Democrats drop Antiwar pretensions

[tinanator]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ewing.php?articleid=3009

[WilliamPitt]

1. Refusing immediate withdrawal = pro-war?

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Yeah, I read the same tripe yesterday....it's a weak argument.

Right now the US is in a place where more damage could be done by immediately withdrawing. Apparently some people don't understand that we have already hurt the Iraqi people in a terrible way by our president's foolish decision to invade, but we could do even more damage if we just up and leave at this point.

I sometimes think that those who advocate the immediate withdrawal of our troops (that is not to say we shouldn't try something different such as UN international peacekeepers) fail to understand the complexities of the situation.

If we withdraw and millions die in a civil war because we totally destabilized the country and bailed, how would that be a GOOD thing?

[MadHound]

9. And how are we going to do more damage by leaving now?

Look, no matter what we do, when we leave there is going to be a civil war of some sort. Any government that the US sets up and supports in Iraq is going to be considered illegitimate by the Iraqi people. Once the US pulls out, whenever that might be, the government we set up is going to be pulled down.

Yes, the country will also most likely erupt into violence when we leave, no matter when that is. It matters not what we do, that is going to be a likely outcome.

To say that by our staying in Iraq we are insuring a peaceful future for Iraq is foolish. This is the same excuse that kept us in Vietnam for too long. Why don't we learn from our mistakes, rather than repeating them over and over ad nauseum.

All our continued presence in Iraq will accomplish is more death, more destruction, and more corporate theft by Haliburton, et al. Do you really think it is a wise move to throw more troops and money into a bottomless pit? Please friend, think. The time to leave is now. Yes, it would be nice to have an international coalition to perform peacekeeping duties, but even if we can't get one we should leave. The US should pay for all the repairs of the damage we've done, but the work should be done by the Iraqis, and we should stay out of Iraq.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. That is why President Kerry should petition the UN for peacekeepers.

By bailing and saying "to hell with the damage and loss of life it may cause by doing so, we compound our sins. Shouldn't we at least make an attempt to ensure Iraq has a relatively stable government before we just up and run?

We created this situation, like it or not. I am not willing to make matters worse.

[MadHound]

19. No matter how stable a government is,

It is still illegitimate in Iraqi eyes, and will be torn down once we leave. This is the line of reasoning that kept pushing up the body count in Vietnam, we should learn from our mistakes.

It is sure American hubris to think that a country can't survive or determine it's own future without American intervention. That type of thinking is what keeps getting the US into these situations, more of it will not get us out. All that it will insure is that the body count will continue to rise.

[Liberal Veteran]

20. Apparently you don't understand the english language.

And you have your own agenda which apparently no longer includes the welfare of the Iraqi people who we visited this mess upon.

Is there some part of UN peacekeeping forces replacing US troops that you failed to understand?

Yours is the same kind of digital (this or that) thinking that got us into this situation to begin with.

[MadHound]

22. Apparently you don't understand the nuances of others worldview

For the vast majority of people around the world, especially in the Mid-East, the UN is often equivalent to the US. After all, we do provide the vast majority of money, arms and manpower whenever the UN goes into a peacekeeping situation. This ongoing practice has poisoned a lot of minds against the acceptance of UN forces. Also, the US's actions(or lack thereof) in the UN vis-a-vis Israel has hardly endeared us to most Muslim countries. In fact most consider both the US and the UN to be an arm of Israel.

Now I grant you, we could petition the UN to field a peacekeeping force comprised mainly of troops from Arab and Muslim countries. But then again, that might be a bad idea, since there are vast and varying differences between Muslim nations on how a government should be run. It could very easily turn out to be a religious war, pitting various UN troops and Iraqis against each other.

Instead, why not let self determination rule? After all, it has worked many many times before, and is the surest way to a stable long term government.

[Malva Zebrina]

104. we are building seventeen military bases there, plus the biggest damn

embassy you ever saw. American companies and all the associate side companies are making out like bandits, raking in huge amounts of money. It is a shangri-la for making money now.

Why would anyone want to say we pull out now?

What's a few lives compared to the money to be made? <sneer>

[Arianrhod]

115. Not to mention the activation of the IRR

and calling up of more Reservists, to fill in until the regular troops can be sent back again.

[jonnyblitz]

13. that is typical arrogant American thinking,

this occupation is not worth one more american life. We should still be in Vietnam with that lame reasoning.

[Selwynn]

107. I agree it is a complicated issue - that's why shit like this article...

..really makes me mad. Because it falsely polarizes a far more complciated issue.

You could be right, OR someone else could be right that we are actively doing MORE harm by staying and being a more destabilizing factor than we would be if we immediately pulled out. But I'm just not sure either way, so instead of fucking calling everyone names who's trying to figure it out, maybe we could just really think about it.

I am not fucking pro-war and I'm also not sure if pulling out immediately is the best decision. I'm not saying its not, I'm saying I'm not sure. So back the fuck off with all the bullshit like this article. Man that makes me mad.

[Sinistrous]

10. Immediate withdrawl ---> civil war--> regional war ---> .........

Any one claiming to be anti-war who advocates a literal immediate withdrawl from Iraq is delusional.

[MadHound]

15. It is absolutely amazing

How many formerly anti-war Dems all of the sudden become hawks once they figure out their candidate is also pro-war:eyes:

Look friend, civil war is going to occur no matter when the US pulls out. The Iraqis consider any government we set up to be illegitimate, and will be torn down once we leave, no matter when that is. All that the continued US presence accomplishes is more death, misery, and destruction. Remember our mistake in Vietnam, and learn from it.

[apnu]

29. change of direction is a political fact

quote: "How many formerly anti-war Dems all of the sudden become hawks once they figure out their candidate is also pro-war:eyes:"

Well that's politics isn't it? Most Politicians will turn like a school of fish for their party. One thing that we have to remember is that universal truth of politics. That is, they are ultimately shallow, greedy, and weak. They pander to the will of the people, and rightly so in this case. There are a few exceptions who stick to their guns and actually fight for what they campaigned on. But, by and large, most politicians will turn on their own promises if the wind is just slightly blowing against them.

While we are dispelling illusions of the Iraq War and its similarities to Viet Nam, we should also dispel illusions that politicians are noble and fight for what they said they'd fight for.

This is, as I see it, a universal truth of politics -- no matter the party, rhetoric, values, culture, race, religion, or country may be in question. I think that we who have chosen sides in political debates often forget this fact and believe that our candidates can do no wrong, myself included here.

[MadHound]

41. You may be correct, but it is still depressing

I understand why politicians either running for or in office change their minds, that is a given. But I expect that more of my fellow citizens would stick with their principles, rather than changing diretion depending on which way the wind is blowing. After all, this is supposedly a democracy, where all points of view are welcome. Turning into an amen chorus does a severe disservice, both to the individual and the country as a whole.

[apnu]

60. aye

Its not right, but then we don't live in a "right" world. It is depressing and a major contributor, IMO, to poor election turnouts.

[Kanary]

33. Exactly right. It's no longer "fashionable" to be anti-war

Once more, a generation has to learn the hard way.

I would have thought we'd learned something from Vietnam, but this generation has to sacrifice so many lives and so much $$ to find out for themselves.

sigh....

At least it's not *my* kid who'll be sacrificed this time....

Kanary

[Sinistrous]

38. I do not share your pessimism.

There is always the possibility that the damage inflicted on Iraq by the PNAC misadventure can be alleviated.

Your assertion that there is a causal relation between my position on maintaining forces in Iraq and the position of the Democratic Party's nominee is scurrilous and specious. An honest person would admit that two persons can arrive at a similar conclusions independently and via different pathways.

You assert that anyone not advocating immediate unconditional withdrawal from Iraq is somehow now a "war hawk"??? How silly.

You want to toss the entire middle east into an all out war because you are some kind of anti-war purist? Egad! The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.

[MadHound]

50. And I don't share your hypocritical thinking skills

Somehow, I've just never been able to wrap my head around the notion of "Fighting for peace". Its kind of like the concept of "fucking for virginity", you can't try smashing polar opposites together and come out with the desired whole.

And yes, quite bluntly, anybody who is advocating our continued presence in Iraq IS a war hawk. That's not silly, that is reality. A war is occuring over there, and that war will continue until we leave. If you are saying that we shouldn't leave, then you are endorsing war, hence a "war hawk". I thought that was pretty cut and dried. I'm sorry if that offends you, but the truth is like that sometimes. If you don't wish to be labeled as a war hawk, don't advocate war, it is that simple.

And answer me this, how can our continued illegal and immoral occupation alleviate the Iraqi situation? The overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't wish us there, and are going to continue fighting until we leave. Thus our presence only exacerbates the problem, leading to more needless death and destruction. This isn't alleviating anything, this is just contributing to the problem.

And I'm sorry if you felt singled out on my comment about anti-war Dems becoming hawks. I was making a general statement on a phenomenon I've seen both here and in the real world lately, and I find it appalling. I wasn't meaning to pick on you.

[Sinistrous]

75. Not: "Fighting for Peace".

Take away the looting of Iraqi resources. Take away the no-bid contracts to Haliburton, et al. Take away the fourteen permanent bases for the US military. Replace with a genuine, honest policy of aiding Iraqis and rebuilding Iraq, and the presence of US troops becomes "Peacekeeping for Peace".

[redqueen]

80. You blithely say "take away the looting"

Has Kerry said anything about the lack of Iraqi labor being used for the reconstruction?

Do you think Kerry will end the profiteering?

[Imperialism Inc.]

181. Yes. He has mentioned it at least once.

It isn't one of his primary messages but below is a link to a speech where he mentions Iraqi labor. I didn't see where he mentioned it in any other speech though. I am just using the articles and speeches linked off of Kerry's Iraq home page (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/).

This Moment in Iraq is a Moment of Truth
Remarks of Senator John Kerry
April 30, 2004

Westminster College - Fulton, Missouri
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html
(snip)
Second:

The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.

This Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqis themselves.

The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into the hands of grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction in the form of jobs, infrastructure, and services. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being insulted and disrespected in their own country.

(more)

[redqueen]

195. Thanks, MiddleMen

I thought I'd heard him mention it, but to be honest, after hearing Clinton talk about making the Fairness Doctrine (or some facsimile) into law and then having it dropped, I'm just a tad skeptical.

But thanks for confirming that... knowing he's mentioned it is encouraging.

[MadHound]

114. Sorry, but Kerry's corporate masters won't let him do that

There's money to be made in Iraq, and they intend to sqeeze out every single penny, no matter who is in the White House.

In a perfect world, our government could do what you propose. However we are dealing with a government and a world driven by greed. Peacekeeping without profit is just not in the cards.

[Sinistrous]

157. Sorry, pal,

but that is Kerry's program. Live with it. And take a pill for your cynicism. It has blinded you.

[tinanator]

160. youre dreaming

Kerry will find himself supported only by a one party system, not by the citizens who cannot tolerate American deaths due to an illegal and unjust invasion based on Bushcorpfamilia lies. Just because you are comfortable with imperial aggression doesnt mean the families of military will be. Youre advice is worthless.

[Sinistrous]

161. I am not "comfortable with imperial aggression."

That is a blatant smear and is unsupported by anything I have ever said.

You owe me an apology.

[MadHound]

188. "Live with it". Or what?

You'll hand this country back to the "bad cops", the Bushes? Sorry friend, but my cynicism hasn't blinded me to anything, and apparently more and more people are waking up to a reality that is worse than any of our cynicism. A good example of how true the two party/same corporate master system of government came into being can be found in Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy", a very good, thoughtful piece of work on how we have entered the Second Gilded Age, where party loyalty doesn't matter anymore, but corporate loyalty is king.

I would suggest you wake up to the reality of life in these United States. Our government and political institutions have been taken over by big business. Our country and our government is quickly becoming of, by and for the corporations, where you and I will merely be serfs on the corporate farm.

The time to stop this is now. That can be done two ways. The first is to do everything in your power to bring about publicly financed election campaigns. The second is to not feed the beast, ie, don't vote, contribute or work for any candidate who takes corporate cash. Otherwise, all you are doing is selling out your future, and the future of our country.

[Sinistrous]

204. I see your huff has arrived and you have gone off in it. LOL

Corporations are not, by their nature, good or evil. There are good ones and bad ones, but corporateness is morally neutral. Further, corporations are legitimate players in our society and deserve to have their legitimate requirements addressed.

Obviously, the bushes have embraced the worst of the worst in the corporate world, but damning a candidate for accepting support from a corporation is naive demagoguery.

[MadHound]

207. Is it really that naive friend, or is it the damning reality.

You are correct for the most part, corporations are amoral. However by their very nature, corporations are driven to make the most money, in whatever way they can. As with capitalism itself, greed is the overriding drive behind a corporation. And such greed will lead a corporation to commit evil acts, such as needless pollution, poor working enviroments, low wages, etc. Even criminal acts aren't out of the question, witness Enron, one in a long line of criminal corporations.

In fact one of the governments' jobs is to act as a buffer between the corporate world and the populace at large. This has led to the enactment of various safety, enviromental, fiscal, and employment laws. Yet under the auspices of both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past thirty years, these restrictions, regulations and social safety barriers have been eroded or removed. And corporate campaign cash can be traced as the root of these evils. Witness the '96 Telecom Act, a rollback of media regulations that Democrats and liberals have been cursing ever since. Why did Clinton, a supposed liberal do this? Well, look at his top five campaign contributors, that might give you a clue.

And then there is the continued legal evolution of corporations. It has gotten to the point that corporations have more rights, and less societal responsibility, than live humans. That is intolerable friend. I really would suggest that you read Kevin Phillip's book "Wealth and Democracy" for a good overview of this matter. It is really quite shocking how much of our government is now a corporate subsidy. You may feel that corporations are benign entities, but the sad reality is that they are actively engaged in subverting democracy and our civil liberties. Remember that it was with the backing of corporations that Hitler was allowed to subvert German democracy and unleash the Holocaust. We are seeing the emergence of such facist enabling corporations here in the US now. It is high time we got big business out of government.

[Nederland]

76. "fucking for virginity"

Very cute. I suppose you are a pacifist that is opposed to war under all circumstances? How amusingly naive...

[U4ikLefty]

95. Nah, you patronizing attitude is "very cute"

[Nederland]

98. Response

Anybody who pushes a pacifist viewpoint during this election cycle is ignorant and deserves to be patronized.

[redqueen]

100. You're right

but only because bushco is such a seriously critical threat. If the situation were less dire I'd disagree, but as it stands, I can't.

:hi:

[greatauntoftriplets]

102. Are you enlisting then?

n/t

[MadHound]

116. Gee, you suppose one hell of a lot

For being on an anonymous chatboard. Do you do that in the real world too?

For your information, the only wars I'm opposed to are the unjust ones, you know, the ones where we pre-emptively and illegally invade another sovereign country under false pretenses with the sole purpose of raping, pillaging and looting the people and the country.

And while you might think my quip is cute(nice to see you understand having a sense of humor), it is also a very serious point, apparently one that you've failed to grasp. Instead, you go for the witty retort, the quick gibe, and fail to grasp the deeper meaning. Talk about naive friend:eyes:

[Nederland]

130. All I supposed

is that you are logical and consistent. Evidently that was a mistake.

The analogy that "fighting for peace is like fucking for viginity" is a pacifist argument. It does not contain exceptions for "just" wars or "legal" wars. It is a blanket analogy that is intended to convey the idea that all wars are stupid and cannot possible result in peace. The fact is that if you wish to oppose this war it would be best to avoid arguments that imply you are opposed to all wars.

[MadHound]

133. Horror of horrors that we use the arguements of pacifism

To fight an unjust war:eyes:

Look friend, it has been fun playing with you today, but your routine is getting tiresome. You argue over semantics rather than substance, you have no facts to back your game up with, and you engage in personal attacks. This isn't the way to persuade people if you wish to convince them of anything.

[Jose Diablo]

101. I had a zippo

that read "Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity". I wonder what happened to it. I'll look around here, it must be here someplace.

It's strange how polar opposites can become truth. Warped reasoning maybe.

Way I see it, there is no other way to leave, than just leave. Rationalize the reasons somehow, I am sure the politicians can come-up with something like "Peace with honor" or some other form of phrase that makes leaving seem logical.

But in the end, we will just leave. Because we cannot win with the Iraq war. We are invaders. The premise for war was flawed, a lie. That makes any future best plans to benefit of the Iraqi people just plain bullshit.

[Malva Zebrina]

110. Damage llike this can never be alleviated--never

not to the human soul.

Face it--Bush was given the powers to do this to innocent people. Our soldiers were the ones doing the bombing

These were called "collateral damage"

and we now see people using the most incredible denial, such as we can alleviate the damage, that these were little human beings, innocent, one day playing going to school, the next day dead, mangled wrapped in blood, burned--

IMO the best think Kerry can do is admit the mistake. Otherwise, what we are supporting is another sham and another one not willing take responsibility.

He doesn't, therefore my vote for Kerry is going to be lacking any enthusiasm until some person who wants to represent me in this country, for which I pay him, develops some ethical and moral principles.

[redqueen]

121. Where are the pictures from Bosnia? n/t

[Malva Zebrina]

124. Bosnia? Who is talking about Bosnia?

I am talking about the invasion and occupation of Iraq on multiple lies that continue to this day. I am talking about ten thousand innocent people who were NO threat to us at all but who were being shocked and awed with thousand pound bombs dropped on them in the middle of the night,

and you are talking about Bosnia?

:shrug:

Please explain what Bosnia has to do with these deaths and slaughter of these children due to the invasion.
.

[redqueen]

127. Well, we invaded Bosnia, which was no threat to us

and they don't seem to hate us. Do they?

I'm sure we killed many children... where are their pictures? Do they not matter? Why were they so easily forgotten?

[Malva Zebrina]

131. what does that have to do with Bush lying to invade Iraq?

and killing thousands of people?

Are you attempting to excuse him for lying and for lying to us and for that slaughter of those thousands of people,and perhaps thousands of babies and children because someone else invaded Bosnia?

Are you saying that this invading and killing of small, defenseless countries that a madman determines is a threat,and an imminent threat, is now a way of life that we should accept without complaint and without demanding of our representative that they have som e sense of conscience and morality? We should merely shrug our shoulders and look out for our own children and not be concerned about ten thousand innocents that we , our soldiers, that we are asked to support, killed in our name?

I do not get where you are headed.

[redqueen]

135. Did I say any of that?

Ok, then I'm not saying that.

I'm simply wondering where all the righteous anger was during THAT war.

If people care so GD much about murdered innocents, then I would think they'd care about THOSE innocents as well. In case you forget, the bombing of Bosnia wasn't sanctioned by the UN either.

Is it really so hard to understand?

[Malva Zebrina]

139. You have no idea whatsoever what people think about Bosnia because

we are not discussing Bosnia here. You seem to want to include Bosnia into the conversation . It may be OK in a separate thread, but we are discussing Iraq.

Bosnia is irrelevant here to this discussion and to the ten thousand that Bush murdered in Iraq, on lies.













Are you suggesting that someone has no right to express outrage over the ten thousand civilian deaths in Iraq because they did not express outrage over Bosnia?

[redqueen]

165. Can't you just read what I say?

Instead of constantly trying to read INTO what I'm saying?

It's okay, though. I get it. Your defensive responses say it all.

[NoPasaran]

134. We never invaded Bosnia!

Our troops there are part of SFOR, the NATO stabilization force acting under auspices of the UN. Yes, lots of children were killed, but not by us. Believe it or not, we're the good guys in this one.
http://www.nato.int/sfor/

[redqueen]

136. Way to miss the point. n/t

[NoPasaran]

138. And what is your point?

Again, we neither invaded nor bombed Bosnia. I can't tell if you have Bosnia confused with Kosovo or are being too ironic for me.

[redqueen]

166. oh duh

Yes, I meant Kosovo. Frustrated, tired & sad.

[tinanator]

141. check out Joe Kubert's Fax from Sarajevo

http://www.comics2read.com/characte/chfxsrjv.htm

A very interesting perspective of the activities and plight in that area. Maybe the closest thing we have to pictures. Kubert is one of the very best.

[redqueen]

168. Thanks

I can't help but wonder, though... why are there no pictures? Where is the outrage?

Does anyone care that the Rambouillet Agreement was designed to fail? Are we so willing to be lied to and fooled and played for partisan dupes?

[tinanator]

24. please compare and contrast US policy in Haiti

in one country its the only way, in another it is not?
Hypocrisy immediately undermines legitimacy.

[Sinistrous]

82. Perhaps if you added a few more specifics,

those of us who can't quite make the connection between Haiti and Iraq would be able to make sense of your post.

[tinanator]

142. on the one hand we stay to "stabilize"

on the other we pretend to be absent to destabilize.
The prima facia hypocrisy and sameness of the two targeted regions are irrefutable.

[Sinistrous]

158. "Prima facie ... sameness" betw Iraq & Haiti? Defend that. please.

And do be honest and list a few of the differences: e.g. elected government vs dictatorship; relative wealth; origin, make-up, and objectives of the opposition; etc.; etc.; etc.

[tinanator]

159. invasion vs black op coup

I dont know what you are looking at but Im staring at an equivalent foreign policy of overthrow, with two different covers. Do be honest?

[Sinistrous]

162. And if you draw the circle big enough,

the arctic and antactic are on the same planet.

Broad comparisons are dangerous, when they are not useless.

[kiahzero]

23. Don't you understand?

We shouldn't concern ourselves with the inevitable power vacuum that would be created if we left now. The Iraqi people should just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and create their new government. Sure, the ones that don't have their own private militias will be pretty much screwed, but that's OK, because the United States' hands will be clean.

:eyes:

The fact of the matter is that there will be a power vacuum if we leave before there's a government in place that can maintain itself and exert control over the entirety of Iraq. And it's far more likely that a power vacuum will lead to a failed state (the type where the government does not have control); meaning that the Iraqi people would be worse off, and we'd have more of a problem with terrorism, since they'd have a nice, rich country to base themselves.

[tinanator]

25. Power vacuum?

Ive already got one. If every Iraqi had one as well, they could clean up our mess for us!

[kiahzero]

28. Ha Ha Ha

Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or (much more likely) you don't have an intelligent argument to make.

[MadHound]

27. A question friend

How can we set up a stable government, when the Iraqi people consider ANY government set up by the US illegitimate? Face it, any social or political structure set up by any invading force is considered illegit, and is torn down once the invaders leave. This fact has been proven over and over again, let us learn from history this time, and stop repeating mistakes like we did in Vietnam.

[redqueen]

34. Learn from the mistakes of others?

Naaaah... puppet dictators have worked so well for us and the brits.

:grr:

[kiahzero]

42. Who's talking about puppet dictators?

I want to see an independant, stable Iraqi government that won't need our assisstance to survive.

[redqueen]

46. And I want world peace, food for the poor, clean water too...

Learn from history.

[kiahzero]

49. Yeah, all those sound good

But you know what? We're talking about the war in Iraq.

Is it possible for you to make a logically valid argument? All I've seen so far from you is a combination of ad hominem, straw men, and red herring arguments.

[redqueen]

63. So sorry I'm not playing by the rules

Really this is all so completely disgusting I'm ready to throw in the towel on the whole issue, because I see it's completely useless for us to worry about it. The ones making the decisions care NOTHING about what we think, what the Iraqis think, or what the troops dying for their greed think.

The only thing that will cause them to do anything differently is the actions of the soldiers. If they start refusing to serve, then that will force their hand. Anything else is futile.

[MadHound]

51. Then you are looking for an Iraqi government

That is picked out, determined and set up by the Iraqi people. In their eyes, anything elese is a sham.

[kiahzero]

54. I think it's possible to set up a government

It would have been far better if the INC hadn't screwed the UN and picked their own for the interim government. I don't think, however, that it has irreparably damaged the chance for Iraq to come out from all of this with a better government than the one it had when we went in.

On edit: That wasn't as clear as I hoped... I think it's possible to set up a government that is acceptable to the Iraqi people.

[redqueen]

64. That's almost a given, isnt' it?

That it will be better than the one before?

I mean, what MadHound and others are saying here is that the UN is seen as an arm of the US, so any government NOT decided by Iraqis in a fair election is going to be met with hostility. However, due to this same meddlesome divide and conquer crap set up by the British and the French even that will be hard for them to manage without one group or another feeling slighted and possibly (probably?) willing to fight against.

[tedzbear]

152. Let's see. The Iraqi government you are talking about...

...will be one that will demand that every last US soldier, cluster bomb, carpetbagger, and Halliburton employee get the hell out or die.

That's what finally happened in Viet-nam and that is what will happen in Iraq under Kerry.

Good luck with your hypocritical nation building! Why don't YOU enlist?

:kick:

[kiahzero]

39. Vietnam isn't really applicable

We didn't defeat the North Vietnamese before we started fighting a guerrilla war. There was a government there to take control when we left. The situation we are in now is actually worse: there's not a government with enough control over the country that it could survive once we left.

Now, as to your second point, regarding the legitimacy or lack thereof of the new government: I would hope that the Iraqi people would evaluate a government on its merits, rather than attacking an otherwise sound government simply for its association with the United States. Hopefully, the interim government will distance itself from the US enough so that it can be accepted by the Iraqi people.

I do have one question about your assertion that any political structure that is set up by an invading force is seen as illegitimate: what about former colonies? Many former colonies, after whatever nation that colonized them left, proceeded to set up governments that were very similar to that of the nation in question.

[MadHound]

66. Vietnam is completely appicable

We set up a faux government in South Vietnam, one that we propped up for years. The only government in S. Vietnam was despised by the people it governed, and the South Vietnamese basically allowed the N. Vietnamese to walk in and set up shop. And we have the same situation in Iraq, a puppet government that we are propping up, one that is considered to be illegit by the Iraqi people

And your hope for the Iraqi people evaluating a government on it's merits is noble, but futile. Throughout history, no matter how stable, benign, or beneficial a government is, if it is a government set up by an outside authority, the people will tear it down as soon as that outside force is no longer a threat. They may set up a government similar, but it will have the people's own stamp on it. This is true of colonies and conquered terratories. In fact the only two exceptions I can think of are Australia and Canada, and these were colonies made up of native Englishmen. Even America, another British colony, set up a radically different government. To expect a conquored nation to consider the government left behind by the conquering forces as legit is to hope for the impossible.

[kiahzero]

70. You're sort of right

But my point was that the North Vietnamese government existed and could take power once we left. There is no similar government in Iraq.

For a Vietnam analogy to be applicable, a situation like the following would have to happen: Instead of invading directly, the US decides to act through the Kurds. The Kurds (and the United States) attack the Saddam-controlled portion of Iraq, but a guerilla war breaks out in the Kurdish controlled section. US troops get involved.

Even this is a hard analogy to make, because in this case, the US wouldn't be fighting a war against national liberation, but in fact be fighting for it.

Making historical analogies generally abstracts over important complexities of a specific issue: it's far better to discuss the issue at hand, rather than attempt to bring it back to a past occurence. This doesn't mean we can't learn from the past - just that we need to understand the differences between then and now.

Now, if I recall correctly, the way the interim government is structured, it is essentially a placeholder until such time as elections can be held to decide the course of the new government. Is your argument that even this government would be tainted, because it was spawned from an interim government that was spawned from a US occupation?

[eridani]

155. Correct. The analogy you are looking for is Lebanon.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/19190/

The historical parallel that best underscores the current disaster-in-the-making is not the Vietnam War but rather Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Originally intended to rid Lebanon of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Israel's subsequent occupation led to the creation of Hizbollah as a viable force of political and military resistance. The Hizbollah was so effective that Israel was forced to unilaterally withdraw its forces from Lebanon in May, 2000. The 18-year occupation not only failed to defeat the PLO, but it also created an Islamic fundamentalist movement that today poses a serious threat to the security of Israel and the Middle East region.

In Iraq, history may very well produce the same result since neither the Bush Administration nor a possible Kerry Administration shows any inclination to withdraw from Iraq in the foreseeable future. And so the course of American involvement in Iraq and its inevitable consequences are clear. We will suffer a decade-long nightmare that will lead to the deaths of thousands more Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We will witness the creation of a viable and dangerous anti-American movement in Iraq which will one day watch as American troops unilaterally withdraw from Iraq every bit as ignominiously as Israel did from Lebanon.

The strength of this anti-American resistance depends on how long the United States chooses to "stay the course" in Iraq. The calculus is quite simple: the sooner we bring our forces home, the weaker this movement will be. And, of course, the obverse is true: the longer we stay, the stronger and more enduring this by-product of Bush's elective war on Iraq will be.

There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no longer a question of winning, but rather mitigating defeat.

[Nederland]

Historical Ignorance

Face it, any social or political structure set up by any invading force is considered illegit, and is torn down once the invaders leave. This fact has been proven over and over again, let us learn from history this time, and stop repeating mistakes like we did in Vietnam.

This is laughably ignorant of history. There are numerous examples of governments that were set up by an invading force that survived quite well. Just look at Japan and Germany. Were those governments considered illegit by their people and get torn down? No. The key is to do the reconstruction right and not fuck it up like the Bush administration is doing.

[redqueen]

90. You're right of course

However, it's been screwed up already. We can't go back and unscrew it. The die is cast, and there is no making up for that. The Iraqi people do not trust us, and with good reason.

So now what... we wish to remain there until they do?

[Amarant]

111. Wrong

Here is why those situations do not apply.

1. Similar culture in Germany.

2. Germany just a few years later had a similar government to what we set up.

3. German people had supported the allies by the end and WANTED them to occupy. Further - AFTER occupying the allies did NOT treat them as the Nazis had. Their goal was not to rob, torture, murder, etc as we have done in Iraq.

4. The allies actually had the german peoples BEST INTERESTS in mind.

Japan is slightly different due to atomic bombs.

Now please - ask your self this honestly. Do you REALLY believe the iraqis are naive enough to believe bush and his friends are interested in the well being on the Iraqi people? Do you REALLY believe the Iraqis are going to respect a government set up by people that have exploited, murdered, robbed, tortured, entered their homes in the middle of the night and taken people away, and raped its citizens? Get real.

The moment we leave whatever government is set up will be torn down and civil war will likely follow. End of story. Rather we leave now on later it is inevitable.

[MadHound]

117. BZZZT! Wrong answer friend

Germany and Japan were the aggressor nations in WWII, the ones who did the invading. We weren't in those countries to colonize or invade. We were there because we had defeated them and wished for them to become allies.

[redqueen]

118. I still think if we had gone in and done things 'right'

we may not be in such a dire situation now. If we had protected their museums, schools, hospitals... rebuilt their infrastructure with local labor... maybe Iraq might not be in such chaos... maybe if we'd have let them select their own local leaders and helped them to set up their own elections quickly, we could have already left. Who can say?

Of course, this is all fantasy. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, there is money to be made, so ...

[Nederland]

125. Response

Germany and Japan were the aggressor nations in WWII, the ones who did the invading.

And this is relevant why?

We weren't in those countries to colonize or invade.

You're saying we didn't invade Germany? My my, we are ignorant of history aren't we.

We were there because we had defeated them and wished for them to become allies.

There is nothing the Bush administration would like better than to see Iraq become another oil rich Arab ally like Saudi Arabia.

[MadHound]

126. *Sigh*

Please friend, pay attention. The original statement had to do with outside, invading countries setting up governments. Yes, we invaded Germany and Japan, but that was in response to their initial aggression. We defeated that aggression, and decided to pick up the pieces. What we were speaking of earlier is situations like the British Empire, or Frances colonial expeditions. Get the picture now?

[Nederland]

129. Oh I get it

Sort of like when we invaded Panama, arrested its leader Noriega, and then set up a democratic government to replace him? Yeah, I guess you're right. Its foolish to think that the US can invade a country and then set up a government that the locals will respect.

<snicker>

[MadHound]

137. Noriega, hah, that's a laugher friend

Considering that the US was the one who placed Noriega in power in the first place. When the US went into Panama, they not only killed 5000+ innocents, but they made the grave mistake of assuming that the PDF would take over the security operations of Panama. Instead, the PDF faded into the background, leaving a security vacumn in the country. The US backed out of Panama, leaving the country to deal with this mess on their own. The US didn't install a new government, nor did they make sure that Panama was safe and secure. Instead, they came in, trashed the country and populace, snatched their former bagman, Noriega, and left. The Panamanian people were left with the job of cleaning up the US mess.

Learn your history friend, read broadly and deeply. Depending on what you learned in high school, college and the mainstream media will leave you woefully uninformed.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

163. Response

Considering that the US was the one who placed Noriega in power in the first place. When the US went into Panama, they not only killed 5000+ innocents, but they made the grave mistake of assuming that the PDF would take over the security operations of Panama.

I agree with you on this point.

Instead, the PDF faded into the background, leaving a security vacumn in the country. The US backed out of Panama, leaving the country to deal with this mess on their own.

Wrong. More than 10000 US troops stayed in Panama until 1995. They then began a gradual withdrawl, and left the last American bases in 1999.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/408472.stm

The US didn't install a new government, nor did they make sure that Panama was safe and secure. Instead, they came in, trashed the country and populace, snatched their former bagman, Noriega, and left. The Panamanian people were left with the job of cleaning up the US mess.

Wrong. The U.S. military officers installed Guillermo Endara during the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989. He was sworn in as president on a U.S. military base under Marine guard. He remain president until Ernesto Perez Balladares was sworn in as President on September 1, 1994, after an internationally monitored election campaign.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/019.html

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/hi/history_of_panama.html

Learn your history friend, read broadly and deeply. Depending on what you learned in high school, college and the mainstream media will leave you woefully uninformed.

I believe it now clear that it is you who needs to learn a little history. As the above links prove, the US invaded Panama, installed a new government, and created democractic institutions that remain to this day. Exactly what you claim is impossible to do. If you want to learn a little more I would recommend starting with Noam Chomsky's work on US intervention in Latin American countries. Best of luck.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/centralamerica/Panama.html

[MadHound]

189. Do you even read what you reference,

Or do you just have tunnel vision with regards to what you want to see? You first post from the BBC is in reference to US troops being pulled out due to the Canal handover, not troops that were there since the overthrow of Noreiga.

Your third reference, the Brain Enclopedia refutes your contention that we set up a government, and left troops there for peacekeeping. Instead, what it states is pretty much the truth, that we quickly pulled our troops out, after swearing in a puppet leader in a secret ceremony. After we left, Panamanians started rebuilding ON THEIR OWN, their own civilian government, with one of the final acts being the kicking out of the US puppet.

Geez, how weak friend. I love it when I can use a person's own sources against them, it saves me time.:evilgrin: Installing a puppet isn't the same as "installed a new government, and created democractic institutions". As I stated before, and as your sources back me up, the Panamanian people had to clean up the mess the US left behind. Sheesh friend, read you references, it will save a lot of grief.

[Nederland]

193. Thanks

I'm glad to see that you have admitted you were wrong about how the US pulled all of its troops out of Panama, and acknowledge that what actually happened was that they kept over 10000 troops there as a peace keeping force for nearly 6 years after the invasion. I'm glad that we finally resolved the confusion. I'm sorry to see that you're still a little confused about whether Panama had help from the US after the invasion. Hopefuly these links will clear up that confusion.

US aid to Panama in 1989: $514 million
US aid to Panama in 1990: $515 million
US aid to Panama in 1991: $516 million

http://www.theodora.com/wfb1989/panama/panama_economy.html
http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/panama/panama_economy.html
http://www.theodora.com/wfb1991/panama/panama_economy.html

This might also help:

http://www.irc-online.org/content/bulletin/bull40.php

Following the economic and human devastation wrought by the U.S. embargo and invasion, U.S. and multilateral lending agencies came to Panama's rescue with balance-of-payments and reconstruction assistance. By May 1990 the U.S. Congress had approved a $420 million economic assistance package, making Panama the largest recipient of U.S. aid in Latin America that year. The funds went to international debt relief, bank liquidity, private sector loans, public sector projects, and development programs.

[MadHound]

194. The only thing I'm admitting friend

Is that you have no clue how to do research, much less read the sources you reference. You can pretend all you want, but the sad fact is that your sources back up my contentions, not yours. But hey, if you want to go do your little touchdown celebration and dance around in a faux victory rite, go for it.

Just remember that you apparently still know very little about this subject. And it truly shows.

[Nederland]

196. I'll do this slow

Here is the link I used:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/408472.stm

To which you responded:

Your first post from the BBC is in reference to US troops being pulled out due to the Canal handover, not troops that were there since the overthrow of Noreiga.

Now let's look at what the article said:

Until the mid 1990s, more than 10,000 U.S. troops were based in Panama and up to 8,000 a year passed through in jungle combat training missions.

Now I'm at a loss as to how you could come to the conclusion you did. We know that 25000 troops participated in the invasion in 1989 (link: http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_panama.htm), and we know that more than 10000 were still there "through the mid 1990s." So what exactly are you saying? That US troops left Panama after the 1989 invasion, and then came back sometime in the 1990s, and then left again in 1995? While this is technically possible, I'm going to ask that you put your excellent research skills to use and prove it with a link. Thanks.

[MadHound]

199. Like I said before friend, do you even read what you reference?

Those troops mentioned in the BBC article were troops that had been there, as US troops had always been there for 100 years, in order to protect the canal, not as a result of operations involving Noriega ten years earlier. To wit: "The United States has closed its last big military base in Panama, formally ending a sometimes turbulent relationship that has endured for most of this century.
Panamanian President Ernesto Perez Balladares attended a ceremony at the Fort Clayton base at which the US flag was lowered for the last time.

The ceremony ended the presence in Panama of the US Army South.

A small contingent of US troops will remain in a caretaker capacity, but under a treaty agreed in 1977, the last soldier must leave by the end of this year.

The US military presence began as an operation to secure control of the Panama Canal, but developed into a base for projecting Washington's influence across Central and South America."

You should also check out your other reference, BrainyEncycolpedia, it might help. To wit: "Panamanians moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government. On December 27, 1989, Panama's Electoral Tribunal invalidated the Norieiga regime's annulment of the May 1989 election and confirmed the victory of opposition candidates under the leadership of President Guillermo Endara and Vice Presidents Guillermo Ford and Ricardo Arias Calderon." Got that? Do you understand the basic nuance? Here, let me point it out for you, OK? "PANAMANIANS moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government." No mention of the US rebuilding Panamanian government, no, it was the people who did it themselves, and kicking out the US appointee in the process five years later. And if you would READ the paragraph immediately proceding, you would see that the Panamanians weren't too happy with the US: " Two years later thousands of Panamians "marked the day with a 'black march' through the streets of this capital to denounce the US invasion and the Endara economic policies", the French press agency reported. They also claimed that US troops had killed 3000 people and buried many corpses in mass graves or thrown them into the sea."

So are you going to stubbornly hang onto your point? I'm sitting here disproving you with your own references friend, and that isn't good form. Perhaps it is time that you move on to something else that you really know. Modern world history certainly isn't your bag, that much is clear.

[Nederland]

203. Now I understand

When you said that US troops "left" immediately after the invasion, you were not including the 13000 troops that were already there before the invasion began. I took it to mean that you believed that all US troops "left" after the invasion. Simple miscommunication, that's all.

So we are clear, would you agree that the following is true:

1) After the invasion of Panama, 13000 US troops remained in Panama.
2) After the invasion of Panama, the US gave Panama over a billion dollars in aid to recover.
3) President Guillermo Endara, after being sworn in by US troops, served out his term as president.
4) Following the end of Endara's term, Panama peacefully and democratically elected a president to succeed him.

Anything in there you don't think is true? And please, if you disagree with something, provide a link.

[PassingFair]

154. Can't help it, I'm buzzing in...

Are Nederland and Redqueen really From and Reed? Do you really expect dems to fall lockstep into this crap? The only decent response on the part of yes voting dem polititians, is "We screwed up", "We were given crappy intelligence by a lying, crappy administration, and we didn't look deeply enough, or ask the right amount or type of questions", "There was a climate of fear in D.C. that others outside the beltway did not experience" and lastly, "We were wrong".

Everytime I see you DLC guys sticking your fingers in the leaking republican dyke, I want to take two valiums and call Dr. Dean in the morning.

[Nederland]

167. Confusion

This debate is about what the US should do now, not whether or not it should have gotten into this mess to begin with. My main point of disagreement with MadHound was the notion that its impossible for a foreign power to install a new government that is acceptable to the local population. I firmly believe that with a new President (Kerry) the US can successfully garner the international support for a new Iraqi state that will be acceptable to Iraqis. There is no need to give up and run on home--the Bush mistake can be fixed.

[redqueen]

169. Oh GMAB

I don't expect lockstep, in fact I'd rather have Kucinich's version of the platform than Kerry's!

But I'm not so young I believe that it's in Kerry's personal power to do this. I agree that the correct response would be to admit that the war was a mistake, but unfortunately we're the minority. The majority of this party seems to believe that conventional wisdom says that to admit a mistake would be betraying the troops. Maybe they're right. I don't claim to know for sure. Right now the stakes are SO high that I'm not willing to second guess the experts. I live in a red state so I tend to use their logic simply due to the fact that here the Dems are more centrist than left. In a blue state other tactics may be needed... that's up to GOTV activists there.

I do know that the way the invasion was conducted has most likely destroyed any possibility we ever had of transforming the government of Iraq successfully. As Nederland has shown by example, we have invaded and successfully transitioned new governments in other countries. I'm not saying I think this is right or good, but the point is that it is what it is.

If we HAD treated this like we actually GAVE A DAMN about the outcome, things might well have gone very differently.

[tinanator]

143. Japan retained its emperor and Germany was split in two

Pretty much the ultimate divide and conquer. Your point is, your point is... what's the word for "horse shit"?

how odd that Nederlands laughable post has no number?
this was in reply to-

<Face it, any social or political structure set up by any invading force is considered illegit, and is torn down once the invaders leave. This fact has been proven over and over again, let us learn from history this time, and stop repeating mistakes like we did in Vietnam.

This is laughably ignorant of history. There are numerous examples of governments that were set up by an invading force that survived quite well. Just look at Japan and Germany. Were those governments considered illegit by their people and get torn down? No. The key is to do the reconstruction right and not fuck it up like the Bush administration is doing.>

[Nederland]

146. My point

...is that there are many examples in which a foreign power invades, eliminates the old regime, and successfully sets up a new government that is acceptable to the local population. A point which you completely and utterly failed to refute in your post.

This does not mean that I support Bush's Iraq policy. I merely was disputing MadHound's contention that Iraq will never accept a government created by the US. They could very well accept such a government, provided the US does it correctly. I doubt very much that Bush will do it correctly, but hold great hope that Kerry will after he kicks Bush's ass in November.

Of course, with "friends" like you and MadHound in the Democratic party, we'll be lucky to see him get a chance.

[tinanator]

149. happy to hear some more examples

I dont think those two were very good. But you should have plenty of others to offer up. Happens all the time. El Salvador? Guatemala? Phillipines? Did real well in East Timores too. Please, give me a few more examples.

[Nederland]

164. Panama

see post #163

[leesa]

128. Yes, indeedy. If the war is illegal we must withdraw.

Why do you pretend the Dems don't want the oil wars as badly as the Republicans?

[rman]

132. wanna bet how long the US will stay there?

-

[Trajan]

2. Kerplunk ....

[emulatorloo]

4. I will worry about this after Kerry is elected

1. Bush GOP hammers the message everyday the Dems are weak and will not protect the US from attacks. So it does not surprise me there is tough language in the dem platform.

2. Kerry will get us out of Iraq faster than Bush. Of this I have no doubt.

3. Kerry reiterates constantly that the US should only go to war if it has to, not just because it wants to (Bush Doctrine).

Anything that helps Bush get re-elected will not acheive anything but more Bush and the implementation of more Bush policies.

[MadHound]

5. Yuppers, it is going to be the LBJ syndrome all over again

Kerry and these New Dems are going to outhawk the chicken hawks, all to prove that they aren't "soft on terror". Besides, it is hard to hammer a sitting president over a war that you voted to prosecute.

Kerry is alread promising to "stay the course" in Iraq, and is stating that he is going to be calling up more troops(40,000 at last count), and will continue the deficit funding of the war. His only concession to the anti-war crowd are vague promises to pull out of Iraq sometime before his first term ends:eyes:

Quite frankly, the closer we get to the elections, the closer the two candidates views converge, and a great many people are left scratching their head wondering what the difference is between them. Yes, I know, I know, there is a modicum of space between the two on some social issues, but quite frankly there is little to distinguish between them when it comes to the war and corporate matters. Both are committed to continuance of the this illegal, immoral occupation/invasion, and both are also fully on board for doling out more money and laws that favor corporations and the rich over the rest of us.

This is what we get, maybe even what we deserve, when we engage in a blind, thoughtless rush to ABB. Kerry may very well have what it takes to beat Bush, but then we are left with a president who is apparently willing to continue Bush's more abhorent policies.

[LittleApple81]

6. But I see it as taking baby steps: if we don't get ABB in, we have B. n/t

[tinanator]

8. what about the baby parts?

legs, heads, arms, whatevers left?

[MadHound]

11. We've been taking baby steps for decades now friend,

And they have all led in the same direction, backwards. We need real progress in this country, but that is not going to be brought about by either party, which are fully beholden to corporations and the wealthy. Instead the priority for both political parties is to keep their corporate masters happy.

What we should work on is getting big business out of government. This can be accomplished in two ways. First by working to make publicly financed elections the law across the land. The second is to not support any party who takes corporate lucre.

[Nlighten1]

18. Indeed...

Appealing to the "middle" or to the "swing voters" has alienated the base of the Democratic party. I'm not suprised they are doing this at all.

[LittleApple81]

21. I would vote for Greens now if the situation weren't so dire. We fell

sleep a long time ago... waking up all of the sudden is not going to happen, in my opinion.

[G_j]

31. I'll tell ya, If Bush wasn't "the worst president ever"

we would be screwed this election, because most everyone I meet is motivated purely by the desire to get rid of the creep.

[redqueen]

72. Dems should be THANKING bush

if he wasn't such a complete IDIOT then they might have to worry about things like DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

What was it Jon Stewart said the other day? About the Democrats always being for things they should have stood up for when it mattered? I know I butchered that...

:(

[G_j]

92. in one sense it is so outlandishly absurd

it might be funny in a Shakespearian tragic comedy sort of way.

Unfortunately too many people have been killed and maimed to be able to laugh for very long.

[redqueen]

94. I'm close to the edge, friend

8000 Africans die EVERY SINGLE DAY of AIDS.

Nobody seems to even give a crap what's going on in Haiti.

I'm numb... just numb.

[G_j]

99. I know

its numbing yet we seem to feel it in every cell of our beings.
pardon me while I scream!!!!

I'm sure you've heard that the good ole Bush admin. is undermining the AIDS battle by pushing abstinence at the expense of all else. :mad:
In India AIDS is spreading at an alarming rate through truck drivers and the sex workers they visit on route. How in the world is the abstinence argument going to change this?

Can you imagine if the money spent the Iraq war (see www.costofwar.com for latest figures) was put towards AIDS drugs and education?

... on the edge too...

[redqueen]

120. It's maddening

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. France called us on attempting to force smaller countries to uphold the patents on AIDS medications... the only thing most people in this country worship is MONEY. Witness the arguments for free trade, even among 'liberals' (but I *like* cheap VCRs!)

:puke:

In response to your question about the cost of war... hell... imagine what it could to for our schools. Imagine what life might be like for American families if our politicians didn't whore themselves out to corporate fatcats... letting them keep the wealth that the people worked for. Now many families have to have two working parents just to get by, and to hell with the kids, stress levels, divorce rates, etc.

[Right Makes Might]

37. Exactly! Tailing after the middle drags us further off course

If the middle is largely uneducated - and mis-educated - about the real situation... should we try to appeal to their wrong understanding of the situation? That's part of the reason the country's become so conservative, because they're being pandered to instead of being educated about the real deal.

There's only one right thing to do. The problem is 1) figuring out what is it and 2) to popularize it.

[Jose Diablo]

109. It is interesting to note the biggest beneficiaries of campaign money

is the media. Most of the campaign money goes to pay for advertising. Where are the advertisements placed, why in the media.

A good first step in campaign financing reform would be to force the media to give candidates free advertising. After all, the media benefits from the 'commons' we the people give the media.

It should not profit the media when elections are held.

[Kanary]

43. How many deaths in a baby step?

We get what we settle for, I guess.

At least it's not *my* son who'll be sacrificed........

Kanary

[LittleApple81]

53. I understand Kanary. But we got the DNC,DLC candidate. And somebody

like Kucinich does not have enough of a political machine to win. So you prefer we lose this election?
I cry for every life lost.

[Kanary]

56. Crying doesn't stop it, does it?

Y'know, we've been friends, but I'm getting really sick of this insinuation that anyone who isn't completely ABB is a deserter to the party. I'm really, really sick of being considered a traitor to both the country and the Dems.

Enough of that, OK????

I'm just as much of a loyal Dem and patriotic citizen as you or anyone else.

Kanary

[LittleApple81]

61. When did I say you were a traitor to the party? I have been a VERY

RELUCTANT backer of Kerry's. I just don't want to have Bush* continue as the head of government.
I don't think you have read my posts where I GOT HAMMERED because I expressed doubts about Kerry's statements.
But I try to be a realist: Do you think that by NOT voting for Kerry the USA will be better of?

[Kanary]

65. Read your post #53

"So you prefer we lose this election?"

I'm so SICK of hearing that kind of crap, over and over and over and over (and it's just about a mirror image of the crap that is being said by the * misadministration), that I can't stand to see it anymore, and am about ready to just say, "Yeah, that's what I want."

Saying that stuff over and over and over and over to people who are working their butts off for the cause is highly insulting.

Just because *you* got hammered doesn't mean you need to do the same to others. Just be honest, and say that you agree with my objections to the choice we were handed. Letting this whole mess come between friends is NOT the way to build a healthier country.

Kanary, sick to death of all the infighting

[redqueen]

68. It hit me this morning

I heard people discussing insurance, of all things.

Here we are having an election between a complete IDIOT and Kerry. If Kucinich was the choice, do people REALLY think we'd lose?

The reason insurance brought this up was because the whores on NPR were going on and on about the high cost of insurance, and how it's killing medium-sized businesses, and how people don't understand the cost of healthcare, and how it's not uniform... not ONE FUCKING WORD about insurance profits... NOT A WORD!

:nuke:

We NEED KUCINICH!

:grr:

Goddamned shortsighted FOOLS!

:puke:

[kiahzero]

74. Most people don't agree with Kucinich on the issues

I agree with him on a significant number of things, but not enough that I would have supported him in the primary.

You want to move the country left? Start on the local level, and go from there. That way it will actually happen.

[redqueen]

79. Horse manure

Most of this country would support single payer insurance, and now, finally, most of this country is realizing the war was a mistake.

Something Kerry and Edwards both failed to do at the outset (WHICH IS THEIR FUCKING JOB), and which Edwards STILL WON'T FUCKING ADMIT.

:nuke:

[kiahzero]

85. Kerry didn't support the war

From what I read and saw from Edwards during the primary, you're pretty much right.

You say that "most of this country would support single payer insurance," but I've seen no evidence of that. I think I remember seeing a poll indicating otherwise, but I could very easily be wrong on this.

[redqueen]

89. No, he didn't support the war

What he did was ignore the role of the OSP, and ignore the FACT that Bush wanted to invade Iraq from day 1! Tell me, how much common sense it would take to figure out that handing bush any kind of plausable deniability ('well Congress said I could!') was a BAD idea?

As for single payer, it's near a plurality (if not one already) based on latest research. And if these WHORES would stop lying to the people, it would be a plurality overnight!

Think about just ONE aspect of it: our competitors don't have to pay for insurance... the government provides it. So that's a subsidy on their businesses when competing for contracts. If we want our businesses to be competitive, and want our people to be healthy, the answer is to adopt the successful models used elsewhere, and stop carrying water for big insurance companies by lying about the true reason for the skyrocketing cost of healthcare. That would resonate across the political spectrum!

But no... insurance lobbyists write nice fat checks to BOTH parties, and nearly ALL media, so you can safely wager that a good portion of the American people will remain ignorant about this issue.

[LittleApple81]

77. We didn't even have a primary. Hard to influence the Dem choice from

Kansas.

[redqueen]

83. Like we even had a choice

Kucinich is loathed by most of his colleagues even in his own party, because it's about money to these bastards, and he's threatening the gravy train.

[Jose Diablo]

103. You got it Redqueen

Its the money, in both parties. Its never about what the people need. Thats why Kucinich didn't have a chance this time around.

The corporate money has corrupted our political process.

[redqueen]

122. Exactly -- corporate cash has infected this country

Kerry is a painkiller, but certainly NOT the cure.

[LittleApple81]

81. I agree with you. Infighting does not help. And that is what this

two-party, both corporate dominated, political system has done for us. I still want Bush out, but Kerry, despite his very liberal voting record, would not have been my choice, nor do I think that Democrats in congress represent us. So whom do you want to vote for?

[Kanary]

91. All I ask is that you don't insult me.

It isn't the "system" that did that.

OK?

Kanary

[tinanator]

7. especially if you think about it

Without a pledge to immediate executive action, EVERYTHING Kerry might try to do outside of that is going to be subject to Republican congressional approval. SO, if there ARE any social issues he would like to do differently, he is going to find it mighty fucking hard.
Strangely, there is NO (ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, SQUAT et al) emphasis on making the critical changes in the Congress and the Senate. Swapping one President for another is more symbolic than effective if congressional control isnt at stake in this election.

[CWebster]

17. Its a dickstrutting contest

Meanwhile no one is representing the will of the majority of the people who increasingly are of the view that withdrawing from Iraq might be a wiser course.

A nation of "purists"?

What do us common folk matter, it is the elites who know what is best for us, huh?

[Cat Atomic]

30. Yep. You've got a choice between:

"We invaded Iraq and we're there to stay and it's all fantastic!"

and

"We invaded Iraq and we're there to stay and it's not exactly how I would've done it but oh well."

[kiahzero]

52. More accurately

"We invaded Iraq because I listened to the voice in my head rather than the American people, and we're there to stay and it's not as bad as the news would make it seem."

Compared with:

"The guy before me fucked up Iraq, which I can't really do anything about. So we're stuck with his bad decision, which means we're there to stay."

[Seth Gecko]

12. the party has never claimed to be anti-war

how can they drop what they never pretended to be?

[Kanary]

58. *NOW* we find that out....

So, I guess there wasn't as much difference between the parties as we've been led to believe......?

Kanary

[Freddie Stubbs]

173. Kerry never pretended to be against this war

Why is anyone surprised?

[redqueen]

16. Swing voters are the most important now, CW says

so color me shocked, shocked!

:eyes:

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

26. I'm hangin' in tillwe get the white house and congress back then i'm

finding a more progressive party. The dems are the lesser of 2 evils - but evil none the less.

[Blue Wally]

32. which will give the country back to the Republicans...........

n/t

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

36. How so?

[Blue Wally]

45. mathematics

If you remove the left from the Democratic Party, you will give a plurality to the Republicans.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

48. what do you suggest?

[kiahzero]

57. Do what the righties did with the Republican Party

Build from the ground up. Take over local offices, and go from there. Move the party to the left the rational way, rather than the silly "Let's run a candidate with no hope every four years" method that seems to be so popular.

[Blue Wally]

73. You have to make a "long march" ...........

You need a truly resounding defeat at all levels to do it. That is what the Republicans went through in 1964 where they lost in the presidential race and were reduced to tiny minorities in the House and Senate. The right wing was then able to rebuild the party from the ground up.

Right now we are like an ageing sports team that "almost" reaches the championship and each year tries to find the elusive free agent that will put us over the top. If the left wants to truly take over the party, they have to really let things go to hell for a few years and rebuild with rookies.

[redqueen]

87. This is exactly right

I only hope that this increased attention to politics lasts. If it doesn't we can look forward to increasing corporate domination for the forseeable future. You can't force people to care, to learn.

[kiahzero]

88. OK, that we can agree on

At least there's a little bit of common ground on this thread. :D

[Blue Wally]

93. I didn't say I wanted to go to the left

My answer to the question was to give the tactics in order to make it happen. I am a centrist Democrat in terms of economics and culture and significantly to the right on national defense (like the late Sen Scoop Jackson).

[redqueen]

97. That's something too many of us have forgotten

Those whose exposure to politics happened after the Reagan era of turning our country into a debtor nation with fewer and fewer rights for people and more and more rights for corporations see everything as us vs. them.

Mostly any two people can find SOMETHING to agree on. Unfortunately, it benefits the powers that be for us to be divided amongst ourselves. God forbid we ever realize we have enough in common with our splinter groups to unite.

Sorry if I've offended, was never my intention. :hi:

[tinanator]

145. Not exactly

I was thinking about a post or piece called "US vs Them".
What we have is left versus right as the distracting divide, while what is truly the case and needs to be recognized is "US vs Them"
Them being the corporate conglomerate political oligarchy, and US being all the legitimate citizens of the United States. Make this the division, and we will conquer. Left versus right is in Their favor.

[redqueen]

170. Oh yes

Exactly right. Notice the post about Clinton's no-bid contracts for Halliburton in Kosovo. The right gets outraged about that, and we get outraged about Bush's no-bid contracts for Halliburton in Iraq.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of both sides kneejerking and defending 'their team', we actually agreed with our fellow Americans and say, yes, it was wrong for Clinton to do, and it's wrong for Bush to do? The only problem is... where do you go from there? What are our other options? In the current state of affairs (two-party system, money rules all), it becomes easier to understand why some of our fellow citizens choose the blue pill.

:(

[bigbillhaywood]

151. Nice Mao quote. When advocating similar strategies, I call it a

"long war". Two gift certificates for Carrabas Italian Grill if you can tell me where that term came from (googling is cheating).

[Blue Wally]

156. When Mao........

was faced with defeat by the Kuomingtang forces, he and his closest followers set off on a "long march" into the remotest parts of Yunnan province. Quite a few died along the way. The Chicoms (you can tell I grew up in the fifties) slowly recovered theirstrength htere and began to move back and eventually took over China. In Mao's China, the topspots were always reserved for people who had made the "long march" as opposed to those who joined later on. No google, I am just a voracious reader of history.

[Forkboy]

119. I'm out too

enough is enough

[Alpha Wolf]

213. Who gets the white house and congress back?

The Repugs-in-sheep's-clothing Democrats? Gee, I can't wait.

Let's see, they have a presidential ticket now with a P and VP who BOTH voted for the war in Iraq and who BOTH refused to vote against the Amendment proposal to ban gay marriage.

We're such suckers. Even me. They know I'll vote for them because I have nowhere else to go. We really need a third party revolution in this country.

[Mari333]

35. Is it going to take the mothers and fathers of the soldiers

literally walking into Iraq and grabbing their kids by the neck and saying OKAY THATS IT NO MORE....
and taking our kids home??
I think so.
This is bullshit, and its time for our kids to come home.
Its going to take the moms and decent dads to do it.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[redqueen]

40. It seems that nobody cares what you, the familes of these soldiers, think

What matters is playing politics.

And 'round and 'round we go. It's like 1927 all over again.

But hey! They're swimmin' in a sea of oil, dont'cha know!

:grr:

[kiahzero]

44. Who's playing?

This isn't a game to me, and I doubt it's a game to anyone else discussing this here.

[redqueen]

47. It's a game to the players

We're just pawns.

[G_j]

55. damn, I wish it wasn't so simple

but it is.. :-(

[kiahzero]

59. Speak for yourself (n/t)

[Mari333]

62. Seems like none of them care

they follow the money..its going to take the American people to stop this war



http://www.forusa.org/programs/iraq/iraq-photoproject-statement.html

[redqueen]

67. No... just like Vietnam -- they'll shoot us, but the soldiers they NEED

We can rally and protest until the cows come home. How long before another Kent State?

But the rally in Austin gives hope. When the SOLDIERS refuse to serve (burning draft cards, going to jail rather than fight an illegal war for OIL), they have no choice...

[Mari333]

71. Like I said..its going to take the soldiers refusing and the parents

telling their sons and daughters..Dont go
or going to Iraq, ourselves, and bringing our kids home.

[redqueen]

78. Definitely

I thought when you referred to the American people you were referring to peace protesters. Like the ones that were on the terrorist no-fly lists.

[whosinpower]

69. The Americans should leave Iraq NOW

Any sort of peace that can be cobbled up with the occupation forces is a false peace anyways. And any government that works with the US is going to be seen by the Iraqi people as a puppet government.

Get out now and get it over with. Let the chips fall where they may. I think the biggest issue with the insurgency is that there are infidels occupying their homeland. So get out. The longer the US stays the worse it gets. It would be very beneficial if there was a middle eastern neighbor that offered to help with security in the interim.....the US has not one shred of credibility in the middle east - and the UN is seen as a puppet to the US and rightly so. They FAILED the Iraqi people too. They were not forceful enough to deter the war, and it was they that imposed sanctions.

[Geo55]

84. It's the OIL , stupid

And NOBODY is leavin' til the last drop is controlled.

[redqueen]

86. Exactly. n/t

[Deja Q]

191. Without oil, most of us would die.

We should have learned in the 1970s not to rely on it. Carter started doing the right thing. Reagan quickly turned things around, calling alternative energy "obsolete".

From CDs to hairbrushes to cars to trucks to fertilizers to skin ointments to food, petroleum is in our very way of life. Something like 60% of the oil we need comes from the Middle East. Now imagine our economy and way of life without that 60%.

Now corporate america and the repukes should be hung out to dry for the quagmire they put us all in, but that won't happen. Our lives are dependent on the damn stuff and unless there is a way to substitute our need for it with something else, the end is inevitable.

And you know oil companies are investing anything at all only so they can be sure to retain their wealth and power and control when the inevitable does happen.

It's also been said that within 20 years at the current rate (and we all know our economy depends on expansion and increased turn on delivery), the world's need of the toxic slop will have increased by 40%. In other words, it'll be long before 20 years that our need for the slop goes up 40%.

Oh, I could say a lot more but I think the messages are quite clear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Don't mention the war - the "moderates" get upset.

After all, what's a few lives, as long as we achieve party unity?

[Selwynn]

105. What a bunch of disingenuous bullshit

Believing that "cut and run" is not the best solution DOES NOT EQUAL PRO WAR.

Jesus Christ on a stick.

[redqueen]

108. Articles like this are self-defeating

Read your earlier post about being unsure but not pro-war. You're right of course.

*sigh*

[sangh0]

112. Like Bush*, and all other extremists

they have no appreciation (or recognition) for nuance. According to the extremists, you're either with them (anti-war) or against them (pro-war). There's nothing in between

[redqueen]

123. Emotions

Push people's buttons and you can always count on some to react. Hell I did it in this thread too.

*sigh*

[LoZoccolo]

106. You bet! WAR! WAR! WE LOVE WAR!

:bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party:
:toast: :thumbsup: :toast: :thumbsup: :toast: :thumbsup: :toast: :thumbsup:

WOOOO-HOOOO!

[sangh0]

113. "drop"??

Since when were democrats "anti-war"???

[GirlinContempt]

144. DEAR EVERYONE

Why not let the Iraqi's vote on what they want.
You gave them democracy.
If they want you there, stay.
If they say get out, leave.

Simple, I know.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

147. Fine but the real question is what Americans want in America

And it seems pretty clear that no antiwar candidate remains
in the race in America besides Nader. So if people are against
the war they should vote for him. If they are not, then vote
for Kerry. I doubt that anyone wants to vote for Bush.

[redqueen]

174. LMAO! Vote for Nader if you want four more years of BUSH!

Nice try, though... NOT!

:eyes:

[Suzi Creamcheese]

If you are that much against the war, vote for Nader

He is explicitly against the war as is Camejo.

If not, vote for Kerry, who voted for the war in Iraq and says he wants to win it most of the time. I think Edwards did too.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, unless you can't make your mind up whether you are against the war or not. Then you would probably be best off voting for Kerry because he has the same position.

Just don't vote for Bush.

[tinanator]

150. that would be like pissing up a wall

If your vote doesnt go towards a party you can fully support, and wish to see in power, than you are truly wasting it. That is, if it doesnt get coerced, stolen or mislaid instead.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

If you are that much against the war, vote for Nader

He is explicitly against the war as is Camejo.

If not, vote for Kerry, who voted for the war in Iraq and says he wants to win it most of the time. I think Edwards did too.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, unless you can't make your mind up whether you are against the war or not. Then you would probably be best off voting for Kerry because he has the same position.

Just don't vote for Bush.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

148. If you are that much against the war, vote for Nader

He is explicitly against the war as is Camejo.

If not, vote for Kerry, who voted for the war in Iraq and says he wants to win it most of the time. I think Edwards did too.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, unless you can't make your mind up whether you are against the war or not. Then you would probably be best off voting for Kerry because he has the same position.

Just don't vote for Bush.

[tedzbear]

153. OK Suzi, enough already!!!!

:kick:

[Jacobin]

171. Could you repeat that one more time?

I couldn't read it the first three times.

:-)

[White Feather]

180. Given the Electronic Voting Scam...

everyone needs to vote for Kerry. Voting for anyone else is just a waste. It's going to be a really close election if the Iraq situation and the economy stay generally the way they are.

Walt

[White Feather]

172. We're in a Fix

We can't really pull out of Iraq. We decapitated the leadership. We have to stay there.

People that want to unilaterally pull out are not being reasonable. It's a sad state of affairs, but there it is. What we need to do long term is develop alternative energy sources. But no one is really very excited about that, so we've got to maintain stability and continuity of the oil production, or we'll be screwed economically.

We never should have invaded Iraq, and the Bushies made a hash of it, even notwithstanding WMD/Al Qaeda link, but it's our baby now.

Walt

[CWebster]

176. This is the same claim they made in Viet Nam

nothing ever changed and years went by and thousands of my generation died.

For what? It could've ended years before it did--It just dragged on and on.

What do we expect to fix by illegally attacking, killing untold numbers of Iraqis, destroying property and heritage, robbing their resources, torturing their people? If they don't want us there, we can at least honor them by leaving and NOT expect them to foot the bill for the privilige of having their country destroyed, poisoned and occupied.

[White Feather]

178. No, it is not the same as Viet Nam at all

We had no vital economic interest in Viet Nam. In Iraq (or rather in regional stability) we definitely do.

Walt

[CWebster]

183. regional stability for what or for who?

Israel?

[White Feather]

200. Regional Stability so we can get affordable energy

And we're all addicted to that.

Walt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

206. So, what's wrong with going cold turkey?

Works well for other addictions.

[White Feather]

209. Countries don't go cold turkey

The thing is that it would irresponsible of Senator Kerry to just say we are pulling out, or for us to pull out.

The Bushies made a bad mess, but now we have to clean it up.

Walt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

210. It's time to leave.

I agree that we must clean up the mess. However, the military is far more adept at making messes than cleaning them up. Get the troops out or under UN control and get the peacekeepers in and let the Iraqis decide what is needed.

Otherwise, we'll be watching that last helicopter lifting off from the embassy.

[White Feather]

212. It is -not- time to leave Iraq.

That is unrealistic.

We have the best troops in the world. But you have to have good civilian leadership. History shows that a poor military can muddle through if you have good civilian leadership. The reverse is not true. It is simplistic to just say, "let's bail out."

And U.S. troops should never be under UN control as such. Never. That particular postions freaks out a lot of Americans and rightly so.

Walt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

214. Why is being under UN control so frightening?

Would you rather have them under the control of Rummy and the Pentagon?

Having been "one of the best troops in the world", I would have to rather heartily disagree after a good laugh. "Best" at what? They are adept at shooting up the countryside and anyone that is unfortunate enough to get in the way. At peacekeeping they are even less able than the Brits who have a pretty lousy record themselves.

As for not "bailing out" that's like keeping the Mafia around to clean up the bank they robbed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

186. But, it will end the same as Vietnam

We will, eventually, be thrown out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

185. Oil for lives? Our baby?

Screwed economically? We're pouring billions into Iraq to keep our dominance. The Iraqis keep blowing up the pipelines despite our efforts to "stabilize" the country.

I'm not an economist, but it seems like the economic gains were getting from Iraq are a bit slim and likely to get a lot slimmer when they throw us out.

[Deja Q]

192. See post #191. We can't pull out...

1. We need to fix the country we broke.

2. If we did pull out, the bad guys would understandably destroy the pipelines and do what they can to get rid of oil permanently. They don't rely on it. We do. We more than simply rely on it, a lot of us would die because oil is in everything we use and grow to eat...


In short, they will have won the war because of our petrolleum achilles' heel. All they need do is wait anyway but * has hastened the process.

$5 a gallon by the end of the year is not out of the question if the pipelines have to be guarded constantly...

Reagan called alternative energy "obsolete". * wants consumption. These people are evil, they do not believe in the sanctity of life. Only the sanctity of a cheap profit. And their stupidity has cost us our lives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

205. Alternative energy? Sure. But, the price of oil is too high.

Perhaps the the higher price of oil would drive this country to finally develop alternative energy.

But, $5 a gallon isn't too high. The cost in blood is.

I'm all for fixing Iraq...by peaceful means. And, it won't be peaceful until we get our troops out.

[Freddie Stubbs]

175. Kerry and Edwards never had any "Antiwar pretensions"

to begin with. Some in the party had these pie in the sky fantisies that the party would adopt a platform that contridicted the position of the nominee.

[CWebster]

177. Oh I see,

so Kerry and Edwards support Bush?

[Freddie Stubbs]

179. No, but they don't disagree with him on 100% of issues

They don't oppose the war, they oppose the way in which it was conducted.

[CWebster]

182. Ahh yes

If the execution of the war was handled differently, it would make it more legitimate--like if we sent in more troops to kill more people and destroy more homes and infrastructure?

[Freddie Stubbs]

187. They never said that it was illegitimate

Only a few of the candidates running for President said that, and the Democratic voters rejected those men and women.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

190. So, does that make it legitimate?

I think not..and so does most of the rest of the world. Iraq included.

[Freddie Stubbs]

197. What makes a war legitamate/illegitimate?

Would it have been legitamite for France to invade Germany in 1936 due to Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland? Germany hadn't taken any French land. But if France had put a stop to it things would have turned out quite differently.

[redqueen]

198. OMFG!

:grr:

PLEASE tell me you did not just quote Bu$hspin! (comparing Saddam to Hitler) PLEASE!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

208. He certanly is not on the level of Hitler

But Hitler is a prime example of where a preemtive war would have been a good thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

202. Actually, yes.

Under the Versailles treaty, France could have invaded Germany due to their remilitarization.

But, comparing the situation in Iraq to what was going on in Europe in '36 is disengenuous at best. Britain, France's fellow guarantor of the Treaty had just signed a Naval Pact with Germany. The League of Nations had ignored Germany's rearmament with France and Germany merely condemning it.

Iraq was (and is) quite a different situation. Iraq was (and is) a 3rd world country with a prostrate military that threatened nobody except it's own citizens.

There was simply no legitimate reason for invading Iraq, just as there is no legitimate reason for the continued occupation.

It is also interesting to note that Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland as a pre-emptive action because France had signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Something like, the false allegation of the Saddam/Osama connection.

[westsidexview]

184. democrats can't be out gung hoed

democrats must win in november. whatever it takes. take no prisoners, shoot your own malcontents, retreaters, and loudmouths who give the enemy a target line on your true position.

[White Feather]

201. Don't shoot 'em........

until after they vote.


Walt

[Alpha Wolf]

211. This is not surprising -- Welcome to Republican Lite

We have got to stop letting ourselved be taken for granted by the DNC.