyKGB]

38. Dude, don't make me post a "purple fingers" picture.

I don't want us there one second longer than we have to be.

Yes, it was an illegal war -- and now we're obligated to clean up the mess we made.

[bpilgrim]

39. look, you see it the way the neoCONs do

i don't

peace

[TeddyKGB]

40. Yeah, that's it.

:eyes:

"peace"

[bpilgrim]

42. purple fingers

:eyes:

peace

[seemslikeadream]

31. Worse for who? EVERY DEATH CREATES NEW ENEMIES

EVERY DEATH CREATES NEW ENEMIES
MORE TERRORISTS
MORE DANGER
MORE DEATH
AND REMEMBER...

HE IS JUST GETTING STARTED...

BUSH'S PLAN FOR PEACE
IS THE PEACE OF THE COMMON GRAVE

http://www.bushflash.com/pax.html 3 minute video


Wumpscut
Totmacher

sie ahnten nichts von mir
von meiner wilden gier
doch als du kamst zu mir
da wurde ich ein tier
kein gedanke an danach
als ich dir die knochen brach

tot tot tot ich mache dich tot
tot tot tot von blut alles rot

tot

fuer mein naechstes leben
schoepfe ich neue kraft
ich bin dem toeten ergeben
in der einzelhaft

tot tot tot ich mache dich tot
tot tot tot von blut alles rot
tot tot tot ich mache dich tot
tot tot tot von blut alles rot

ein dahinsichen
von gottes hand
ich kann dich riechen
und das denken verschwand

tot tot tot tot tot tot tot ich mache dich tot
tot tot tot von blut alles rot tot tot tot tot

ich mache dich tot ich mache dich tot
ich mache dich tot ich mache dich tot

sag mir was du willst
dass du meine sehnsucht stillst
ich mache dich tot fuer immerdar
von blut alles rot auf gottes altar

tot tot tot ich mache dich tot
tot tot tot von blut alles rot

ich mache dich tot fuer immerdar
ich mache dich tot glaub mir es ist wahr
ich mache dich tot fuer immerdar
ich mache dich tot auf gottes altar

[DancingBear]

47. Excuse just a brief reply here

I'm quite tired, and ready for some long overdue sleep. but like bpilgrim the phrase "before we're asked to" caught my eye.

If I'm not mistaken, we are "asked" to leave on almost a daily basis. The souls of 100,000 dead innocent civilians ask us to. The mournful cries of those whose cities and lives now lay in ruins ask us to. The "insurgents", branded by Bush as terrorists but in many cases nothing more than defenders of their homeland ask us to.

Those that do not ask are a curious bunch. The heads of the puppet government stay silent, as do those who pray for (and receive, like manna from heaven) the religious war that they demand.

Do not speak of a bigger picture to those of us who have seen the film before. This is Southeast Asia c.1966, and the playbook of George W. Bush is lifted verbatim from that era. When the troops finally came home, they left a country in tatters and a country divided, on both sides of the oceans.

Oh, and they also left a large black granite wall, which if you read between the lines very carefully says "never again" to anyone who looks.

George W. Bush can not read. I know you can.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. "Leaving before we're asked"???? WTF???? Are you serious??.......

The Busch Junta won't leave until they decide they're ready to leave, and not a minute sooner. How many more Americans are going to have to die before you start to get a reality-clue? How many more Iraqis are going to have to die? Oh, and in case we forget...how many Americans and Afghanis are going to have to die in the "Forgotten War" in Afghanistan?

And by way of collateral damage, how far are you willing to allow our once-proud economy to sink before you get ANOTHER reality-clue that we cannot afford to wage a forever-war in a country that never invited us to come, and one that we invaded illegally?

Hey, if you feel so strongly about it, how come you're not over there doing your part to convince the Iraqis that they really need us?

[bpilgrim]

26. same thing said during vietnam

i think they have a valid point

peace

[TeddyKGB]

27. Oh, stop.

Being able to see both sides of an issue always makes for a better decision.

Vietnam was lose/lose. Iraq actually has a chance at...something, if we'll only allow them to govern themselves.

[bpilgrim]

30. is this against the DU orthodoxy, too?

i see both sides and i believe this ILLEGAL WAR will only get worse the longer we stay.

bring our troops home, NOW!

peace

[LittleClarkie]

54. Is what against the DU orthodoxy

having an open mind? A differing opinion?

If anything, the orthodoxy leans toward "out now." Forgive some of us for disagreeing. We thought it was allowed.

[seemslikeadream]

33. DEJA VU

DEJA VU (ALL OVER AGAIN)

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you try to read the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I've seen this all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again
It's like Deja Vu all over again

John

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Iraq has NO chance at anything except the slim possibility that they....

...might escape being blown back into the Stone Age by US policies that should have been left dead and buried in the jungles of Vietnam.

We have forced too many Iraqis to take sides, and regardless of which side wins, a lot of people are going to die before this madness ends.

When Saddam was in charge, Iraqis could walk safely in the city streets, the country had electricity and running water, and 99.9% of their buildings were in good shape. The people even had some degree of medical care despite the 12 years of sanctions.

No, Saddam was not a very nice man...but the alternative that we've forced on the Iraqis is far worse. And thanks to our policies, we've created a new generation of enemies that will never rest until they've extracted their revenge.

Which side of an issue that has NO sides do you want to take?

[Tigress DEM]

34. dichotomy

:dunce:

n : being twofold; a classification into two opposed parts or subclasses; "the dichotomy between eastern and western culture"

As I've always understood dichotomies from the personal perspective, it is being of two minds on an issue. Someone who can see both sides of the issue and spends time and energy to determine where the best answer is found regardless of whether it reflects one's cherished opinion or not.

Usually happens when someone gets the facts and surprise, they don't line up in a neat little package to provide only one solution.

[Tigress DEM]

35. To experience a dichotomy is painful.

:spank: Kind of like being at war with oneself.

[TeddyKGB]

37. *applause*

Finally.

[seemslikeadream]

44. So I take it you're in the military, when do you leave for Iraq?

or is it your son who is going?

[Tigress DEM]

55. Why go to Iraq when I can get killed by "friendly fire" right on the DU?

What is your problem with reasoned discourse?

I'm a bit old for the draft I think, but my son isn't. He did try, several times, but they were worried about a head injury he had as a child, and he didn't get his doctor's sign off soon enough.

Look, I'd rather that no one went to Iraq, but with 8.8 billion missing as pocket change at least we can get electricity and running water going. What on God's green earth would make you against that?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. Maybe someone should have explained your last sentence to the....

...Busch Junta:

"Usually happens when someone gets the facts and surprise, they don't line up in a neat little package to provide only one solution."

"Mission accomplished" didn't work like the "neat little package" they thought they had.

[Tigress DEM]

57. You got that right.

And the thing that bugs me is I am always really hurt when people on the DU attack people for having a different opinion. I feel like I should have a thicker skin or know better or maybe it's a repub plant stirring up the thread so I shouldn't let it get to me.

I expect more from us and I'm often disappointed. It's like people are pulling out these Democratic factoids and don't give a damm about working toward real solutions, just pushing their own agendas. Just sounds like the flip side of right wing nuts to me.

Well, I guess that's life.

[bonito]

41. get out now! let the UN take over!

[ultraist]

46. I second that bonito!

Welcome. :hi:

[Tigress DEM]

58. There's a thought, if US isn't there at least allies won't be shot on site

I give up though. Serious peaceniks are worse war mongers against people with ideas than soldiers with guns.

[wadestock]

43. The POINT IS THIS

You can't win with arrogant military aggressive force.

The overall strategy OF ARROGANT MILITARY FORCE IS INTRINSIC TO BU$HCO. There is a military base which has been strategically constructed in Iraq. HAS ANYONE TAKEN NOTICE OF THAT???????
Is that going to go away? NO my friends.

Don't debate about the leaving or the staying. The bigger point is that the current political will is to SUCCEED WITH MILITARY INFLUENCE....THROUGHOUT THE REGION...

STAY TUNED FRIENDS...THE BEST IS YET TO COME.

SHAME ON AMERICAN.

We had Saddam surrounded, and even if it took another 400 years to get to the point that Islam liberated itself, who the fuck cares.

What happened in Iraq was an all out annihilation of the total Army, and the killing of 10s of thousands of innocent people.

WHAT ARE WE TO DO...REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKE IN SEVERAL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE AREA...CREATING POWER VACUUMS AND IRRECONCILABLE POLITICAL STABILITY THERE AS WELL!!!!!!

We have de-evolved to the point of believing that military force is a security blanket for capitalism.

AMERICA...join the civilized world for god's sake.
Abandon Thomas Barnett inspired pseudo-intellectualized military expansionism.

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
KERRY WOULD HAVE MADE THE US BASE TEMPORARY AND WORKED FOR A SITUATION WHERE THE IRAQIS WOULD BOLSTER THEIR OWN SECURITY.

WITH BUSH THE MILITARY BASE WILL STAY...AND ACT AS A LAUNCHING POINT FOR FURTHER MILITARY ACTION.

[bpilgrim]

45. Time for Nuremberg II

The international community must reconvene the Nuremberg Tribunal and try the Bush regime's top officials

By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer

...

Having stolen another election, the Bush regime shows no signs of ever giving up political power peacefully. Therefore, the international community, through the International Criminal Court in The Hague, must give serious thought to reconvening the International War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg with a view to capturing and putting on trial those American leaders who have committed war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and quite possibly helped carry out, with support from domestic neo-Nazi groups and Islamist radicals, the dastardly and treasonous aviation terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, on September 11, 2001. With the American Nazis now planning to wage war against Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries, the stark fact is that the Bush regime represents the greatest threat to world security since the military forces of the Axis Powers rolled across border after border during the 1930s and 40s.

more...
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/030905Madsen/030905madsen.html

peace

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. We have to stay

until we find the WMDs.

Seriously, on withdrawal, you can't concede a thing.
It has to be Get Out Now. That has to be the
drumbeat. Anything less they just sit back and
smile.

[LittleClarkie]

53. A bit "propaganaish" in their framing, aren't they

Of course one can tell what side their on, the "principled" "committed" side.

It remains to be seen if these two wars are that closely paralelled that the same lesson applies to both.

Antiwar.com is much like Pat Buchannan, from what I've been able to gather. Conservative and proponents of "out now." In this way, they agree with the left most in our own party.

Correct me if I have the wrong impression of antiwar.com. Nothing wrong with being anti-war and Conservative mind you. They may be allies yet.

[bpilgrim]

56. This ILLEGAL WAR, with insurgent's fighting for independence that we were

lied into by our leaders and are now stuck in a QUAGMIRE. seems closely paralleled to me and many others.

BTW: calling them conservatives is like the right attacking the Italian journalist's, recently shot in Iraq, credibility because she wrote for a leftist paper. :eyes:

peace

[Domitan]

60. I find it one of the most invaluable websites there

Sure it consists of mostly conservatives (the paleo version) and liberitarians. Pat Buchanan is just one of the many voices. However, it's a very disciplined website not given to outlandish theories as they tend to stick to facts and well-thought out essays (even if they differ from my beliefs). I find it the best website to really stick it to those who declare being pro-war as a central conservative value. We libbies can be dismissed as bleeding heart treehuggers, but not so easy to do that to those from the right. Keep in mind that they also feature those from the left side. Central theme: antiwar!

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[KnowerOfLogic]

62. I agree with AntiWar. nt.