Howard Zinn: Bring the troops home

[welshTerrier2]

i have just about had it with all the hero worshippers on DU ... yes, i'm sure the party "leaders" you support have all sorts of excellent qualities ... but just about every one of them is keeping mum on Iraq ... that's right, your guy is doing FUCKING NOTHING !!! i do not see how anyone can support any Democrat who allows the daily bloodshed in Iraq to continue without speaking out against it ...

I specifically am most disappointed in the two most prominent Democrats from the last election cycle: Kerry and Dean ... i criticize them most because i had the most hope they would lead the Party in a new direction on bush's flawed military policies ... what the hell is the matter with them ... they certainly seem like solid guys ... but not on Iraq ... what type of moronic program are they peddling there ?? what hope can they offer to find a way out of this international tragedy ?? anything short of a withdrawal over the next few months will cause the deaths of thousands of more people ...

here's what Howard Zinn had to say about the U.S. Iraq policy:

source: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10705669.htm?1c

<skip>

It is a strange logic to declare, as so many in Washington do, that it was wrong for us to invade Iraq but right for us to remain. A recent New York Times editorial sums up the situation accurately: "Some 21 months after the American invasion, United States military forces remain essentially alone in battling what seems to be a growing insurgency, with no clear prospect of decisive success any time in the foreseeable future."

<skip>

In 1967, the same arguments that we are hearing now were being made against withdrawal in Vietnam. The United States did not pull out its troops for six more years. During that time, the war killed at least one million more Vietnamese and perhaps 30,000 U.S. military personnel.

We must stay in Iraq, it is said again and again, so that we can bring stability and democracy to that country. Isn't it clear that after almost two years of war and occupation we have brought only chaos, violence and death to that country, and not any recognizable democracy?

<skip>

There is no certainty as to what would happen in our absence. But there is absolute certainty about the result of our presence -- escalating deaths on both sides.

<skip>

[Dr.Phool]

1. The only way anything will happen

Is if Congress cuts off ALL funding for the war. Thats how we got out of Viet Nam. Thats how we'll have to do it now.

[welshTerrier2]

3. that's exactly right !!

"No More Money for War" is the way this will get stopped ...

again, the problem is that we're not going to get support for cutting off funding when almost every "leading" Democrat continues to believe in a military solution ...

most Democrats are spewing pablum here ... what kind of nonsense is it to call for "internationalizing" the military force? IT JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN !!! the truth is, Kerry, Dean and most of the others don't even have an Iraq policy ... all they're doing by remaining mum is going along with bush ...

yeah, they criticize bush ... but so what ??? they have offered no viable alternatives ...

[graywarrior]

2. I am becoming more and more disillusioned by dem leaders

Sad, because I really wanted Kerry to win and although I refuse to bash him, I am moving away from the dem party by the day.

[ginnyinWI]

4. I don't think anyone could care more than John Kerry does about

Iraq. He was just there talking to the troops, and is going to do everything he can, given that the Dems are in the minority. If he had won, you can bet he'd have done a lot more. His vote against Condi Rice was a vote against Bush's war in Iraq.

I'm wondering what you realistically expect him to do?

The post about Congress withdrawing money for the Vietnam war was right--if we could get them to withdraw money it would go a long way. But the Repubs have the majority, and it will be up to them.

It's also up to us--each one of us needs to protest in whatever way we can. Don't just sit and leave it up to Washington. That was the other component of our withdrawal from Vietnam--public outcry. Nixon was secretly considering nuking Vietnam, but public opinion against the war made him think twice.

[peacetalksforall]

6. The issue is....the Dem leaders keep voting yes to funding.

Is that for votes they will receive in return?

False patriotism. Ignorance. Momentum.

Those three things will release alotta of souls.

Who is going to break the momentum?

[welshTerrier2]

7. "what you realistically expect him to do"

i realistically expect him to say the truth about what is happening in Iraq and to call for withdrawal because of it ...

we have not trained Iraqis to defend themselves ... the U.S. IS THE ENEMY ... we are not "liberators" ... we have failed to push a negotiated settlement among the various Iraqi factions ... instead, we simplistically believed that we could just let everyone vote and everything would be fine ... it won't be !! elections will make things worse ... the Sunnis refuse to even participate in the elections ... we're forcing a situation where the Shia will win with a heavy majority ... will that be OK with everyone because it was "democracy in action" ????? you can't be serious ... the U.S. is going to legitimize the tyranny of the majority by holding elections ... it's the wrong approach to resolving deep conflict in Iraq ...

and yes, we should not "just sit and leave it up to Washington" ... but it doesn't help when most elected Democratics in the so called "opposition Party", just quietly go along with bush ... shame on them all !!

[Malva Zebrina]

5. I would make a guess that Israel has a little something to do with it.

Besides other things, such as oil, and hegemony. It is obvious the "brave" fighting men and women are expected to be even braver and their families expected to feel proud, while the youngsters not yet of age, are being approached to one day be a brave soldier bringing democracy and freedom to poor, small, defenseless countries like Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and Kuwait--oh, that was a mistake. Kuwait women still do not have the vote--is that worth an attack to bring freedom and democracy to Kuwait? I have not heard Bush mention that but surely he means Kuwait along with all the rest. Right? :eyes:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. When you steal a country (That's right Rush STEAL) you can expect

the inhabitants to get a wee bit miffed.... and cause a tiff. We would/did do the same to the Brits.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. But, but, ...there will be a civil war, a bloodbath, the bad guys will win

Just like when we left Vietnam. Ooops...didn't happen.

What many seem to conveniently forget, is that our nation went through several insurrections and culminated in the civil war which is the bloodiest in it's history after the British left.

Meanwhile, we "help" the Iraqis "stabilize" their country by killing them. Just as we did in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Honduras, Congo, Angola, etc.

"Our Troops" aren't carrying guns to make a fashion statement.