Repubs ask, "Well, what would the Democrats do in Iraq?"

[kentuck]

As if the Democrats have to say what they would do to get us out of this mess, otherwise they have no credibility. It's much like the scout in the old wagon train days. His job was to find the best route to get the passengers to their destination. If he got lost, he did not look at the travelers and demand that they offer a route to get them out of the mess they were in. That was his job. If the travelers were lost, they had every right in the world to criticize the scout.

Even if the Democrats had a strategy to get us out of this mess, they should not give it to George W Bush. He would simply use it in a political way. He would say, "I only did what the Democrats said to do and now they want to complain". Well, George, you are the scout. You got us into this mess and it is your job to get us out of it. The Democrats have no responsibility to get your nuts out of the fire.

[Divernan]

1. 1st thing:turn over Bush and his cabal to a war crimes tribunal,

while at the same time offering our deepest apologies to the rest of the world for his actions since appointed.

[Hawkeye-X]

14. Here's what I'd do if I was a Democrat

and I'm not giving * credit if he steals this idea because I know he won't use it.

First, if I was a Dem President stuck with the quagmire in Iraq, here's the thing. We need to re-establish ALL diplomacy that * has insulted, such as France, Germany, and the other countries that has said, "FUCK NO" to *'s war. Once the diplomacy is re-established, then a UN-mandated meeting to discuss the Iraq handover to the UN and agree to pay billion dollars PER YEAR in UN discretionary funds until Iraq is capable of independence without help.

This way, the truly multi-national force can help rebuild Iraq as intended, kick out the corrupt US companies trying to siphon off Iraq, and help re-establish the soveriegnity of Iraq.

One important thing that Iraq must agree to remain under UN mandate for several years to make sure that things are progressing as it should be, i.e., no WMD production, focusing on reconstruction, and finally order the BFEE and its cronies placed under international arrest, which the US should be pressured to capture and placed under trial for the highest possible treason, and force the corrupt companies to pay billions of dollars in damages and placed under heavy tax burden for 200 years.

Hawkeye-X

[Brian Sweat]

2. Tell them to go watch "The Wrath of Khan"

and pay attention to how Kirk handles no win situations.

[Demobrat]

3. The Democrats can build an international coalition.

Bush can't. We have to start all over with somebody who hasn't bullied and pissed off the whole world.

[shance]

4. WE WOULDNT EVEN BE THERE.

n/t

[DK666]

5. First off....

I would think that after Afghanistan we WOULD NOT invade another country and unseat its government. But that being said there has to be an exit strategy. :+

[juancarlos]

11. Please tell me.

What wars, in the past, have had an "exit strategy"? For every other war that I can think of, the "exit strategy" was to leave when it is over. I think that this whole "exit strategy" nonsense is an invention of certain anti-war people. While I was uncertain about the war to start, I am now for continuing. If we leave now, it will show the terrorists that we are a paper tiger. We are there for the long haul. I would have preferred to wait until we had a few more partners at the start, but now that we are in, we must stay till Iraq is stable.

[DK666]

13. Hmmmmm

Berlin airlift ? Berlin wall ? Panmunjom ? Kosovo? Yugoslavia ? It involves international support you said it yourself "I would have preferred to wait until we had a few more partners". Our troops are not trained to deal with these types of problems. We are not fighting terrorists in IRAQ we are fighting the IRAQ people. And IRAQ will never be stable the religious factions wont allow it. BTW I am not anit-war as you call it I just believe you should know what the hell you are doing before you commit to sending our boys to die in the oily sandbox. I am a vet of several military actions and this is bay far the worst display of military leadership I have ever seen.

[kentuck]

15. Well, that is Bush's strategy also....

And it is dead wrong and short-sighted. Why should we offer anything different? We have a plan and we will make it public after the next election. We just don't want to interfere with the present mess.

[DK666]

18. Please clarify ?

Are you talking about bushes willingness to stick it out despite mounting casualties and sagging UN support ?

[kentuck]

22. Yes, I was responding to juancarlos' post...

His strategy seems about the same as Bush's..

[Wellong]

25. Thats crazy

We have a plan and we will make it public after the next election.

My name is X and I am the democratic nominee for President of the United States. I have a plan for Iraq, but I can't tell you what it is until after the election. I appreciate your vote. Thank you.


Talk about a losing strategy.

[kentuck]

27. Yes, I remember Nixon's secret plan...

and he won with it! But I see your point. :)

[Bandit]

16. "exit strategy" nonsense is an invention of certain anti-war people.

The Exit Strategy was an invention of Colin Powell. It was in the widely herolded "Powell Doctrine" during the Clinton Years. Powell was Joint Chief at that time I believe so not some anti-war people.

[juancarlos]

17. Thanks for filling me in...

about the "exit strategy" being from Powell. However, I still think that it is nonsense. We just gotta stay until it's over.

[DK666]

19. Yes

We are as committed as the pig in a bacon and egg breakfast. We now need to see this through to the end unfortunately.

[Bandit]

23. It isn't really nonsense

It is one thing to have a strategy and quite another to have a mandate. Anyone who prepares for war needs to feel they will be victorious and need some sort of plan for when it is over. That doesn't mean one is mandated to leave if the job isn't done. A plan of action is always preferable to no plan of action which apparently is what we are encountering now with the Iraqi situation.

[LeahMira]

37. I disagree...

If we leave now, it will show the terrorists that we are a paper tiger.

So now whatever we do is going to be specifically calculated to a consideration of the possible perceptions of some terrorists? Wow. I bet they really get a charge knowing that American foreign policy is dictated with themselves in mind.

Would it be asking too much for the U.S. to admit that it made a serious mistake and stop throwing good money after bad? IMO, the best thing possible is to turn this over to the UN, support their decisions, and pray it isn't too late to mend what has been ripped. And better late than never.

[kentuck]

38. I've thought, what would happen if we pulled back....

and told the Iraqis that we were going to give them a chance to govern themselves. Why do we need to be living in the mansions in downtown Baghdad anyway? In a guerrilla war, it is falling into the trap of the "guerrillas" to march in full gear down their streets and our troops become nothing but sitting ducks. We should pull back and see what they can do... If they start killing each other, we go in to restore order only.

[markus]

6. What I'd do

Turn over the daily administration of Iraq to the United Nations, under these conditions:

Security Council nations provide troops for Iraq. We divide it up a la Berlin in the 40s. Everyone remains under their own command. The transition plan to self rule to be produced by the U.N. and the Iraqis subject to Security Council approval and veto. And we will use ours if the plan does not produce a pluralistic democracy. And the Security Council members will pony up substantial bucks to rebuild Iraq. We're talking Billions each, guys.

[MissB]

7. The 2004 campaign should be about

Peace and Prosperity

Vote for (democratic candidate name) for Peace and Prosperity.

If you want war and a bad economy, vote for Bush.

[zbdent]

8. First thing, we wouldn't have crafted an energy policy which

hinged on us controlling Iraq.

Want proof? Okay, get Cheney to give up his "national security interests" Energy Council meeting minutes.

Then, President Gore would actually have read the document on terrorism, and probably have been alert enough to see the signs. Bush, while maybe not knowing what was going to happen in specifics (ha, ha, one of Repukes' spin), was banking on some form of terrorist attack which would galvanize the "anti-towelhead" sentiment into a full-fledged war, starting with Iraq.

[spinbaby]

9. We wouldn't have gone in in the first place

But now that we're there, there are few options. Here's what I would do:

First, get together a new ruling body and a constitution and do it fast. Both constituriton and new rulers should be reasonably good but in this case, fast is better than perfect.

Then set up a Swiss bank account with a few billion in it for the new government to get started with. The new government can use these funds to help rebuild and keep control. They decide how the money is spent, we only get involved if something drastic happens like Saddam comes back. We can afford to give them a few billion--we won't be paying for troops because...

We get out as fast as possible. UN troops can help take up the slack but hopefully the new government can get something together with all those billions.

George W. Bush goes to Baghdad, kneels in a mosque, and delivers an abject apology.

[maha]

10. The Dems DO have plans.

The difference between the plans proposed by the Dem candidates and the White House is that the Dem plans have more detail.

The candidates' positions on Iraq.

[gasperc]

12. Bait and switch bullshit

blow me, 80million warnings later and now they have the gall to ask what we would do, after the repugs are finished fucking themselves they can print out this e-mail, roll it up and fuck themselves some more.

the democrats would build real international coalitions with international cooperation and critisize the repugs constantly for their diasaterous policies.

[Patriot_Spear]

20. Dead right...

A blind man could see this coming... and did.

The repukes can have answers when they leave office- they wouldn't take our advice then so who gives a shit what they have to say now.

[DK666]

21. Wait...

Wasnt this Clintons Fault ?


LOL... Burn baby burn

[gratuitous]

39. Spot on, gasperc!

"You didn't listen to us before, when we were marching millions strong in the street, and now you've got your tit stuck in the wringer. What makes you think (1) we're interested in bailing you out; and (b) that we think you'd listen any closer to us this time?"

I am satisfied (for now) with simply letting the architects of this disaster stand there embarrassed. It's taken them long enough to acknowledge that they didn't know what they were doing all along. I was saying it for months and months. I'm not inclined to let them off the hook just yet.

Next year, once primary season starts in earnest, is plenty soon enough to start articulating a Democratic resolution.

[Wellong]

24. I strongly disagree

As if the Democrats have to say what they would do to get us out of this mess, otherwise they have no credibility.

I strongly disagree with you. Our candidates, and especially the nominee once we have one MUST atriculate, as strong as possible, their position and plan for our action in Iraq. The nominee will not win the election saying "Bush's plan is wrong" and leave it at that.

A position and plan must be presented to the American people of how the situation is going to be handled and WHY that position is superior to Bush's, and more beneficial for the security and saftey of the American people.

Anything short of that will be a loser strategy. We need a "vote for me" campaign as opposed to a "vote against Bush" campaign.

[kentuck]

26. It would be preferable but they have no responsibility at this time...

And in no way does it not give us a right to criticize him for being arrogant and stupid...

[Wellong]

29. Again I disagree

they have no responsibility at this time...

Now is the time for them to articulate their plans on Iraq. It is important to do so now so the primary voters will have clear and distinct choices in the candidates on this matter.

And in no way does it not give us a right to criticize him for being arrogant and stupid...

I never said any such thing. Attack him all day and all night. But candidates now, and the nominee later damn well better make their position and plan for Iraq and the 'war on terra' a centerpiece of the campaign.

Just saying Bush's plan is wrong, without offering a clear vision is not a winning strategy.

[kentuck]

30. Perhaps he has gotten us into a mess where there are no easy answers

or solutions. Should we withhold criticism in that case? Or should we simply support his blunder?

[Wellong]

31. Have you read a damn thing

Have you read a damn thing I have written? I have said to attack Bush on the matter. But just attacking him without laying out a clear position and plan for what will be done when elected is a loser strategy.

[kentuck]

32. No need to get your bowels in a uproar, rookie...

Yes, we have read every nugget you have written and just what do you mean by a "clear position"? Perhaps there are no clear positions on such a mess?

[Wellong]

33. Perharps there are

no "clear positions". But to present no ideas, plans, or visions to the American people in the campaign, or to claim a "secret plan" that can not be revealed until after the election as was suggested is not a winning strategy.

[kentuck]

35. Did you read post #27 ? I agreed that you had a point.

Are you always so disagreeable when people agree with you? :)

[w4rma]

28. Dean Says 'We Cannot Afford to Fail' in Iraq Reconstruction

Wednesday August 20, 2003
By: Press Office

(August 20, 2003)

BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

• Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
• Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
• Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
• Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
• Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
• Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
• Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
• Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

"Yesterday's bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq appears to have been an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting us. It is vital to our chances of success that the Bush Administration redouble its efforts to internationalize the military and civilian presence and to speed up the stabilization and rebuilding process. We cannot afford to fail."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&news_iv_ctrl=1441

Iraq Truth Center
“It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a preemptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war, but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.”

For your convenience, Dean for America has assembled all of Governor Dean’s Iraq-related speeches, statements, and background materials on a single webpage.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

[Snellius]

34. First and most important: George Bush would not be president

The world hates George W. Bush. They will not do anything to help him get elected. They will make symbolic gestures and say what they have to say to keep relations civil but, have no doubt, they secretly detest him and everything he stands for. There will be no world cooperation until he's gone.

[kentuck]

36. I think you may be correct snellius.....

And most of the Democrats are saying we need to "internationalize" the war? Perhaps that is the answer?

[GOPBasher]

40. Well, as for most of us here on this board:

We wouldn't have fucking gone there in the first place, you smirking asshole!