A Democratic President will NOT end the Iraq War

[cali]

anytime in the near future, despite what they say.

The forces against them, are too powerful. And the new Embassy is an example of those forces.

Forget Kucinich for a minute. He won't be President.

Clinton? Obama? Edwards? They won't entirely end the war. They may redeploy troops. They may restrict them to the Green Zone and strategic bases, but they won't end the war in 2008. Or 2009.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Well, they won't be President until 2009.

But you're right - I think we're looking at early 2010 as the soonest possible end to the war.

[cali]

2. Boy, that was dense of me. Duh.

Anyway, I don't see it ending for years. It'll be minimized but not ended.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. To the extent that we'll still have at least some troops there, yes.

I imagine we'll have some troops in Iraq for decades, unless Iran winds up taking over the country. Of course, that'd lead us to being in a full-scale war with Iran for decades as well. I believe the proper military term for the situation is "FUBAR".

[KG]

3. the dem party isn't 'anti-war'.

many dem voters might be anti-war, but party leadership isn't. way too invested in maintaining status quo.

[Virginia Dare]

6. I don't think they are necessarily "pro-war" either..

I do agree with your assessment of their interest in maintaining the status quo. They are taking pragmatic approach at protecting our interests in the region meaning "oil", and they will continue to defer to Saudi Arabia and Israel. I don't believe the Democrats would have gone to war with Iraq though, and I think they have much more of an interest in real diplomacy in the region than the Repubs do.

[Toots]

4. You are correct in that the USA will maintain a presence in Iraq for quite some time.

Most of the Democrats are saying it is in the USA's vital interest to maintain a presence in the mideast and Iraq seems the only country that can happen in. We were asked in no uncertain terms to leave Saudi Arabia. We will continue to exert our will upon the Arab nations no matter which Party has control over the government.

[Virginia Dare]

5. The first order of business is some actual diplomacy in the region..

things need to be stabilized as much as possible first. I think we will see a draw down, but you're right, we're likely to have troops in and around the region for some time to come. This is what you get when you throw a nation into chaos, with no workable plan for or understanding of the situation.

[Fleshdancer]

7. unfortunately I agree....

However I do believe a Democratic President will begin the discussion on how to end this war and work to rebuild the international bridges that were burned.

[Seabiscuit]

8. The official excuses for this illegal bloody nightmare are mindboggling.

[cali]

10. Yep.

And I think people should be aware that the election of a Dem to the Presidency will not end the war.

[HughBeaumont]

11. Right. Corporations run this country. Not people or politicians.

And right now, corporations want war. War is profitable, war is repeat business. Helping people isn't.

I don't get where people got this mistaken notion along the way that their voice matters, because it doesn't. Vote. Protest. Doesn't matter. I'll be in DC September 15th. Doesn't matter. I'll vote in 2008. Doesn't matter. Everything is looking towards the corporations entrenching their candidates on both sides. We're not going to get change, only the illusion of it. There aren't any good guys anymore . . . at least none that aren't marginalized, assassinated or plane-crashed.

Corporations are too powerful, too far reaching, too much in control of our lives.

The people's opinions don't mean shit. The people aren't ever going to rise up and storm the White House and organize sit-ins and frog march our leaders outta there like they should be doing. They're too much in debt to and in fear of their jobs and their bills to care. But even if they get past that layer of "security"; there are the police (who hate dissenters) and Blackwater USA (the mercenary army of the "betters") to try and get past.

You could have all 200 million people in this country miraculously form a giant army to hunt down and arrest the wealthy CEO and politician assholes that are legally ruining this nation for everyone except themselves. But then the world's economy would be thrown in upheaval.

It's all a dream.

Just sit back and take it like a champ. Life sucks. Deal with it. They bought everything. Your politicians, your congresspeople, your fellow citizens, everyone. Even you.

They could end all of our lives at the drop of a hat if they wanted to and not lose a second night's sleep over it.

Our "Leaders", the blank-check-happy, Bewsh-pleasing House and Senate and posts like this . . . it makes me stop believing that anything positive for the little guy is going to happen. I'm losing hope by the second, and I don't think I'm alone.

[cali]

12. In case you didn't get it, this post

in no way endorses not ending the war.

[HughBeaumont]

13. But it, and others, perpetuate the notion that nothing can be done to end it any time soon.

So "any time soon" is going to become "2 years away".

Then "well, maybe 2010, when we have the votes. The polls aren't favorable right now and we have a responsibility".

By then, the current death total will double and the Iraqi citizen body count will be up around Pol Pot numbers.

I'm not even going to THINK about this bunch of old boys entertaining the idea of invading Iran on false evidence.

When does the "blood on their hands" crew that we put into office start listening to the people? Not just on war but on EVERYTHING?

What do we vote for?

How many excuses do we need to hear to defend their corporate handlers?

When does it stop?

[paulk]

14. you are most likely right

One of the reasons I protested at the beginning of this mess was because the long term results were so obvious - and so obviously bad.


At least the Democrats will bring a "real world" approach to the thing, rather than the Republican's faith based one...

[bigtree]

15. yet, their Democratic congressional veto-proof majority will

if *they assert their constitutional powers and take control of their war-making authority.

What's the purpose in spreading such negativism? It's as if you don't believe in our eventual ability to take control of our country. I refuse to accept that.