The Dem Leadership do not want an end to Iraq Occupation.

[Disturbed]

The majority of Dems do not call for all US Troops to be pulled out of Iraq. The Bill that was veoted outlined that a undetermined number would stay indefinitely to train Iraqi Troops, to defend the Green Zone and the 14 US Bases and to fight al Q and the Sunni and Shi'ite Insurgency. The US will have at least 60K Troops and a large number of Mercs in Iraq well beyond '09. The idea that most Dems in Congress want an end to the US presence in Iraq is false.

[johncoby2]

1. You are disturbed.

Seriously.

[Atman]

3. I disagree. He's got a valid point.

The billions and billions of dollars spent have gone toward the construction of several military bases and the world's largest embassy. Those bases and the embassy will employ tens of thousands of Americans. We didn't build 'em just to walk away from them. The American public is being totally played. We'll eventually see a token withdrawal of troops to appease the masses and create some pre-election photo-ops. But the fact is, historically, when the US invades, occupies and sets up shop, we never leave. Ever. If I'm wrong, please show me the where.

.

[bdamomma]

5. have we left Korea, no.

[Atman]

8. We still have 37,000 troops in South Korea.

nt

[MGKrebs]

10. Guys aren't getting blown up daily in Korea.

Not the same.

[Atman]

12. Korea doesn't have the oil or the world's largest embassy.

Face it, Maynard, we ain't leavin' Iraq. Ever.

.

[MGKrebs]

30. That may be. But it won't be because it's similar to Korea.

[bdamomma]

13. no, not the same, but this killing will go on until we leave.

[tavalon]

41. There will also be a huge upsurge in Iraqi deaths when we leave

That is going to happen whether we leave next year or ten years from now.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I agree he makes a valid point. In responce to your query, I can only think of

Vietnam. We actually did leave there, not because we wanted to though.

[bdamomma]

11. I have that sick feeling we are never going to leave, because

they have too many bases out there, but are those bases are not immuned from being attacked, we have no business being there, I know some will disagree with me, our filthy government wants a presence there for the oil am I right or wrong.

[aquart]

17. We will leave because we will be played out.

And because disasters will begin to mount here at home that require armed attention.

And because the army's mini mutinies will grow larger and more unstoppable until someone notices.

[Atman]

20. You haven't been following 'Merkin history. Or BushCo investments.

They (we) have no intention of leaving a trillion-dollar investment to the Iraqis. We'll do many things; build higher walls, blow up more people, whatever...but we simply will never, ever leave Iraq. Dream on.

.

[aquart]

31. I'm pretty good with American history.

And the investments are international. Some other army can protect them. That's the thing about money. It's fluid. It moves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. DING, DING, DING

are you readying the same book on political economy I am?

If I was to worst case it, the BFEE does not, I repaet, DOES NOT need the nation to keep their paws on this one

SHHH they just have not figured out how to do it YET...

But part of the formula are the oil use agreements

[gulfcoastliberal]

26. Oil and $$$$$$$$$$ for the MIC

You're right, of course.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Vietnam

Nicaragua

You asked

I only oblidged wiht two examples of places we left

Not voluntarily mind you, but we left.

:-)

[greyghost]

44. You are...

absolutely correct.

[Disturbed]

6. Yes I am seriously Disturbed.

:crazy:

[greyghost]

43. Actually...

we are going to be in Iraq for the next 50 years.

See: Germany, South Korea

NOTE: They don't even have vast oil reserves.

[leftchick]

2. 126,000 MERCS

someone needs to protect the US palace. I actually think Biden came out and said we would be there for decades in the capacity you suggest. sick.

[jaysunb]

27. How are the "merc's " paid ???

Seems to me it would be pretty easy to get them re-assigned .....

[leftchick]

45. our tax dollars

there has been zero oversight of the contractors. I don't see where they are addressed at all in the bill.

[leftchick]

47. "The Democrats and U.S. Mercenaries in Iraq"

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=198&Itemid=36

In addition to the other, many shortcomings in the Democrats' Iraq "withdrawal" legislation, the measure fails utterly to deal with the 126,000 "contractors" in Iraq - tens of thousands of whom are armed mercenaries. The private force rivals the uniformed services in size, and earns far more money, all of it paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Unaccountable to U.S. military or Iraqi law, the mercenaries are a shadow army undergirding the occupation - and a corporate profit center for George Bush's friends.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Pretty obvious to anybody paying attention. But most aren't, most believe the

sound bites in the headlines.

[Disturbed]

16. Most Americans wouldn't care about what's going on in Iraq

if American troops weren't dying and being wounded there in great numbers. If that becomes minimal the Iraq issue will fade. Also, that America is losing bothers a whole lot of folk because Americans loath losing. If Iraq settled down and the perception is that the US did not really lose then most Americans wouldn't think about Iraq anyore.

[KG]

7. thanks for speaking the unspeakable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Thank You For Your Concern.

:crazy:

[jazzjunkysue]

15. * wins this round because he isn't running again. The dems are. Period.

This is not about political will, it's about being painted as "not supporting the troops." * is simply willing to play chicken all the way to hell because he's not ever running for office again. All the congressional dems have to run every year, and some of them in red states.

The stats are clear: 70% of americans want out, but if we really starve the troops of money, our leaders are voted out as "soft on terror". Will they be able to help if they're out of office?

We need more dems in office, not fewer.

* can do this because he's got nothing to lose. The dems will blink first because they have to.

But that doesn't mean the entire GOP will be able to keep this up forever. At some point even they will have to get out. They'll wait for the dems to take the presidency and then whatever fallout comes, they'll blame the dems.

Both sides will do what they think they have to in their neighborhoods to stay in office.

Just like Hillary and John Edwards voted for the invasion because they believed they had to, the GOP will eventually leave Iraq when they think politically it's time.

This is not about the troops or the oil: It's about public opinion.

[bdamomma]

18. yea, I agree with your comment that * has nothing to lose

he has his men in place and has everything set up, disgusting, but like you said repigs can't keep this up, their party is mud anyway.

[rodeodance]

19. you are right. Nicely said.

[jazzjunkysue]

24. Thanks. n/t.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

21. Yes, we must reclaim our culture from the military-industrial complex.

And, that will NEVER happen under Republicans. Never has, never will.

We have corporate influenced members within our leadership ranks, however, the fundamental beliefs of each party's constituents are completely different. And, within our party, the principled voices may speak out, whether their colleagues listen or not, they may absolutely take up the causes of "We, the people".

Lockstep is out of the question, and that's a good thing.

And, the OP's broadbrush attack on all Democratic leaders in our country is out of place, here.



MKJ

[Disturbed]

22. I strongly suspect that the Iraqi Govt. would negotiate

acceptable terms regarding Sunnis and Kurds once the major draw down occurs. The US will still keep a substantial number of US Troops and Mercs in Iraq. As I said, Americans will move on to other issues when Iraq simmers down to occasional stories on the US Corp Media. It's about tamping down.

[bdamomma]

23. well if it's based on public opinion why are they not listening to us?

just asking.

[Disturbed]

25. Public opinon is important but not paramount to either

Dems or Rethugs. Public opinion can be changed with a lot of catapulting the propaganda by both parties and the US Media. I am merely stating that both parties want to hold on to Iraq however they can do so.

[jazzjunkysue]

28. Their own local voters will demand to stay. That's how the congress works.

Your congressperson represents your own neighborhood. And if a dem knows he/she can't support the pullout yet, it's political suicide, and a repug takes their chair. That can't help us.

So, we rely on the Kerrys and Obamas and Edwards and moveon to try to pursuede the good people of those red areas to reconsider.

The local reps know their constituants, and they know what they can get away with. They also know the local GOP machine and who's breathing down their necks for such an opportunity.

My senator, Schumer, can yell and scream and pound the table because NY is so blue and his seat is that safe. Others can't.

But eventually, the central command of the GOP will decide to go, probably that decision was made a while ago: At the election. Then, whatever happens that's bad over there, the GOP has political cover: The dems wreaked all that havok.

The dem who wins this election will live to with he/she had stayed home. It's gonna be brutal. They're gonna take all the hits.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. I doubt Hillary had to vote for war from a political perspective. She has always

had very safe numbers in New York. I think Hillary is big on sending the military to do stuff, and Iraq was convenient.
It also goes along with her DLC issues. They believe Dems need to be big war hawks to win.

[Forkboy]

39. I think the vote was totally political

She knew she was going to run for President,regardless of what they all say beforehand about not deciding yet blah blah blah.I believe she voted for it thinking that by the time the election rolled around things there would be sewn up over there and she'd have the defense "cred" that she needs to look tough on terror.

Something funny happened on the way to victory in Iraq though.

[juno jones]

32. As the 'militias' have bombed the green zone

and they have been found to have forged or obtained documents to get into these installations, those fancy bases aren't going to mean squat. This is more like vietnam than korea. You can't fight if you can't tell friend from foe, and at best, our allies are opportunists. No trust there. They will have us out and the helicopters will fly from that fancy embassy roof someday.

[bigtree]

33. what they are demanding is for Bush to begin to redeploy troops

from Iraq and begin to bring the majority home.

That should be a cause we all support unless someone feels those soldiers' lives who would be saved by bringing them home would be insignificant.

[Disturbed]

34. I suspect that Busholini will pull the majority of the Troops

out after Sept. '07 because the Rethugs in Congress will demand it. It will be spun to the advantage of the Rethugs somehow. Rethugs have a knack for spin. In no way do the Rethugs want Iraq hanging around their neck close to the '08 Elections. Dems, of course will go along with that. The US Occupation will continue, as I have stated.

[Phrogman]

37. You're right, they're waiting for their turn at the trough.

Why kill the money tree?

[leftofthedial]

38. our entire "government" is corrupt to its core

so what do we do?

[camero]

40. True very true

I think we need to clean the slate and start over. Most Dems and Repubs are really on the same corp side.

[Disturbed]

42. The two Party System is flawed.

America needs a different system. America needs to change that to a system where more parties have power sharing. Campaigns need to be free of Corp. money for starters.

[greyghost]

46. You are...

absolutely correct.

We will be in Iraq for the next 50 years.