Are all the candidates pro-war? Who supports immediate withdrawal?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Kucinich doesn't support immediate withdrawal. In the debates he repeatedly denied being in favor of an immediate, unilateral withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I am willing to believe that he meant what he said. The quickest I ever heard him propose the process of having UN troops replace ours was 3 months. He favors a UN force in Iraq. http://www.kucinich.us/issues/iraq.php

Nader doesn't support immediate withdrawal. The only thing he says about his plans for Iraq on his website talks of "replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance" http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php#iraqwar

Kerry doesn't support immediate withdrawal. He also wants to internationalize the effort and turn control over to the UN and then the Iraqis. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq

Bush -- ok, do I really need to convince anyone here that Bush has the wrong Iraq policy?



So does that mean all the candidates are pro-war?


Or is it possible that the labels 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' are actually meaningless in real terms? A false dichotomy?

[wheresthemind]

1. There is just no way you can label Kucinich pro-war...

So I'd defenatly take issue with those blanket labels...

The fact is that we broke Iraq and we do now have a commitment to that country. However there is a right way to do it. As of now we appear as an occupying army to may Iraqis, you have to change that perception before you can achieve the peace. Thats why we need UN peacekeepers, and UN monitored elections etc.

If we were to pick up and leave we would be betraying so many in Iraq and be leaving a huge vaccum that violance would surely fill.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Does that mean you agree with me?

I'm saying that the labels 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' are meaningless, especially considering that Kerry, Kucinich, and Nader all have basically the same plan. I can't tell for sure whether you agree with me or not.

[wheresthemind]

11. I aggree that the labels are meaningless, however...

Kerry, Kucinich, and Nader do not have the same plan for Iraq.

Kerry talks about getting the UN involved, talks about sending more troops, maybe NATO etc. While I think Kerry will do a much better job then Bush, and will be able to attract the UN and allied countries, he does not have the same plan as Dennis.

Dennis is talking about truly internationalizing the effort there. That means renouncing the privatization of Iraq, about handing the contracting over to the UN (that is how they will get involved, when they see the $$$ as well as the humanitarian aspect of the mission), in bringing in UN peacekeepers and getting the US military out. Go read his plan if you haven't.

The fact is that Nader HAS no plan to speak of...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. So what's the difference?

You are falsely implying that Kerry does not want to reliquish control of contracting, that he does not renounce the privatization of Iraq, etc. And the statement: " talks about sending more troops " is flatly untrue.

What are the differences between Kerry and Kucinich's plan?

[aquart]

3. That's what I love: simplistic labels.

I think Kerry knows he's talking garbage. The UN doesn't want this turkey. But he has to say it in order to signal that he plans to be NOT BUSH.

The US has messed up Big Time. We have proven to be rapacious and untrustworthy. Even if Kerry is honorable, the precedent has been set and four years later another President may negate all Kerry's achievements. So why build plans around the cooperation of America?

The rule is: you make a mess, you clean it up. America made the mess. The bloody mess.

We may be nothing but skin and bones when it's over. BUT IT IS OUR JOB TO CLEAN IT UP.

Unfortunately, that's not possible. This IS quagmire. No matter what path we take, Iraq is destroyed, and WE are destroyed.

We told him. We told Bush what would happen.

[mike_c]

4. wait and see what the Green party does after their convention...

...if you're truely interested in an anti-war candidate. If not, give it a rest, why don'cha? Democrats opposed to the war regardless of who's in the White House aren't impressed by sneak attacks on antiwar candidates, or by trying to slip Kerry in among them by duplicity. Be honest. Kerry has pledged to continue Bush's war. Kucinich wants to end it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Give it a rest? No, sorry, I will continue to speak out as I see fit.

If you don't want to read my comments, no one is forcing you to.


From your post: antiwar candidates --- :wtf:


If all the candidates support the same policy, which is the 'antiwar candidate'?


" Kerry has pledged to continue Bush's war. "

An absolute, blatant falsehood.

[mike_c]

6. you have a brilliant career in store as a spin meister....

" An absolute, blatant falsehood."

Keep repeating it. Over and over. Some of us just aren't fooled.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. I pointed out that you made a false statement.

And yes, I will continue to point out falsehoods, as many times as is necessary.

I personally think that if you have a disagreement with Kerry, you would be more persuasive if you disagreed with his actual statements instead of the words you put in his mouth.

[mike_c]

8. we've already been over this ground....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=44635

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=43286

What part of "whatever we thought of the Bush administration's decisions and mistakes--especially in Iraq--we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. ...we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished"-- don't you understand?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. What you said simply isn't true.

You said " Kerry has pledged to continue Bush's war. "

and that was a false statement. A deceptive mischaracterization.


I won't speculate as to your motive -- but I don't believe it is a desire for peace.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. This is Bush's war and it will always be Bush's war.

Kerry will have a real mess to deal with.

[mike_c]

14. can you say LBJ...?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. For some reason, you want to paint Kerry as LBJ - why not Pol Pot?

Why not go all the way?

[eridani]

16. Not immediate, but eventual withdrawal nonetheless

No way in hell are Iraqis going to permit permanent military bases there. Not unless we suppress the population with methods that would make Saddam look like Mother Teresa.

I'd like to see Kerry come out in favor of eventual withdrawal. We can argue about timelines later, as chaotic reality can mess up any specific plan.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Several candidates are calling for immediate withdrawal

Even Kucinich, who will take 90 days to pull out, recognizes that Iraq's occupation is a mistake.

Dennis is not alone!

David Cobb, the leading candidate for the Green Party nomination, is calling for a total US withdrawal by June 30 on this year:

David Cobb Calls for End of Occupation by June 30th
April 15th, 2004

It is time for our tax money to stop being squandered in support of a brutal occupation in Iraq. Last week over 800 Iraqis and 70 Americans were killed, the latest casualties in a war that never should have happened. It is time for the United States government to acknowledge these facts and end the occupation.

I call upon the American people, including members of Congress, to demand that June 30th truly be a day when the U.S. relinquishes power by announcing that by that date all U.S. troops will be withdrawn, with one possible exception.

A newly-constituted, genuinely broad-based interim Iraqi government should be set up in cooperation with the United Nations within the next month and a half. It will be up to that newly-constituted interim government—not the U.S. and not the U.N.-- to determine what peace-keeping forces are necessary, from which countries they should be drawn, and if any U.S. troops should stay longer than June 30th while those forces are being assembled, transported and put into place.

This newly-constituted interim administration will have full responsibility for organizing democratic elections by the end of the year, utilizing whatever international resources and assistance they deem necessary.

The experiences of the past 13 months, since the U.S./British invasion of Iraq, and particularly the experiences of the past two weeks, make clear that the Bush Administration is totally incapable of leading a transition to a just and democratic society in Iraq. Indeed, it is Iraqis who are responsible for the political, diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives in Falluja, Baghdad and southern Iraq which have temporarily, as this is written, defused a major crisis brought on by U.S. arrogance, bullying and massive and unnecessary violence.

http://www.votecobb.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=37&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Bill Van Auken, candidate of the Socialist Equality Party, calls for a total and immediate US withdrawal from Iraq. His views are expressed in this article:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/iraq-a10.shtml