Will Kerry end this goddamned war?

[Guaranteed]

One way or another?

[corporatewhore]

1. Mr.Kerry How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

id loveto ask him that

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. The PNAC invasion plan will continue as scheduled.

regardless of which Bonesman wins.

[corporatewhore]

4. but but it will have a new guy delivering the message and name will be

changed see it will be totally different

[punpirate]

3. Unfortunately, it's a mess now...

... and no one, including Kerry, is going to be able to extricate the US from it without incurring some wrath from some portion of the electorate. If Kerry can find a way to cut it short, possibly by easing out the US presence and leaving it up to the UN, all the better.

But, even that strategy will leave Kerry open to jabs from the far right that he's weak on defense and has left the US in an untenable position. Bush created the screw-up, no question, but Kerry will have to fix it, somehow.

I don't wish on anyone the task of correcting the mess that the Bushies have made of domestic and foreign policy. If Kerry is nominated, and eventually wins the presidency, it will be his primary task, whether he realizes it now, or not.

[Guaranteed]

6. I don't care how he does it.

But I'm sick of this shit, and if he doesn't get us out of there, it's going to be the end of the Democratic Party, because half of us aren't going to stand for it anymore.

So, yeah, he'd better figure out a way to do it- even if it's just "slipping out the back, Jack." I don't care anymore. This war is now officially pointless.

[Blaze Diem]

5. Its not even about ending this mess...

Its more about bringing in the correct group of people who have the same end result in mind. Hard to hear Bush talk about a peacful Middle East when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfie and their ilk are advising in the opposite direction.
First Kerry needs to "clean house".
Considering the chaotic mess Bush has created, I cannot imagine such a daunting task for any new President to be handed.
Everything Bush has touched in his 3 years, has turned to a quagmire! Both abroad and here at home.
Where does one begin?

New policy, new President, new staff, oh ya, and good luck with the trillion $$ debt Bush has left us.
Bush has raided every possible savings program, and his cronies that put him in the White House are all wealthier for it.
Like ENRON, only with the US budget.

Bush needs to leave the White House. Whomever steps up to the plate to dissect Bush's disastrous policy, and make our Nation safer, our people stable and make some sense of the Shock and Awe of the Bush years has my blessing.
What a shameful waste Bush has been.

[countmyvote4real]

8. And what files will the * administration hand over to Kerry

if he wins? I'm guessing it won't include much except for the invasion of Syria, Iran and North Korea.

There might also be some domestic files that support strip mining as being good, Canadian drugs are bad and that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Don't count on any of that. There will be nothing passed on to Kerry that could incriminate them.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Events have a momentum of their own--check this LBN thread

Iraqi Shia militia seize local government headquarters in Basra.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x464407

I don't think our politicians can maintain this charade of a benevolent occupation much longer.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

9. Poppy gave Clinton Somalia, W will give Kerry this mess.

But the Arab Muslim nations may ease up their pressures to encourage Kerry to take the opposite approach of W's unilateral policies.

W got nothing but stick for invading Iraq.
Kerry may be offered the carrot instead to return to 'normalcy.'

[DieboldMustDie]

10. End it when?

Immediately -- no!   Before the end of his first term -- I think so, but I'll be keeping my fingers crossed.

[Guaranteed]

55. ASAP.

Why wait?

[RafterMan]

11. No -- even if he wants to

At this point, America has very little power to determine the outcome. Staying in Iraq won't help us solve the problem and withdrawing won't protect us from the consequences. No matter what we do, we'll be dealing with this blunder for ages.

But I do believe Kerry can't possibly handle those challenges worse than Bush.

[Piperay]

12. No...

if he were to pull us out now there would be complete and total chaos but Kerry will handle it the right way instead of going on the cheap.

[CWebster]

13. Optimistically, yes.

With the cooperation of the world, which views the US under Bush as dangerous and Iraq as a disaster. It would reflect negatively on Republican leadership for leading us into this nightmare and positively on Dems for resolving it. Another advantage of a Kerry administration would be a greater emphasis on energy alternatives for the future rather than the obvious ambition of the oil soaked Bush administration to make hay while the sun is shining.

[G_j]

14. at least DK has a plan for getting out

Kucinich's Ten-Point Plan to Bring Our Troops Home From Iraq

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php



"The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President that will quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq.


1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.

more on Iraq: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/iraq.php

[Guaranteed]

15. Sounds like a plan.

Let's use it and get the hell out. Enough of this pointless killing.

[G_j]

16. Kerry's plan

can be read here: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

I don't see that it would get us out any time soon.
Of course it is better than what Bush is doing, but how much better?
I find some points rather vague. I can't really understand where he stands on privatization or exactly how much control the US will retain over the situation. It sound like troop numbers would increase. If someone can help me with this I'd be grateful.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Kerry won't bring the troops home!

Dennis will, and he will do it right away and not try some Vietnam-style disengagement which is what Kerry proposes to do under the NATO and UN umbrella.

The Iraqis don't want us there, and today we have an nationwide Shia uprising in Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Kucinich's plan has been rendered obsolete by events

The Iraqis don't want the UN or any foreigners on their soil. Nothing short of full sovereignty, without occupation troops, will do.

Chalabi and his ragtag army of exiles do not speak for the Iraqi people!

[no name no slogan]

57. I have to disagree, albeit slightly

I don't think it's a matter of the Iraqis not wanting foreigners on their soil, it's a matter of what type of presense (and power) these foreigners have that's the problem.

Iraqis are not necessarily against a foreign presense. What they are against is foreign CONTROL-- of their economy, of their resources, of their security forces, of their lives.

The current problems in Iraq are due to the occupational forces, and their continuing control and mismanagement of the country. The provisional authority is more concerned with privatizing the economy than fixing the infrastructure. They care more about opening the economy to predatory capitalists from outside the country than fixing the electric grid, hospitals and water works.

And you're dead right about Chalabi-- he needs to be sent back to Jordan to serve out his sentence for his BCCI shenanegans.

[freeforall]

43. Dennis has an excellent plan

This should be adopted. It is more responsible and sensible than any other I've read so far.

[greatauntoftriplets]

19. No, sadly, he won't.

Change the names on the protest signs.

[zulchzulu]

20. Other: Kerry would get a more multinational force in, take target off US

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

Getting back with our former allies, taking the Halliburton profiteering away, getting a larger multinational force to clean up *'s mess...

[IndianaGreen]

21. The Iraqis don't want us, or any other foreigner, in their country

Kerry's campaign slogans and positions are not longer operative. Even Kucinich's plan for withdrawal has been superseded by events in Iraq.

Bring the troops home NOW!

[Jacobin]

22. Yeah, this "multinational" thingy is pretty naive

"Hey, you guys over there....you send your soldiers to IraqNam, and then the Iraqis will love us"

Does not compute

They want us out of their country, understandably

[Hav]

23. .

I have to agree with you and IndianaGreen.
Bush fucked it up, big time. I believe the terror won't end there even if the majority of the population there preferred foreign forces (US or UN) to stay there. These who commit this violence have already shown that they don't seem to care much if their own innocent people die in these attacks.

At this point, I also think that the slogan "UN in, US out" is quite naive. It might be a step towards the right direction but enough people who were there to help (including non-Americans) in Iraq already got attacked and killed. It's some hell and I blame the idiots who thought that this would be a cake-walk.
This isn't supposed to be an attack but I often heard Americans proudly talk about how they would die to defend their country if their country is attacked. It was on another board and I think it's needless to say that they didn't volunteer to go to Iraq. But that is not an attack against American patriotism. I just want to show how stupid it is to feel like this and being unable to consider that some people in Iraq might feel exactly like this and that these people are willing to die as well.

[zulchzulu]

45. Imagine the bloodbath if we cut and ran

First we destroy their country, kill thousands and decimate its infrastructure. Then we leave its country headless with no apparent leader.

Then we cut and run.

Um...no. That's not cool.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Imagine the greater bloodbath if we stay

Let the daughters of our political leaders get drafted for war, and you will see an end to this bullshit about "we broke it, we fix it"!

[Nicholas_J]

58. Bringing the troops home now

Would be not only totally impossible, but would noew be a massive violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg accords as well as a number of elements of the United Nations charter which requires that once you have made a mess you must clean it up. These legal obligations are what resulted in the Allies after World War II being required to remain behind in Germany and Japan and assit in getting the economis of these nations back on their feet which totally required a miitary presence and not mere econmomic advisors and were the results of the conventions agreed to at the end of that War. Cut and run would be even more illegal than the war itself.

[cindyw]

24. I said yes, not because he will pull out of Iraq, but because I think

he will run a more effective operation and bring the world into our effort. I don't think we will end the war, so much as Iraq will become more stable with the world involved. But let's be realistic and say that it will not happen overnight. Bush has created a mess that will not be fixed with a magic wand. There are AL Qaeda there now and fighting terrorism will mean taking them on in Iraq. That is entirely Bush's fault for invading, but still be have to deal with it.

[edzontar]

25. I voted no, because he seems to avoiding the issue even as it spins...

Out of control.

Very worrisome and disappointing.

[The Magistrate]

26. The Problem, Mr. Zontar, Is Far Deeper

The departure of U.S. troops will not solve it, at least if one defines solving the problem as producing a state of peace and stability. That will not follow from the withdrawl of U.S. forces, nor will it follow from the continued presence of U.S. forces. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," is the wachword in this sorry spectacle of idiocy imposed on our country, the people of Iraq, and the world, by the criminals of the '00 Coup.

"Desperate men do desperate things, and stupid men do stupid things. We are in for a desperately stupid summer."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[edzontar]

33. I agree, but...the whole place, you might have noticed

Is going nuts.

We have the Shiites against us now.

I have always thought that there was no way anything good could come from our intervention--and that seems to be coming to pass.

In that sense, Kerry would have my sympathy if he inherits the disaster--

Speaking for myself, I don't think if there IS a way out of it, other than to admit defeat and surrender our presently ruling band of criminals to the Hague.

[The Magistrate]

35. This Is Just The Gentle Rains Of Spring, Sir

Before the thunderstorms of summer: it will get much, much worse than this. We have never had the Shites with us; their chief leader, Ay. al'Sistani, has simply been very canny at allowing the U.S. to break some of his enemies and rivals for him, while claiming to take at face value statements by the occupiers he knows are not meant to allow him to achieve the indirect rule of the place he intends, though if seriously meant, would certainly eventuate in that. The contradictions will be somewhat heightened by August....

"It's quiet in the old town of Tombstone today."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARFDS!"

[edzontar]

36. So what I would appreciate from Sen, Kerry is LEADERSHIP

ON THIS ISSUE.

CLARITY.

MORAL VOICE.

PLEASE.

[The Magistrate]

41. Those Things, Sir

You may find in a church service: they are unlikely ornaments for a politician seeking victory on the stump.

The best line of critique concerning this fiasco is that it represents incompetence in prosecuting the war against Islamic fundamentalist radicals in arms against the West and the United States: that is a cul de sac and distraction from that effort, that it weakens our country's abilities to demolish those real enemies. That is a thing the people recognize already in great degree, and agree with. Even in urging a rapid disengagement from the place, that is the best peg to hang the urging on, that it will free up troops and energies for more useful efforts elsewhere. Otherwise, the great majority of people will see urging a quick withdrawl as irresponsibility and even cowardice, and react against it with a reflexive pride and refusal to accept defeat. A politician seeking electoral victory rouses such feelings at great peril, and dooms himself to defeat by the doing.

"It's quiet today in the old town of Tombstone."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

51. In other words, it doesn't matter if we're there or not.

I agree.

So let's get the hell out. This is a waste of money and American lives.

By the way, I don't trust what you have to say on this subject, since you're the one that hopes for more American deaths just for the sake of getting Bush out of office.

[The Magistrate]

52. That Is True Enough, Mr. Looney

Whether U.S. forces depart or remain will merely alter who is killed, and who kills them, and for what end of some other they die.

From the point of view of our own country, on balance it is probably best to get out as quickly as can be managed, whatever the consequences to Iraqis might be.

As for your final comment, Sir, you may dislike it, or dislike me for saying it, all you please, but the fact remains: it is only the deaths of U.S. soldiers, in unexpected quantities, and at a time the people had been led to believe the thing was already in the bag, that opened the eyes of the people of our country to the monumental foolishness of the invasion of the place. That realization is essential to the eviction from office of the criminals of the '00 Coup. Should that eventuate, those soldiers will have died for the great benefit of their country; should that fail of achievement, they will have died for the private profit, both political and pecuniary, and the private lusts for power, of a filthy band of reactionary usurpers. Why would you have me back water from that, Mr. Looney?


"Politics ain't bean-bag."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

53. So, would you then say that we should stay IN Iraq

for the sake of killing our soldiers and Bush's popularity?

[The Magistrate]

54. The Current Administration, Sir

Is certainly going to stay there, so there does not seem much point to your question. You could screech for withdrawl to those ears like a toddler after another cookie, and it would make no difference at all to their actions. The consequences of their obduracy will be what they will be.

Once they are defeated, whether they are popular will make no diference at all. Some effort at disengagement, under international auspices, will doubtless then be made, and will eventually extricate U.S. forces from the lethal bog. Iraqis will be left under a religious tyranny, as opposed to a more modern form of tyranny, or the place will split into its natural constituents in a welter of blood.

"King Log is dead! Long live King Stork!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sangh0]

27. "Something else" - The war is over. It's now an occupation

and "Yes" Kerry will end the US occupation of Iraq

[IndianaGreen]

30. I don't remember Iraq signing a surrender document, do you?

The war in Korea never ended. There is an armistice, but a state of war still exists.

In Iraq there is no armistice and no surrender. Iraq is still at war against us.

[sangh0]

31. Yes, I do

According to international law, there are many ways a govt can signal that it has been defeated. One way is by deserting it's capital.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Really?

Care to quote that part of the Geneva code?

BTW, we abandoned our capital to the Brits in the War of 1812. No one called that a surrender.

[Jacobin]

38. LOL

Those who blindly support any candidate are really in for a surprise.

Yep. The invasion and attempted conquest continue unabated. Smirky has screwed up so bad that there is no way in and no way out.

[IndianaGreen]

40. It is going to take courage to resist temptation and get us out of Iraq

The sort of courage that John Kerry displayed when he opposed the war in Vietnam. A courage that seems today more noted for its absence than for its abundance.

[sangha]

46. I guess that's why Kerry's #'s are going up

All that noting about his cowardice must be catching on.

[sangha]

44. The Brits didn't occupy DC

wrt the Geneva Convention, see the section that concerns govts that disappear.

[name not needed]

28. Its too late at this point

We, like it or not, are stuck there. Hopefully he can get the UN involved more.

[greatauntoftriplets]

47. What is in it for the UN to get involved?

I realize you are probably wondering this as well. But you seemed like a friendly post, vs. some others. Please bear with me.

[name not needed]

48. Nothing, really

unless they take joy in cleaning up our mess. We really screwed ourselves here. Its so ubelieveable that this country could dig itself into a hole like this.

[no name no slogan]

29. Making it a "Democratic War" will not make it better.

Nor will adding more US forces.

The problem is not necessarily the forces themselves, it's who is LEADING these forces.

As long as the occupation is under US control, Iraqis will still feel they are an occupied country. As long as US companies are allowed to privatize Iraq, US citizens and troops will still be seen as targets.

We need a new mandate from the UN, and a new TRULY international force composed of not only western troops, but of Arab and Asian troops as well. IMHO it's a crime that not many of the occupying forces even speak Arabic. No wonder the people feel like they're being re-colonialized.

[edzontar]

34. Indeed. the US needs to admit defeat and take responsibility

For its crimes.


This means turning it over to a UN-Muslim World supervisory council and sending our war criminals to the Hague, in chains.

[moondust]

37. Yes, but not overnight.

Once Bush is gone I think the major allies will be much more receptive to a multilateral plan.

[Zinfandel]

39. That's why Bush made seven recent appearances in W Virginia...

the three electoral votes he won there in 2000 are going to be very important...Rove & Jeb will steal the 25 votes in Florida again, so it will come down to W. Virginia, New Hampshire & New Mexico with only three to five electoral votes each, that will turn the election over to the fascist or to the moderates, (certainly not the liberals).

And that's not counting the votes that WILL be stolen by BushCo via electronic voting machines.

[robertpaulsen]

42. Which war????????????

The War on Terror, the war on Iraq, the war on drugs, the war on gangs, the war on...

The answer to all of the above is no.

[Guaranteed]

50. I shouldn't even have to ask this question of our candidate. nt

[CabalBuster]

56. Kerry is part of the problem

He voted for this war, he's never said it was a mistake--only that he voted for "process" whatever that means. He will make sure that the occupation plan stays in place (God forbid he upsets Halliburton or Bechtel) although he might try to internationalize it in order to defuse responsiblity to other countries for this continuing mess.