I'm extremely proud of Kerry right now

[Arkana]

He's following Carville's advice (whether intentionally or inadvertently) and proposing, not just opposing. His website now has his plan for getting us out of Iraq with our dignity intact. Now we have something to go with--not just our opposition to *'s Iraq plan.

I also like his map with comparisons between *'s job plan and Kerry's plan.

[wtmusic]

1. You can hire Karl Rove,

you can have Dick Cheney hold his hand in testimony, but not all the corporate profits in the world can make GWB a smart man.

That's going to be Kerry's 'WMD' in this election

[IrateCitizen]

2. I'm certain that "dignity intact" will be a high consideration...

... for those soldiers currently caught in the crossfire in Iraq.

I also seem to recall a similar platitude by Nixon at the end of the Vietnam War -- "Withdrawl with honor", or some bullshit like that?

Fuck "dignity". Our dignity and credibility were utterly shattered the moment we invaded that country. The only way that SOME of it could be restored would be for the immediate withdrawl of all combat troops. Only when the troops are gone will there be able to be an honest effort made at helping Iraqis to rebuild their own country, because those troops are now seen by more and more of the populace as an occupying force.

[library_max]

3. What do you think would happen in Iraq

if all the troops were withdrawn tomorrow? Wouldn't it be a war of everybody against everybody, last surviving Iraqi getting to control the government and the oil? At the very least, the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds would fight it out. How do you make an "honest effort at helping Iraqis to rebuild their own country" in that context?

I think we need to replace US troops with NATO or UN troops to restore some moral credibility, to make the occupation into a clearly temporary peacekeeping operation. For this to happen, though, the whole world needs a big apology from the US government, and that will require regime change here at home.

[IrateCitizen]

4. Read the following...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1474844#1475376

[library_max]

5. I read it. I don't buy it.

You're ignoring the factor of time. Presently, there is chaos, and chaos tends to self-perpetuate over the short term. But people get tired of it, and the most determined perpetrators burn themselves out or kill each other off. A big part of the problem is that the US presence is a continuing affront - it keeps the wounds fresh and bleeding. Replace it with a force with "clean hands" and progress would be easier.

But just leaving themselves to themselves, while in full maelstrom mode, would be asking for another Afghanistan. Remove the affront, apologize, rebuild, and by and by tempers will calm enough for Iraq to have some chance of determining its own destiny. It may not be a destiny we like - maybe another military strongman, or an Islamist theocracy - but I don't agree that we should just go ahead and let them kill each other if they want to.

Anyone with children is familiar with the calming effects of a quiet time. Just because they're fighting doesn't mean they'll keep fighting forever, if someone intervenes helpfully. And by "helpfully" I don't mean imperialistically or with an eye toward stealing oil money for Halliburton. Credibility requires clean hands.

[IrateCitizen]

8. You don't realize it, but you're acknowledging my point...

Remove the affront, apologize, rebuild, and by and by tempers will calm enough for Iraq to have some chance of determining its own destiny.

The affront is the occupation, plain and simple. The affront is the US troops who continue to predictably retreat more and more into "force protection mode" as they storm houses, arrest Iraqis and hold them without cause, and kill innocent Iraqis who are "caught in the crossfire". With this kind of presence (by the US) in the region right now, does it not then stand to reason that even if the US were to try to change approach within Iraq, they would still be viewed as a hostile occupation force by increasing numbers of Iraqis?

but I don't agree that we should just go ahead and let them kill each other if they want to.

I think you may have misread this comment without the context of the entire discussion to which I had linked. The other poster I was corresponding with on this matter had said basically that the Iraqis would undoubtedly degenerate into civil war if it were not for the US presence, and that WE had to remain in order to provide stability for THEM. My response was somewhat pithy, but it was essentially to the effect that if it's inevitable that Iraqis are going to kill each other (which he seemed to be proposing), then that bloodshed might as well be applied toward the purpose of eventually achieving a self-ruling Iraq rather than creating a puppet state of the US.

Personally, I don't believe that the entire country will degenerate into bloodshed and civil war -- there were too many instances of civil society coming into being, especially in the Shia south, immediately following the overthrow of Saddam. Amazingly, much of this phenomenon was directly associated with both the followers of al-Sistani AND al-Sadr.

Just because they're fighting doesn't mean they'll keep fighting forever, if someone intervenes helpfully. And by "helpfully" I don't mean imperialistically or with an eye toward stealing oil money for Halliburton. Credibility requires clean hands.

Exactly my point as to why the presence of US troops are the biggest impediment toward "helpful" intervention or engagement. So long as those troops remain, there can be no "clean hands". Stability will occur only when the US troops are removed. The damage that has been done to US credibility among increasing numbers of Iraqis (many of whom supported the overthrow of Saddam) is pretty much irreversible, so long as we remain.

[library_max]

9. It occurs to me that we may be in agreement.

Would you agree that we need to replace US troops with UN or NATO or some other non-invasion power troops temporarily until the Iraqis are calm enough to work out their differences peaceably (or until it becomes manifest that they will never be able to do so)?

My objection is not to pulling out the US troops and replacing them with UN or other peacekeepers, but to cutting and running with no provision for peacekeeping whatsoever.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. I believe the phrase was

"Peace with Honor".

[Minstrel Boy]

10. you said it!

Fuck "dignity". Our dignity and credibility were utterly shattered the moment we invaded that country.

The world can't afford another American face saving exercise. The US needs to demonstrate some humility and contrition for these crimes against peace.

[bigtree]

6. I am also proud of John Kerry, air napkin

Thank you for your perspective. I think the fact that Kerry has remained so close to Bush in the "public opinion polls" is a reflection of the smart campaign he has waged so far.