What should the US do about Iraq now?

[UdoKier]

What should the US do about Iraq now?

[blm]

1. GOP needs Kerry torn down to stunt the DSM investigation. They thank you

for your continued efforts in that regard.

[UdoKier]

3. Yeah, that's it.

Because Kerry is now the standard-bearer for progressives? heh.

Funny, how I see NOTHING in the headlines about DSM....


By the way, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of US went out and protested to try to STOP them from voting for the IWR. And Kerry and Clinton SPAT on us. You expect me to forgive that?

[blm]

12. Couldn't be that Bush failed to implement the IWR honestly could it?

Blame the IWR instead of the president that didn't follow its guidelines to PREVENT war...how interesting.

Especially since Bonifaz testified that Bush should be impeached BECAUSE of the IWR's guideline that said Bush must declare he determined Iraq to be a national security threat AFTER the weapons inspections proved otherwise. Bush wrote an OFFICIAL document as per the IWR and it is a FALSE STATEMENT...an OFFICIAL false staement (which a DSM investigation will prove) and which is an impeachable offense.

[UdoKier]

16. We all knew Bush was a lying thug back then. That's why MILLIONS

protested.

Sure, Bush should be impeached. And in a just world, so should every single republican and "democrat" who voted for that war resolution.

[blm]

22. Keep going about it YOUR way and Bush will never be held accountable.

Your way is to trash every Democrat FIRST and Bush as an afterthought.

We already have a GOP controlled media doing that here.

YOUR way is to ensure that Kerry's senate DSM investigation doesn't get the support it needs from people at forums like this one who are crucial to this battle.

[UdoKier]

24. Keep going at it YOUR way and thousands more troops will die in Iraq

for a total lie.

I have bashed Kerry, not "every democrat". The DSM seems to be going nowhere with no help from me. I don't see Kerry making a big stink about it. When he does, he'll have my commendation.

But RIGHT NOW, he his calling for more troops and a prolonged occupation. Are you suggesting I lie and say that he's right?

[blm]

33. He's trying to cut the time in Iraq, not prolong it. YOUR way to attack

Kerry ensures that Bush's way is the ONLY way.

[UdoKier]

44. For the time being, it is the only way.

If the democrats had acted like democrats and voted unanimously against IWR, they would have moral ground to stand on now in demanding a full and immediate withdrawal.

We probably would've gained seats in 2004, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. When did Kerry call for Bush's impeachment? I must've missed it.

[blm]

36. A senate DSM investigation, which you are working to destroy, could make

Bush be held accountable.

YOUR way of constant attacks on Kerry only helps BushInc keep a senate investigation from gaining any traction.

[UdoKier]

40. Who's criticized the investigation of DSM?

If I have any criticism, it's that the investigation is so low-key and not more wide-ranging.

If the DSM is a smoking gun, there are smoking guns all over the damn place. On videotape, in the public record. This gang lied constantly in the run-up to the war. It's quite easily demonstrable. The DSM is just another piece on the huge pile of evidence.

[blm]

45. And how does the GOP work? They destroy the messenger. YOU work against

Kerry and you are helping the GOP destroy the messenger. Whether you realize it or not.

My point is always that we should be mindful what we say or do that helps in any way further the goal of BushInc. Us LONGTIME battlers against Bush are fully aware of how they work and how they target Kerry especially, since he has the longest track record against them.

[UdoKier]

47. Then we have a difference of opinion.

Nothing I could do could help Bush as much as Kerry, Clinton, Biden, etc's IWR vote did.

I've been at this a while too. When Kerry starts to show some real results, I'll commend him for it - LOUDLY.

[blm]

52. The IWR wasn't needed for Bush to go into Iraq. They were going in anyway

based on the original UN resolution from 1991. The IWR was the only thing that COULD have stopped an invasion, and would have if Bush had implemented it honestly.

Rove is the one who claimed that IWR meant Democrats supported war unconditionally so people would put the onus on the Dems instead of seeing the truth, that Bush was not working within the guidelines of the IWR.

Read Bonifaz' testimony to Conyers a couple weeks ago. Use the IWR to impeach Bush and don't let Rove win the spin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Batshit. How does my criticism of Kerry stop him from doing anything?

Or, anyone else's for that matter? And, when will Bush be "held accountable" as you so naively believe. If Kerry want's Bush impeached, or arrested, or anything else, let him call for it.

In the meantime he can stop calling for more troops and justifying and funding the occupation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Kerry voted for the war and is still trying to justify it.

Oh, wait..Kerry believed Bush wasn't going to use those thousands of troops tanning themselves in Kuwait.

Kerry's "solution"? Investigate the DSM and send more troops to Iraq, despite the obvious, (that was obvious when he voted for the war), that the invasion was illegal and immoral.

Brilliant! Kill more Iraqis to stop the killing! Worked so well in Vietnam.

[sandnsea]

28. To stunt everything Democrats say

I am more amazed every day that this country functions at all. I do understand why I can't get the right order at the drive-thru though, so that's something.

[rocktivity]

2. Mercenaries and contractors out first.

The U.S. military has managed to equip and feed themselves for over two hundred years. Fire Halliburton, and have them refund every dime they overcharged us.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Greyhound]

4. in spite of your attempt at humor(?) Kerry's plan seems workable n/t

[BillZBubb]

5. Other: Tell them we are gone in six months.

They need to get their act together.

We will support any government they choose, so long as it doesn't support terrorist activities.

[Stand and Fight]

6. Enough with your Kerry bashing.

It is quickly becoming pathetic and increasingly more maligned in content. I mean, don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[UdoKier]

8. I guess not.

But when the run-up to 2008 starts, I will actively campaign against his nomination.

I would actually like someone besides a Republican to win this time.

[MemphisTiger]

17. With democrats like you who needs republicans

EDIT: Sorry about that comment, I've just seen too much Kerry bashing and it's counterproductive to our efforts. We need to keep DSM in the news and not get side tracked.

[UdoKier]

29. Whatever.

I understand how you feel.

Bush is wrecking the country, the dems are neutered and sold out.

Everybody is pissed. I just don't think Kerry cares all that much. I don't buy it.

A lot of people believe in him. Sorry, but I just don't.

[Stand and Fight]

30. You're the best player on the Republican team then. n/t

[UdoKier]

41. No, I want the best for our country.

I am no longer a partisan democrat because the party is sold out beyond redemption. When they show some decency and backbone, I support them.

I assume you are saying my "Naderishness" is helping the GOP, not that I'm a freeper, right? Because accusing people of that is against posting rules.

[Lexingtonian]

46. no

You're just uselessly obsessive about one facet of our problems with a simplistic Leftist agenda to boot, and clue-deficient on the larger political and historical picture. Which happens to be the definition of Naderism if you throw in some stealth conservatism.

[UdoKier]

49. So railing against a pro-war democrat for being pro-war makes me a

"stealth conservative"? LOL.

[Lexingtonian]

53. nice red herring

But in all your foolish moralizing and selfrighteousness you unconscionably neglect any duty Americans might have toward Iraqis.

In that sense Kerry is doing better in my book than you are.

[Stand and Fight]

50. No...

I am saying that actively campaigning against a Democrat is worthy of being dubbed "the best player on the Republican team."

I agree with you that Democrats -- not just in the nation's capital, but nationally -- lack backbone. I think that it is a dose of too much decency that keeps them quiet. Let's not forget that they are beholden to corporations rather than the American people. Democrats are overly timid and it makes them appear weak and ineffectual in contrast with the right-wing noise machine. Whereas Republicans rightly see politics as war, most Democrats continue to see it as nuanced dammed debate. The gloves have to come off and I agree with you there, friend.

I am not calling nor hinting at you being a FReeper and I've no problem with Ralph Nader whatsoever. However, your consistent attacks on Democrats -- John Kerry specifically -- are NOT helping our cause as much as you pouring said energy into speaking out against the Republicans as vehemently as you have Kerry. We have to motivate other Democrats and our representatives, and make them realize that we our in a battle for the very soul of this country.

You say the party is “sold out beyond redemption,” but you exhaust so much energy attacking members when they don’t see things your way. Well, that is hot-damn childish. It’s like you’re throwing a bloody tantrum because mommy won’t buy your favorite lollypop. If the party is “sold out beyond redemption,” why the hell do you stick around and bring down those who are continuing the fight?

Besides, if you’re no longer a “partisan Democrat” -- and that is an ambiguous term if ever there was one – leave the party. Go! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass. As for me, we have to do the best we can with the representation we have in Congress. I’m not going to throw a bloody hissy fit when things get difficult. I’m sure as hell not going to attack John Kerry just because he doesn’t act on cue or say things as forcefully as I would say them.

Lastly, if you want the best for our country, work with us, not against us. We're delighted to have your help, but you've got to release that nothing great is ever accomplished without a lot of hard work. We're fighting a hard battle against the Bush administration and their minions, and we need all the help we can get. However, it's counterproductive to have to deal with a someone who is consistently pulling in the OPPOSITE direction when we're all driving toward a unified goal.

WE WANT OUR AMERICA BACK!

I believe you are with us on this, friend.

[FSogol]

7. Fire Halliburton and lets get our money back.

Outsourcing military operations is a major mistake.

[slackmaster]

9. I can't believe how many of us are in favor of immediate pullout

Remember what Colin Powell said - If you break it, you own it.

We broke it. If we don't fix it or make damn sure someone else does, the result will be total chaos.

[UdoKier]

10. We are not fixing it.

We are giving Halliburton and Bechtel BILLIONS to do work that the Iraqis could have done for pennies on the dollar themselves. THEY DON'T NEED US.

Why are so many of the defenders of this illegal occupation so convinced that Iraqis are such animals?

[slackmaster]

14. Most Iraqis are not animals, but clearly some of them are

The "insurgents" are killing far more of their fellow Iraqis than they are members occuping forces. And notice how most of the people who are getting killed happen to be Shiites and Kurds. Does anyone think the car bombings and other attacks would stop if the US withdrew? That's insane.

Iraq has a huge security problem. We owe it to them to help fix that before we can be justified in pulling out.

[UdoKier]

18. We owe them the courtesy of getting out.

The UN could handle security, and it wouldn't cause the resentment that an illegal occupying army does.

[slackmaster]

20. That would suit me

UN or anyone but us.

[TX-RAT]

38. If the UN would do it.,no problem.

[MemphisTiger]

19. I agree

we created this mess, and we need to fix it before we wash our hands of it. I'd love for the troops to come home now, but Bushco got his illegal war and we are stuck with it now.

[Selatius]

43. Funny how you ignore where the most car bombs and suicide bombers have hit

If you will note, it is areas in and around Iraqi National Guard locations and Iraqi police stations that have been hit by car bombs and suicide bombers the most. Civilian casualties are the result because they are in urban areas, but the fact that they died outside these places is not lost on Iraqis or anyone on the ground. I can't count how many times I've seen reports of car bombs and suicide bombers going after police stations and Iraqi guardsmen and kill them but also end up killing several civilians nearby.

Besides, you don't even know if it is the bulk of the Iraqi resistance that is doing this or if it is only limited to the religious militants, foreign fighters, and ex-Ba'athists and ex-Fedayeen. These groups are the ones who don't give a flying fuck who gets in the way, but you should be careful not to imply that they represent the entire resistance front given that you don't know its composition to begin with.

[slackmaster]

56. Bottom line still stands - Most people being killed are Iraqis

n/t

[Selatius]

57. Are you talking about the entire war or just recently?

Cause the Lancet study pretty much disagrees with the assessment. Most of those died as a result of US action.

Those Iraqi police stations and guardsmen are being attacked because they are seen as an extension of the US occupation forces.

[slackmaster]

59. Just recently - all the daily car bombings

Those Iraqi police stations and guardsmen are being attacked because they are seen as an extension of the US occupation forces.

The Iraqis doing the killing think it's OK to kill those Iraqis. They're still Iraqis killing other Iraqis.

Civilized people don't kill their fellow citizens for collaborating with an enemy. French resistance fighters during World War II understood that people who cooperated with the Vichy government were mostly good people who were trying to survive.

[Selatius]

60. They're killing those Iraqis because they are seen as traitors

Just look back into history at all the colonial powers who have struggled with homegrown nationalist resistance groups. In a good number of cases, those who were seen as collaborating with the foreign power, of aiding and abetting the foreign alien force, have been targeted because they are not considered as "one of them" but as "traitors."

This was seen again during US involvement in Viet Nam. Vietnamese who were seen as collaborators with the US were routinely targeted for execution and murder and bombings. Have you forgotten the daily bombings that went on in Saigon during that war?

You can even look back at US history for examples, specifically the violent clashes between the Loyalists and the Revolutionaries.

As far as your citation of the French Resistance, while it may be true that groups such as the Free French Forces did not target Frenchmen who were collaborating with Nazi Germany, it may not hold true with other resistance groups in France at the time as well. The French Resistance wasn't a single organization but a front made up of several groups, and not all of them followed the same methods. This generally held true throughout most of Occupied Europe.

I am not saying that I necessarily support the targeted attacks against ING positions and bases and police stations but that targeting of "traitors" is a phenomenon that can and has happened in guerrilla warfare.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. We don't "own" Iraq because we broke it. The Iraqis own it.

The "fix it" nonsense is the same excuse that Nixon used to continue the war in Vietnam, with the added hypocrisy of the coming "bloodbath" if we stopped killing people.

[slackmaster]

15. We own their security situation

Iraqis are being killed mostly by other Iraqis.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. And, our "helping" them has driven the death rate up, not down.

So, we add to the killing by venturing out of our strongholds to kill more Iraqi "terrorists" and arm one side in the civil war.

Black is white. War is peace.

[slackmaster]

55. What do you think would happen if the US suddenly withdrew?

I'm interested in your honest opinion.

[Kraklen]

26. I can't believe people are in favor of staying.

Do they really think it's going to make anything better? Was the fall of Saigon any better because of how long we stayed?

[Selatius]

35. It's already chaos on the ground

Would you like to take a walk in the countryside outside Baghdad? Would you like to take a walk outside the Green Zone? No? Then that, my friend, is not order but chaos. The Iraqis have rejected us, and no amount of goodwill on our part is going to make them stop fighting us short of actually seeing us withdraw.

Too many civilians have died, and as a result, there's plenty of people out there shooting at US soldiers because they lost members of their family...because of our falling bombs and tremendous firepower. The longer the fighting continues, the more civilian casualties will be inflicted, and that would mean even more people with a good enough reason to seek revenge after burying their dead. We reduced Fallujah to an urban wasteland pock-marked full of craters and bullet holes, but do you honestly think they are grateful for us bringing "order" to that city? Or do you think they're pissed because we ripped their lives apart in an insane act of war? You want to repeat that situation in Ramadi, Karbalah, Najaf, and Baghdad?

"You break it, you own it" only goes so far until the pile of dead bodies gets too high. You say it, but you have to understand that what you are truly proposing is a cure that, for many Americans, is as bad as the illness.

Gen. Shinseki said before the war would begin that we would need an occupation force of "several hundred thousand" troops to properly secure the country. There is no way we can muster a force that, for instance, would most likely number close to 500,000 for SEVERAL YEARS without seriously looking at compulsory military service.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Enough BS "plans" to continue the occupation. OUT NOW!

The Kerry, Biden, Hillary, etc, "plan" is the same one that Nixon used in Vietnam. All they need to do is call it "Peace with honor" and continue the killing.

[sandnsea]

23. Kerry called for troop withdrawal THIS SUMMER

Too bad people didn't give a shit about that when he put out his plan last year and were, and still are, more concerned with their own political agenda than the troops or the Iraqis. He and Wes Clark are the only ones who have ever put forward a plan that would work and get us out of Iraq.

[UdoKier]

27. PARTIAL troop withdrawal.

NT

[sandnsea]

32. Who called for anything else????

No fucking body, that's who. And beginning to withdraw troops NOW is a damned site better than what we've got or can expect to get.

Congratulations. The blood is now on YOUR hands.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. I did. And, so have millions of others.

If Kerry and the other politicians really want the troops out, let see them start voting against the funding of the occupation.

[UdoKier]

37. Uh, hello. I would've voted AGAINST the IWR.

As would anyone with a half a brain.

[sandnsea]

48. This is about the war

Not the vote. Is the DSM case about Bush saying he had no plans for war and that the IWR was not a vote for war; while actually planning a war behind everybody's back? You have to stick to a story if you're ever going to hold him accountable for lying us into a war.

Your poll asked about now. You had polls up last year to advance your same political agenda. Your agenda is all you care about. Well, enjoy it. You refused to acknowledge that none of the leftists had a plan for Iraq in 1998 or 2002 or last year or now. Just bitch and moan, that's all the left ever does.

[Selatius]

51. No, I see the IWR vote and the war itself as connected

You cannot ask for war and then play the peacemaker in the same go. Bush would never have had the cover to advance his war had it not been for the IWR. Nobody allowed the weapons inspectors on the ground to do their damn job.

I am sorry, but that doesn't fly with me, and it certainly won't in my household, especially after Viet Nam.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Stop funding the occupation. That's what the policiticans can do.

If they had the courage. Which is like saying if the Mafia had ethics.

[TX-RAT]

42. Just once i'd like someone to ask the troops if we should pull out.

I wonder what they would say?

[Stirk]

54. No more reconstruction money for western corporations.

It has to go to Iraqi businesses, and they can not be connected in any way to our esteemed war profiteers. All Iraq oil contracts are null and void. Period. Stop robbing the place and keeping the country in poverty, and you may see a slight easing of tensions.

But there really is no easy, fast, or clean solution.