John Kerry will not be my next president

[madokie]

I'm sorry, but we need to get our ass out of Iraq, and right damn now. We are seen as a occupier with no intention of leaving. America must leave Iraq because we are the fuel for the insurgency. Hell, in the Iraqi's case I'd be an insurgent to. He advocates we slowly ease into this, I say that by leaving, there is hope of maybe some kind of normalcy for the Iraqi people. I'm sure most didn't like Saddam but at this point he must look like a saint to them. We are bombing, killing just tearing their country to pieces because they don't want us occupying their country. What part of get the hell out of here don't bush* understand, enough already. don't you think the Iraqi people have suffered enough?



then impeachment then off to the Hague

[FlemingsGhost]

1. Amen. (n/t)

Flem.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

2. Hey that's my bumper sticker...

the "bush deserves a fair trial." I'm a New Yorker and I've really not riled anyone with the sticker, but I went up to New Hampshire this weekend and I got quite a few fingers. LOL

[blm]

3. Tom Hayden opined that Kerry's plan was DOABLE and that sets it apart

from the few other plans out there.

Murtha offered a 6 month plan, Kerry offered approx. 18 month plan, and Bush's is for at least a decade.

Kerry's plan stresses the need to NOT BE OCCUPIERS or give even the appearance of occupation. He wants all base building stopped, and the permanent bases handed over to the Iraqis at every benchmark, like their next election in December.

[JoZbean]

5. And they had to increase the troop numbers so the Iraqis would be 'safe'

So a gradual withdrawal will circumvent that? I say they all come hoome NOW. Either way, gradual withdrawal or immediate withdrawal, the country will continue the civil war till they settle it themselves. We don't help matters at all.

[madokie]

7. The Iraqi don't want anything to do with us so we must come home,

if for nothing else, the Iraqi people. This War is so wrong.

[Leilani]

10. Is that Hayden of Vietnam anti-war fame?

And if it is the SAME Tom Hayden, when did he become a military strategist?

Hell, let's call Jane Fonda & get her plan.

[blm]

17. Tom Hayden is more than just an antiwar activist.

I'm surprised anyone here would not know that.

[Leilani]

20. If I want military advice

I'll listen to Wes Clark & people with his knowledge & experience in military matters.

[blm]

28. Well, Clark and Kerry have been pretty close on this for a long time, but,

why dump on Hayden? He has a very pragmatic approach to military affairs and proved that in Congress.


His opinion is also based on what will work with a divided congress LEGISLATIVELY to force Bush to act on a withdrawal plan.

[wisteria]

14. Exactly right! Hayden sees the broader picture here. n/t

[Leilani]

23. The reason we got into this disaster

is because a bunch of politicos who didn't know FACT 1 about the military & war, decided it would be a "cakewalk."

The uniformed people at the Pentagon were always against this war.

[MH1]

29. On Hardball Kerry said 12-15 months.

So, that is even less difference. I think he is saying all troops out by end 2006, earlier if possible. Give Iraqi government targets to meet: they meet the target, we reduce our forces, and the Iraqi people see that we really do intend to leave.

Some other thoughts on the differences in these plans: Since Murtha's "6 months" is clearly a "best case" estimate (which is really "as fast as we can" and guess what, 150,000 troops is A LOT of troop movement, and it will be hard to hit the best case target) - in practical terms there really is probably not even 6 months difference between what would happen if Murtha's plan was adopted tomorrow, vs. whether Kerry's plan was adopted tomorrow - in terms of when all American troops are somewhere outside the borders of Iraq. The main difference will be the perception: of "cut and run" (Murtha), and yanking our people without regards to any Iraqi wishes; vs a strategy where we can at least pretend victory in the eyes of the world, but more importantly, give the Iraqi government some chance to backfill us as we leave, and give some semblance of having tried to help clean up the mess we made, while still getting the f* out of there and giving Iraqis their country back.

[madokie]

32. You miss my point entirely

Our presense is what is fueling the insurgency, we must get our asses out so the UN can do something. As long as there is an american presense there will be no peace, simple.

[blm]

43. It hinges on being viewed as occupiers or not.

When you build permanent bases and give all the contracts to American businesses, then you are occupiers.

If you do what Kerry says and stop building bases, turn bases over to Iraqis and act only as their allies while THEY benefit from the rebuilding of their own infrastructure, and show them that we have no intention of staying by drawing down significantly at every benchmark, like their election in Dec.....THAT makes a big difference. Kerry said this cannot be won militarily - it has to be done politically.

I think too few people actually understand what has been submitted.

[madokie]

47. Somewhere down the road that was possible but not now

We have destroyed and killed so many and much the Iraqi people will never stop wanting to kill us for a long long time, sad to say.

[blm]

57. I think the only way to get their trust is for US to force Bush to resign.

.

[madokie]

58. now we're talking

[MH1]

50. Adding to what blm said,

One thing we CAN do - and we can avoid the "cut and run" meme which stops Murtha's plan cold from actually being adopted - is make promises to the Iraqi people about reducing our forces and then Keep. Those. Promises.

If we say: "if elections are successful we will withdraw 20,000 troops" (something like 12%), and then we actually do it, some Iraqis will start to believe again. Then we have another easy benchmark, and we withdraw say, another 10,000 troops. Twice in a row we keep promises, then the still-sane Iraqis will see that we are on the way out, and they shouldn't delay those "benchmarks" that mean more of our troops leave.

Of course I realize that there is plenty of insanity that is well-justiifed based on what these poor people have seen done to their country, and it will be very hard to get their trust for the "benchmark" idea to work very well. But in the end it still gets us out. And since Murtha's plan is DOA as "cut and run", Kerry's is probably the most do-able plan out there. Do-able most importantly in the sense that we might be able to get enough republicans to go along with it to force Bush to do it. Because if you don't get that, then no plan is worth of hill of beans either to our troops or to the Iraqi people.

Would I like to see all American troops out of Iraq tomorrow? Absolutely! But it can't possibly happen, and therefore I will gladly take the best thing that actually CAN happen. Kerry's plan has a chance. So I'll take it.

[Deja Q]

4. Flamebait?

Your post has very little about Kerry except the subject line; though the reasons for leaving Iraq are sound. Either way we've made a country that's going to hate us for decades to come. One way or another they will unify; because our haphazardly scribbled out excuses for war rendered tens of thousands of innocents dead.

And while innocents do die in times of war; war based on lies and deception is not a good thing. Nor is the sheer number of innocents that have died so far compared to the goal. Which seems to have been little more than to apprehend Saddam Hussein (blood feud? I don't know!) and acquire the oil pipelines because we were all told Iraq's oil was going to pay for it (and, oh look, it hasn't!)

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I agree

We need to pull out of Iraq NOW.

[WI_DEM]

8. Let's see what the Democratic primary voters say

I'll say this much, Kerry isn't my first choice, but if it came down to Hillary and Kerry, I'd support Kerry.

[madokie]

9. No matter what, I'm a democrat for a reason

and that reason is the democrat party stands for me. At least they speak a language I understand, empowerment for all. Whatever democrat makes it, I will support.

[twaddler01]

12. Me too

Democrats always speak my language.

[MH1]

51. DEMOCRAT party?

???????????

:wtf:

[FlemingsGhost]

11. Hmmmmm ... DLC stooge or DLC stoogette.

No thanks. I'll go Green ... again.

[madokie]

15. thats cool, thats the whole idea of a democracy

but I have a question. How will green help us? I mean we are pretty much between a rock and a hard place and we need to be united against the best chance against evil. If that person is green then I will be there too.

on edit: I just want a good person for my next President.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Oh would you?

Pleeease?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[rockymountaindem]

48. What the hell does this have to do with Israel?

[wisteria]

13. Two words, grow -up! If our goal is to bring the troops home,

then we should be willing to listen to all suggestions and compromise. I would still like to provide the Iraqi's with as much assistance as possible so they at least have a chance to make it and bring our troops home as quickly as possible. I like Kerry's plan it makes a lot of sense. Are you more willing to prove a point than to take a sensible approach to bring the troops home?

[madokie]

19. No, not at all. Kerry's plan requires our presence and our presence

is what is fueling this insurgency. There is a lot of ways to solve this and none of them involves our presence in Iraq. We must get our ASSes out of Iraq and pronto.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. I agree

The so-called Insurgency is going to carry on as long as the troops are there. More and more radical groups are piling into Iraq, all with the same specific goal, to kill as many GIs as is possible, no matter how many of their fellow Muslims they kill...they kill 200 Muslims and 1 GI, the 1 GI makes it ENOUGH for them.

There will be no peace and no end to the murder and misery until the troops pull out.

Iraq is a COMPLETELY unwinnable situation and that's what I think, it's unwinnable, pull out and let them get on with it themselves.

Actually the ENTIRE so-called "War On Terror" is unwinnable...how do you "win" a war with people who are willing to blow themselves up, and with people who consider it an honor to die in the name of their cause?

You can't "win" a war like that.

[madokie]

34. Sadly what you say is so true.

[Sydnie]

31. Pottery Barn rules apply - we broke it, we need to fix it if we have any

hope of ever having any kind of workable relationship with Iraq at all. We need to get the water and the electricity working consistantly by working side by side with the citizens to rebuild them. With 60% unenployment there, giving them assistance to rebuild while giving them opportunity for employment is paramount.

I agree with turning over the bases. I would love to see our troops come home right now, but I think turning our forces from evil to good would help us in that country as well as around the world.

We broke it, we need to fix it ... as painful as that reality is.



edit - typo

[madokie]

38. Yes, that's all well said and done but the truth of the matter is

we'll have to do it in a way that does not require our soldiers or citizens presense. We broke it and we can not put it back together again, I'm sorry. Someone else will have to step up to the plate and take over.

[Sydnie]

46. Funny, you just described blivet's** entire life experience,

He breaks it, someone comes along behind him and fixes it for him ... with him no worse for wear.

WE have to fix this. We have to fix our reputation in the world and we aren't going to do that by appearing to be the elitist that are afraid of the hard work that lay ahead of us. We have to fix it because we did this to this country.

We can't expect the world to clean up our mess because we aren't willing to do it ourselves. We will only be able to get help and reclaim our dignity if we leave once we make them whole again.

[madokie]

52. I think you miss my point, my point is we are the problem

and as long as we are there the problem remains. Yes we broke it and we are responsible for it but our presence there isn't going to do fix that. We must let the UN step in and help guide these people to some sense of normalcy. We can't fix it until we get our stinking asses out, simple.

[Sydnie]

66. And who is going to volunteer to do that?

Americans are not the only ones that have been killed there. Americans are not the only ones to have been kidnapped and beheaded there. Hell, even journalist are not safe there, no matter what country they are from.

Just who is going to be willing to step up and replace one of our soldiers with one of theirs? And even if they do, would the Iraqi people be any more receptive to them than they are to us? I think not, unfortunately.

We are the problem but it's not just that we are occupiers. It's because we disrupted their lives in ways that we can only imagine happening to us and we are sitting on our hands as far as putting it back together is concerned.

blivet** likes to repeat over and over that democratic societies don't attack each other .... well, that's not quite right. But rather, societies with HOPE don't attack each other. The citizens there have no hope of seeing anything get any better any time soon, not unlike those poor souls that were stranded in NOLA. WE have to be the ones to bring that hope back for them by assisting them to get back to some level of normalcy, with jobs and water and food and peace.

I didn't miss your point at all. I see it and raise you a "we must do it" for them and for our own future in the eyes of the world.

[madokie]

68. and the killing goes on.

[Sydnie]

70. Unfortunately, your plan must substitutes what country the people are

from. I understand your point. I don't want to see one more person, from any country, die because of the lies that blivet** told, but if we are ever going to attempt to remove the stain that blivet** has placed on us in the eyes of the world, we have to make good on making them whole.

How I wish I had a time machine and I could go back and change the course that blivet** has set for us, but I can't and neither can you.

I wish for peace as much as you do ... know that in your heart, ok?

[oregonindy]

16. He is a good senator and he needs to stay as one.

[skipos]

21. Although I am not a one issue voter

I hope Kerry is not our nominee for a few different reasons. I like him in the senate.

I hope our nominee is from a winnable red state, so we can start picking up additional states in addition to the usual northeast/westcoast states.

[madokie]

24. Don't get me wrong, I like senator Kerry

I just want the bloodshed to stop.

[sandnsea]

22. Turn it over sector by sector

That's the responsible way to do this. Not to mention, you can't just pull out 150,000 troops over night. Even if you didn't care at all about Iraq security, it still takes time to pull out all of the equipment, etc. What do you do when you're down to 50,000 troops? They're even more vulnerable to attack if you haven't created some secure areas for them, and the remaining troops as they are drawn down. How many troops do you think an airplane or ship carries? It will take at least as many months to get them out as it did to get them in. That's just the logistics of it. A sector by sector turnover is the best way to do it.

[madokie]

25. This, at this point in time is a situation for the U.N.

Our presense fuels the fire. I know it will take a little time but not months. I care for the Iraqi people that why I advocate this, I want the blood shed to stop, now.

[sandnsea]

35. What UN troops?

There was a time for the UN, I'm afraid that is long gone. The UN sends in peacekeepers, not fighting forces. I don't think the Iraqis will accept any outside forces. Maybe Arab nations, but that's about it. Kerry has advocated all of this, changing strategy as the situation has deteriorated. As I already said, you couldn't logistically withdraw the troops in anything less than months. And the last of the troops would be in more danger than they're in now. A sector by sector turnover should be tried, with the worst areas coming out first in hopes the insurgency would calm and the rest of the troops could be withdrawn more quickly.

[madokie]

42. so we don't try peacekeepers

we just go on killing and being killed. I don't buy it. U. S. out now.

[sandnsea]

49. Let me repeat

UN peacekeepers do not go in to areas that are not already peaceful. Iraq is not peaceful. They say they do not want to be occupied. They have said they do not want the UN either, they have bombed them too. I think the UN has already said they won't send in peacekeepers anyway. Not to mention, the number of troops that it would take to bring peace to Iraq would mean... US troops. The UN doesn't have 2-300,000 troops to stabilize the country.

And just a little aside, according to the Geneva Conventions, if one country does invade another, the invading country has a responsibility to govern and provide security. Leaving would actually be breaking yet another international law, although I doubt anybody would make it an issue.

[madokie]

54. Let me repeat, our presence is the biggest cause of instability

[sandnsea]

59. ANY outside presence would cause instability

They bombed the UN. They do not want ANYBODY in their country. The UN will not go in as long as that's the atmosphere and there is nothing to indicate that it isn't.

But even if what you say is true, then turning the country over, sector by sector, will make it clear in short order. That's the whole point of doing it that way.

[madokie]

61. Peace

getting late.

[LittleClarkie]

27. And Kerry has a plan for withdrawl

Your point?

Which of the possible contenders for 2008 have a better plan or are even talking about it?

[madokie]

30. And his plan requires that a lot more lives be lost

I don't understand your question
:toast:
Our presense fuels the insurgency.

[TayTay]

37. His plan doesn't lose lives

Bush's plan loses lives. The Democrats do not have a voice in the White House, and do not control either chamber of Congress. They do not have the power to affect change in Iraq. No single Democrat has this power and unless they unite and present a powerful plan that has at least 80% backing from the whole of the party, no change will come. We must unite or the effort will come to naught.

What the Democrats do have is a window that has opened that allows for this debate on the future or Iraq to be heard by the American public. The Republicans have made a cottage industry out of saying that the Democrats have no plan. Well, the Democrats do have plans. They need to sit down at the table and work out the details. Right now, it sounds like Kerry and Murtha and Feingold and Kennedy and Edwards and McGovern and a lot more are getting closer and closer to consensus. (They are politicians. We elect them and pay them to come together and achieve a consensus. This is, painfully and with some relatively minor disagreements, what the Democrats are doing.)

Kerry spent time explaining that the insurgency is largely homegrown and is a result of the American occupation. He wants the troops withdrawn from the cities and wants Iraqi to patrol Iraqi cities and do the police work that is involved in the continuing conflict. This is prelude to a withdrawal, not the end result of it. As far as I can tell, Cong. Murtha wants US troops to withdraw to the edges of the country and wait and see if they are needed to re-enter the country and combat terrorism. Can't you see how close this is to a consensus? They are not at each other's throats, they are trying to come to a unified plan that the Dems can present to America as a workable solution. Isn't that what we as Democrats and as conscientious Americans want?

[madokie]

40. sigh

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[cantstandbush]

36. Damn it. Let's "cut 'n run." It will save many lives.

What happened when we left Viet Nam? They got their shit together sooner than if we had stayed. Now we deal with them just like most other nations.

[madokie]

39. exactly.

:toast:

[LittleClarkie]

41. What happened when we left Viet Nam?

I seem to remember a cluster fuck of a pullout, that cost lives. A gradual withdrawl over the year could save lives, actually.

[madokie]

44. Actually, more lives lost.

There will be no chance of peace in Iraq as long as the US is there.

[sandnsea]

45. 200,000 dead

In the 1973-75 Vietnam Civil War. I've seen higher figures on that, but those are the Pentagon estimates. Then there's 500,000 in
Cambodia, according to Chomsky.

Leaving will save American lives. There's no guarantee whatsoever that it'll save Iraqi lives.

[madokie]

53. Sorry, I can't buy that, 200,000

[sandnsea]

60. What?? lol

You can't buy it? Is that how you decided you "knew" Saddam didn't have WMD too? On intuition?

Go read some history. It's what happened.

[madokie]

62. we did not kill 200,00 vietnamese between '73 and '75

sorry

edited to add: I was part of that history

[sandnsea]

63. I didn't say that

Try reading again. Sorry indeed.

[LittleClarkie]

64. Civil War, she said, not that WE killed them, but maybe our actions.

Civil War. Which is what she's saying will happen if we are not careful about how we leave. Trying to avoid the Vietnam clusterfuck withdrawl.

Are you a Nam Vet?

[madokie]

65. Yes 15 month, I was in the first plane load after Nixon started

pulling the troops out in '70. I misread the post.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Refresh me, why was Nixon pulling troops out

then?

[oregonindy]

71. heres a link to some casulty figures

go down

http://www.jargons.org/wiki/Death_toll

its under vietnam
170,000 - Final phase (1973-1975)





There is another site that has a higher figure

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/todaystake/tt100404.htm

Civilian war casualties in South Vietnam, 1973-1975: 339,882.


The problem is I dont know where either number came from.

[lonestarnot]

56. Get the FUCK OUT of IRAQ NOW BASTARDS!

[LSK]

69. so basically you admit that you dont pay much attention to Kerry

:grr: