A pullout from Iraq is not the answer.

[tk2kewl]

bushCo's illegal war has been a political, moral and financial distaste for the U.S., no doubt. But the opposition should be calling for a transfer of command rather than a pullout.

Taking the reins out of the hands of the neocons and handing them to the U.N. would kill at least 3 neocon-birds with one stone. 1- Expose bushCo as incompetent and criminal, 2- Bolster the U.N., 3- ultimately lead to an international clean-up of the neocon mess.

Simply calling for a pullout is naive, while a transfer of command can become the sort of strategic initiative Lakoff describes in "Don't think of an Elephant"

[merwin]

1. And how would UN support change anything? Their reason for hating

us is that they don't want foreigners tromping through their holy land. That wouldn't change anything, except cause less US citizens to die, and more french/german/italian/etc citizens to die.

[tk2kewl]

5. ...and if we just walk away everything will return to normal?

like i said, naive. a strategic plan to restore the peace while at the same time exposing the neocons is what is needed.

[KlatooBNikto]

14. When the British claimed they had to be in India for 50 to hundred more

years, Mahatma Gandhi told them please leave.If there is chaos, we will solve it as an independent people.We do not need you as our masters.Please leave and come back as our friends and guests.

[katinmn]

22. Wha! KlatooBNikto, we both drew comparisons to India

at the same time.
Cool. :thumbsup:

[merwin]

79. Hear hear... that's a perfect analogy.

[katinmn]

20. A friend of mine from India compares America's colonization of Iraq

to Britain's imperialism in India.

Following decades of fighting and angst over what would happen to India after they left, they did eventually leave.

Yes there was a civil war. Yes, many people died.

But do the Indians wish the Brits had stayed?

Of course not!

[tabasco]

6. The Iraqis know the US is there to steal their resources ...

and use their country as a colony.

You really can't see the difference in Iraqi perception with a UN force as peacekeepers, as opposed to a continued occupation by a nation which unilaterally invaded their country?

The transfer of power to the UN is the only answer. Just because that may fail too is no reason for the US to continue in a bloody quagmire.

The US will have to kiss a lot of ass to get the UN involved, but it is the right thing to do after our criminal invasion. Possible failure is not a reason to not do the right thing.

[tk2kewl]

12. it will take a huge effort to force bushCo into a UN partnership

but the tide is already turning for a pullout and a strong message about our moral responsibility to Iraq may resonate with the public. It would be a failure of enormous proportion for bush to be forced to turn to the UN for assistance.

this is the position the left should take IMO

[Frederik]

2. I don't think it would change anything, frankly

[tecelote]

3. We certainly shouldn't be teaming up with Israel to go after Iran.

I agree that we need to stay and finish what we started. But, these actions are continuing and expanding. Maybe we need a regime change.

[peacebird]

19. a regime change? a sea-change would be the only thing to work

Actually letting the Iraqi people rule Iraq as they see fit. Throw out the sock puppets we installed, and throw out the laws that Bremer imposed in his tenure. Give the Iraqi people the money to rebuild instead of Halliburton and KBR. Let the Iraqi's manage their own country. YES the USA must pay to rebuild it, but there are plenty of construction companies and engineers etc who also happen to be Iraqi's that can see to the details and the work.
Get all American businesses out of the profit loop. This would help solve Iraq's massive unemployment problem also, and families that can earn a decent paycheck won't be fa,ilies looking to earn some money setting explosives.

[tecelote]

30. Yes.

When I mentioned "Regime Change" I meant in America.

The Iraqis should rule themselves if we are building a real Democracy.

"Give the Iraqi people the money to rebuild instead of Halliburton and KBR."

Great idea.

"Get all American businesses out of the profit loop. This would help solve Iraq's massive unemployment problem also..."

Also a great point.

Why isn't the money going to the Iraqis?

[emanymton]

4. It Worked In Viet Nam. It Will Work In Iraq. The Question Is Who..

wants to be the last to die for shrub's war?

(It won't be a child of GOP.)



Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

[eleny]

7. "A pullout from Iraq is not the answer"

It would have been for the next soldier who dies in Iraq.

So, how many more U.S. soldiers are you willing to sacrifice? Don't give me any more of your reasoning. Give me a number.

[tk2kewl]

9. So you think this country bares no responsibility whatsoever

for what has happened to Iraq as a result of bush's war?

Certainly there would be more deaths, but they would be fighting for a noble international peacekeeping force not a neocon imperial force.

Whether we like it or not the U.S. bears a responsibility to make amends for the neocons.

[eleny]

11. You have no courage of your convictions

Give me the number.

[tk2kewl]

15. your line of questioning is about as useful to the debate as asking

"is the world better off with Saddam out of power?"


given a clean slate, no one should have died in Iraq. We should have never been there in the first place. We are now burdened with the consequences of the neocon debacle.

[eleny]

21. Here you go

You do it, then http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf

[tk2kewl]

27. it probably doesn't matter to you

but i volunteered right after 9/11 to be an intelligence officer since i have the appropriate skills. i was unable to get into an officer program because i was too old.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[tk2kewl]

41. it matters to me too

the death of Iraqis matters to me also

if the dieing continues after Americans stop dieing that is still our responsibility.

i am not solely concerned with American lives

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[katinmn]

40. Ha!

[tk2kewl]

45. easy.

i knew this post would result in some flame wars, but at least your comments have been constructive. no need to pile on. i think if you read all of my posts in this thread it is clear that i do not support war and i am disturbed by the destruction wrought by bush and his thugs.

[peacebird]

24. please read my above post - we can pull out and still make amends

if we continue to spend all the money we are currently using for troop support, base building, bombing, etc - but spend it by giving it to Iraq to rebuild using their own people, their own companies, their own engineers instead of Halliburton and KBR - then we can make amends AND pull the troops out.

[tk2kewl]

36. that is a very good plan

the original post was intended to formulate a position that is more than "just get out"

the left needs to articulate a strategy that not only makes amends to the Iraqis but also results in the downfall of the neocons. your plan is on point.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. Yes, we have a responsibility, but the payback would better be

reparations, not occupations.

Out now.

Period.

Even if we kill every 'insurgent' that walks today, there will be generations more to take their place.

The status quo is nothing short of quagmire.

I used to think as you do. Pottery Barn and all that.

No more.

This is flat out unwinnable and flat out disastrous for the Iraqis.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. There is no way out that's politically acceptable.

The war will end when

a) the Iraqis inflict enough casualties for the American people to demand it.

b) the Democrats (and, some Republicans) grow enough spine to cut funding in support of it.

The UN can't get involved in the way you envision simply because we and our Brit lapdogs have vetoes on the Security Council which negates any UN involvement on any but their terms.

[bpilgrim]

10. just our TROOPS, not our AID

we MUST bring OUR TROOPS home ASAP!

peace

[tecelote]

13. The troops that want to come home.

We can not withdraw too quickly or more people will be killed. We started this. We have to do our best to leave Iraq with a stable government.

We need to bring the National Guard, and all troops that do not want to be in Iraq, home.

This is the first step.

However, it may not be immediately. We are short on troops so we have to develop a plan that will allow it.

[katinmn]

16. We are not the ones to decide what's best for Iraq.

Leave that to the Iraqis. That's what they want.

They have a country that they are committed to despite US interference for decades.

The violence will decline when the US gets out and lets the Iraqis lead thir country. The US has installed a puppet government. It is naive and self-deception to say otherwise.

As long as the US is running the government and profiting off the heartbreak and destruction of Iraq, the imported "insurgents" from Syria and other neighboring countries as well as home-grown freedom fighters will continue to fight the occupation the only way they can. With home made explosives and assasinations.

[tecelote]

18. Leave it to the Iraqis?

What do they know and why would we want to give them a voice in creating a Democracy?

[tk2kewl]

23. is that a sarcastic statement?

certainly it would not be a democracy if they didn't have a say in creating it. or maybe you capitalized democracy because you are referring to bushCo® Democracy®

[tecelote]

34. Yes.

It is definitely sarcasm.

Strange how if we bring Democracy to Iraq, we feel that we own it somehow.

[katinmn]

25. ROTFLMAO! Excellent satire

whether intended or not.

[Ms. Clio]

29. "What do they know and why would we want to give them a voice

in creating a Democracy?"

Maybe because it's THEIR COUNTRY???

What an offensive question.


Edited to add: My apologies for failing to recognize an excellent bit of satire.

[peacebird]

39. Ms. Clio - I think he was being sarcastic?

not like Bush really wants to give Iraqi's a REAL voice in creating their country, or in giving them a real democracy. Any more than bush has interest in a REAL democracy at home.

[Ms. Clio]

42. Okay, thanks, peacebird -- sometimes it's hard to tell :)

[tk2kewl]

48. especially when the post count is low, but tecelote seems to be legit

welcome to tecelote :toast:

[Ms. Clio]

50. I'll drink to that -- Welcome to tecelote :)

[H2O Man]

31. That is correct.

<1> There is no evidence of any war in Iraq which is not directly connected to the US aggression and occupation.

<2> Few things are as obnoxious as anyone from the USA deciding for other countries what their needs are, and how to meet those needs.

The USA needs to get out of Iraq. We are trespassing We have no more right to determine what Iraq needs than a violent ex-husband who is violating a restraining order has the right to decide who should be in his ex-wife's house before he leaves.

[patdem]

17. I do not think we had an exit date for viet nam either did we?

There was an immediate and un announced exit from viet nam...will that be our exit strategy in iraq? viet nam was taken over by OUR enemies, but now we are talking about putting bases in viet nam...so the FEAR about us pulling out never occurred. VIET NAM NEVER INVADED THE USA...AMAZING! Nor did all of SE Asia fall to communism!!!!!

I bet if we pull out of Iraq the Sunni's will fight foreign insurgents more forcefully than any Shiite would!...

If we stay and the Shiite's take control it will become a theocracy like Iran, if we leave, at least the Sunni's who are secular and more likely to become an ally to the USA may prevail?

WE CANNOT WIN...LEAVE OR STAY!

[ElectroPrincess]

28. Now we are "normalizing relationships" with Vietnam ...

Some have even suggested building a US base in that country. However, I believe the forgoing is a pipe dream. I wonder how this makes Vietnam vets feel ... or the older Vietnamese?

Did the Vietnam War accomplish anything?

[wookie294]

33. Withdrawing from Iraq will not be a disaster

Reagan’s war advisor said this: “We've pulled out of several places without achieving our objectives, and every time we predicted the end of Western civilization, which it was not. We left Korea after not achieving anything we wanted to do, and it didn't hurt us very much. We left Vietnam -- took us ten years to come around to doing it -- but we didn't achieve what we wanted. Everyone said it would set back our foreign policy in East Asia for ten years. It set it back about two months. Our allies thought we were crazy to be in Vietnam.” – Admiral William Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1980s.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6593163?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1117251574802&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.872

[wookie294]

26. Violence will continue with, or without, US troops

If American troops leave, the violence will continue unabated and I disagree that it will "get much worse" if we leave. Many Americans think the troops are actually accomplishing at least "something" in Iraq. In fact, the troops are just sitting ducks in a country controlled by resistance fighters who hate each other. The Iraqi government said there are more resistance fighters in Iraq than U.S. troops. See link for proof....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1425022,00.html

[katinmn]

32. I suggest people educate themselves by reading what the Iraqis

are saying and writing. They want us out. They do not want a puppet government. They are worse off under the US than they were under Saddam.

Clearly people - even some DUers - are still listening to WH talking points and corporate media spin.

[Karl Frisch]

35. Forcing BushCo to Do What's Right

I couldn't agree more.

Bush and his people have created an enormous mess in Iraq and try as we might, there is no way the U.S. has the credibility to clean it up.

There is now a bipartisan movement in Congress to push legislation that will force Bush to come up with a plan to hand over control of the reconstruction in Iraq to the UN and others without the reputation we've earned there.

Now I know we've gotten used to being ignored by the White House and Republican leadership in Congress but if we can learn anything from the Ethics flap in the House it is this: when faced with enormous pressure from the media and American people, they will reverse course at least in part.

Check out Congresswoman Slaughter's petition which calls on people to support the bipartisan legislation in Congress that will lead to a phase out of U.S. troops in Iraq by transferring responsibility of the reconstruction.

http://www.votelouise.com/phaseout

We've got to put pressure on Congress to do the right thing. They've already got two Republicans (a libertarian and the conservative who changed French fries into freedom fries in Congress) signed on as co-sponsors.

[katinmn]

37. good post, Karl

Welcome to DU! Good to have you here.:hi:

[Karl Frisch]

44. Thanks Katinmn!

I was a member back during the early days of the Dean campaign... its good to be back. I suppose outrage has a way of bringing folks back into the fold... now if I could only bring myself to blog again. I haven't blogged in MONTHS (www.carlwithak.com) and my traffic has all but died... at least the spam robots have never left my side. LOL

[katinmn]

53. I just bookmarked your blog! Looks good

I like the "races" feature alot.

You have been getting some good ink, too! :thumbsup:

Keep up the good work and I will check in on your blog and hope to see you posting here more in the future.

[Karl Frisch]

57. LOL Thanks...

I'd rather make it into a scoop blog but who has the time? I can't even use it for an ego blog like i have the past few posts!...

[patdem]

Karl, great information...and Welcome to DU

WOW...my third post was in the lounge..being a neophyte to politics really..at least the politics of being the opposition. :bounce:

[tecelote]

43. Yeah. Some great ideas here.

My new view after reading this thread...

Bring home the National Guard and the troops that want to leave and replace them with U.N. and new coalition countries troops for a short while. Then immediately begin to move the money from BushCo to the Iraqi people and begin to let them govern themselves.

We can get out quickly and possibly leave a democratic government that has a shot at making it.

[tecelote]

52. The Money.

When peacebird mentioned the money it clicked. Great point peacbird!

"Give the Iraqi people the money to rebuild instead of Halliburton and KBR."

Turn reconstruction over to the Iraqis and let them govern themselves. Dramatically increasing employment in Iraq and turning the control over to the new government will be the first really big step in making a new Iraq - one the Iraqis want.

Americans should not profit from war.

[LynnTheDem]

49. Yes it is the only answer.

It's what the vast majority of Iraqis want; it was wrong to go in, it's wrong to stay.

Two wrongs won't ever make a right.

We need to GET OUT of Iraq...and leave a blank signed check.

[Jacobin]

54. Bwwwwaaaahahahahahaha

Who is silly enough to think "the U.N." would 'take control'?

there is no control to be taken.

Iraqi insurgents own Iraq.

It would be like asking member nations to replace the U.S. as occupiers who live behind bunkers.

There is no fucking way in the world you are gonna convince France, Germany, Russia, et al to replace American troops in that shooting gallery.

None.

Zip

Nada

[tk2kewl]

56. command of the forces on the ground is what i was referring to

not "control" of the country or government.

lots of good points in this thread though, and maybe its me who is a bit naive, i haven't quite decided yet.

[Jacobin]

74. That's just funny

An army is loyal to its government, the one it chooses. It's not loyal to some group of foreign infidels, particularly in the middle east pretending to 'own' the country after an invasion

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Stinky The Clown]

55. How about a transfer of command to the IRAQIS?

It is **their** country. They will find a way to rule it. Or to break it up. Or to sell it to the highest bidder.

Troops out.

Money (temporarily) to (mostly non-American) NGOs.

Money to legit Iraqi organizations (no matter what their political bent) as they become established.

Recognition of their new government, even if it is tribal or theocratic or dictatorial. It is, after all, **their** government and **their** culture.

Support for each entity if they decide to break off into three separate countries (in my view, the best result).

Take the American face off everything except stringless greenbacks.

Encourage support from other Middle East nations.

Apologize profusely to the Iraqis and the world.

Neocons in den haag.

Regime change in the US.

Did I miss anything?

[katinmn]

68. nope. That about sums it up.

:thumbsup: :)

[welshTerrier2]

58. there is no "answer" but a pullout is the only path ...

first, let's agree that the US and the rest of the world should do what it can to provide humanitarian aid to Iraq ... the neo-cons, well actually the neo-cons backed by most of the US Congress, have failed to ensure that the monies allocated for "reconstruction" actually led to reconstruction ... the idea that those pesky insurgents kept blowing everything up is bullshit ... funny how the US has been building the world's largest embassy and permanent, er "enduring", military bases throughtout the country ... bush is building what he wants to build and is NOT building what he does NOT want to build ...

in Iraq, the US is an OCCUPIER ... we are not liberators and with bush in office we will NEVER be liberators ... we are not ensuring peace and stability; we are making war and instability ... the US is not part of the solution; we are part of the problem ... keeping the military in Iraq is NOT an option; it's insane ... anyone who looks at the realities and understands the world's reaction to our presence in Iraq would quickly come to that conclusion ...

now, as for bringing in the UN as an occupation force, there are some serious problems ... first, let's be clear that bush isn't going to do that ... second, let's be clear that the so-called coalition has been fleeing from Iraq ... many governments withdrew their troops when they first began to sustain casualties ... why would anyone think that foreign governments or the UN itself will respond to bush asking them to come to Iraq to help? and how many Americans would be willing to have American troops subservient to the UN? the unfortunate answer is very, very few ...

the UN coalition MAY have been a viable strategy BEFORE bush invaded Iraq; now it's a pipedream ... and what evidence is there that the "insurgents" who are seeking to liberate Iraq from foreign interference would be tolerant of a UN presence? most people understand that the US ultimately controls the UN ...

numerous examples have been cited of US-trained Iraqi troops joining the insurgency ... we train them and then they fight against US troops ... how many more should we train before we catch on to that game? the real bottom line here is that bush has very intentionally been engineering the ongoing instability in Iraq ... the US has had an inadequate force in Iraq to bring about the desired stability and bush and rumsfeld are not about to increase the troop strength ...

each day that passes with foreign occupation in Iraq will be another day that resistance fighters have an enemy to expel from THEIR country ... that's the essential point ... the US has to get out and the UN cannot become a substitute force ...

those who claim there might be civil war in Iraq should the US withdraw never seem to acknowledge the daily casualties with no end in sight ... yes, there may well be civil war ... perhaps civil war is a necessary step to find some kind of resolution in Iraq ... and perhaps with the US out (and not interfering) there might be some possibility of reconciliation ... it's important to understand that the US has been heavily interfering not just militarily but also in the political process in order to establish a puppet regime ... that interference is a major component of what is fueling the insurgency ... the neo-cons are seeking more power for Alawi and for Chalabi and thus far they've been unable to make the progress they've wanted ... perhaps if Iraq is truly left to the Iraqis, peace and stability will be a possibility ... without US interference, either civil war or a peaceful resolution might occur; with continued occupation, US or UN, more "war" is the only likely result ...

it's time for the US to withdraw (militarily) not because withdrawing will guarantee a positive future for Iraq but because not withdrawing will guarantee more of the same ... and sending in outside military forces under the auspices of the UN will not be acceptable to anyone ...

[tk2kewl]

61. Thanks welshTerrier2, that was an excellent post

I am now well on my way to being convinced that my original post was naive. However, I think it is absolutely critical that the growing opposition to this war articulate a strategic plan that both helps Iraq AND brings down the neocons.

I truly appreciate constructive debate rather than those who would rather vilify me. :hi:


(it's no wonder there are people who post in the lounge that never venture into GD, and I think that is unfortunate)

[welshTerrier2]

63. villification ...

i must say that i see numerous posts in the lounge villifying people in GD with an unfortunately broad brush ... people in GD come in all shapes and sizes and to view the important discourse that occurs here in such a negative light is, in my view, very inappropriate ...

i also commend you for being open to changing your own views on this issue ... your creative idea of bringing in the UN is always worthy of discussion; i just don't think it has a chance in hell of succeeding ...

and finally, i noticed from your profile you live in Seaford ... i used to live in Merrick about a hundred years ago ... and N. Merrick before that right at exit 24 on the Southern State Pkwy ... a big howdy to LI !!! i remember when they first built the Seaford - Oyster Bay Expressway ... the traffic reporters used to get the biggest kick out of calling it the SOB ... ah, those were the good old days ...

[tk2kewl]

65. i mostly lurk in both the lounge and GD

but the feeling I get in GD is that I am better off not posting my own thoughts if they aren't completely thought out or I am likely to get my ass kicked. generally i post wise cracks and links to opinion pieces i agree with. bullying is a neocon tactic and i don't like it when they do it, but i also don't appreciate it when i get it from people who i share a lot of common ground with.

as for LI, it's a strange place to live. I mostly like it here since i get to enjoy my boat and the water, but i have been considering heading south to the Chesapeake where things are a bit slower and less expensive

[katinmn]

70. to add to one of your comments

this one:

each day that passes with foreign occupation in Iraq will be another day that resistance fighters have an enemy to expel from THEIR country ... that's the essential point ... the US has to get out and the UN cannot become a substitute force ...
------------------------------------
This point was confirmed by an Iraqi this week who is the head of one of the largest unions in Iraq. I heard him speak at a public forum.

He said people from Syria and neighboring countries that hate the US presence in the ME are taking advantage of the low unemployment in the war torn country. These outsiders are PAYING unemployed Iraqis to assasinate members of the government as well as anyone who works for the US puppet government.

Employment is already at 50-70 percent and the new government is planning to privatize (i.e. turn over management of existing industries to US contactors) and lay off an additional 50 percent of those employed by state manufacturing industries. No doubt they will be replaced by well-paid expats who will take the money out of the country.

To emphasize the point: More than half the country's people have no jobs, and more are soon to be unemployed.

How are they expected to survive?

Add to that the anger of the stolen billions that BushCo won't account for, the slaughter of innocents, the torture of petty criminals, and the continual theft of anything of value -- it's understandable there is a growing uprising.

The US is the problem. If we think the neocons are liars and cheats here in America, just think how they act when there is no legitimate political opposition.

It's disgusting and shameful what we are doing in Iraq. Staying only grows the problem.

[patdem]

71. Exactly...I think Iraqis think more highly of ANYONE from the mid east

then they do of Anglos...foreigners come from Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran...England, and the US...who do you think the will wrap their arms around?

[welshTerrier2]

72. wonderful post, katinmn ...

this is exactly what the Senate Dems and the "i was against the war but now we're stuck there" crowd doesn't get ...

the US has not only NOT been rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, we've been gutting it ... there are no jobs ... there is no clean drinking water ... food is in short supply ... the US and the neo-cons have brought Iraq to its knees to make it more PLIABLE ... when people are starving and have no hope, they are far more likely to OBEY their masters ... and Iraq's oil production will NOT be allowed to become operational anytime soon ... for now, bush has been able to successfully blame this on the insurgent scapegoats ... but the truth is the US will not allow revenues of any sort to flow into Iraq to help the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people ...

and why is this?

because for many years US foreign policy has exploited poverty wherever money can be made ... with Chalabi in charge of Iraq's Oil Ministry, keeping the oil from flowing is easy ... the next step, and bush will look like a great humanitarian hero, will be to "pressure" the World Bank (with Wolfowitz in charge) to make big loans to Iraq so they can bring their oil back online ... but these loans will only be made if the companies put in charge of doing the work are "approved" ... we wouldn't want any fledgling, high risk, Iraqi start-ups doing the repairs on Iraq's oil infrastructure ... to guarantee these loans, we'll need some of the "big boys" ... can you say "Halliburton"?????

but the game doesn't end there ...

strangely, oil revenues will not be sufficient to repay the World Bank in a timely manner ... Jafaari, who will resist this US colonialism, will not want to cooperate with any of this ... but Iraq will become so devastated, he will have no choice ... and when he is unable to meet his debt obligations, the US will step in (again) to "help" IF certain terms and conditions are met ...

what will the terms be?

just use your imagination ... the sky's the limit ... first, the US and its "preferred corporations", will be guaranteed long-term contract for large percentages of the oil revenues ... then, of course, there will be some "approved" US military bases with substantial US troop presence ... and then, of course, there will be certain votes in the UN against countries like Syria and Iraq ...

you might think of this little game as nothing but a very simple form of international blackmail ... and it all begins by "being stuck in Iraq to help the Iraqi people" while the US really is driving Iraq into a totally desperate state ... that's the tragic reality of what the US has been doing in Iraq ... no matter how well-meaning some of our Democratic friends are, they are endorsing a very evil policy headed by a very evil administration ...

[katinmn]

78. Thanks. Most of our well-meaning Dem leaders just don't get it

Take Sen. Dayton. He's a good senator but he still believes we created the mess now we need to stay and fix it.

I'm on a mission now to get a group of people together to meet with him and give him the facts. Progressives in each state who believe Iraq is for Iraqis need to do this.

Many legislators have visited Iraq. Unfortunately, things are so dangerous they never leave the park-like area of the Green Zone* and their visits are short. They never spend the night. The Iraqis they talk with are employed by the miliary, some of the lucky ones to have jobs. What kind of fact-finding is that?

*The Green Zone is a little America embedded in the heart of Baghdad. It is the former preserve of Saddam Hussein and his favored associates—an uncrowded district of villas, palaces, and monuments set in a parklike expanse that spreads for four square miles inside a meander of the Tigris River at the center of the ruined city.

--"Welcome to the Green Zone," The Atlantic Monthly, Nov 2004.

[Lexingtonian]

59. Don't waste your time with this

This is a Republican project, it's going to stay theirs. They simply are going to take it into abyssmal failure rather than accept Democratic moral victory before material defeat on the ground. I don't even know why you are trying to throw them a lifeline, because that's what you really amount to doing, politically. Republicans would love if the UN took Iraq off their hands. The UN has zero desire to help them offload their dilemma, of course.

Realistically, Iraq simply has a political situation that means civil war is unavoidable. The UN does not get involved in countries until civil wars settle down.

The serious line for Democrats is to say: There is no salvaging the fake 'democracy' or the Occupation. A civil war is inevitable, we and the UN will be there to help pick up the pieces when it dies down because no prior intervention can succeed.

Don't waste your time trying to apply Lakoff so broadly. IMHO his stuff is only of use in dealing with the Religious Right, the rest of the time just dwelling on the facts is far more effective.

[tecelote]

60. Taking exception...

"Republicans would love if the UN took Iraq off their hands"

No way. They are making too much money.

War profiteering is one of the major problems with this war.

You can bet, they want the war to go on indefinitely.

[Lexingtonian]

64. eh, I doubt that....

It's at the point where Iraq has reached the limits of usefulness in that- they can't have voter support running too low, after all the really big money is in further tax cuts and big time raids on the American taxpayer where s/he doesn't really see it. Halliburton can go over to making profits via Uzbekistan or Bulgaria.

[tecelote]

66. "It's all about oil"

There is still a lot of money involved.

There will be for a long time.

The question is... Iraqi money or American money.

[brokensymmetry]

62. Why would the UN - or anyone else - want this mess?

And no matter who is in command, we'll see more Americans - and more Iraqis - killed, maimed, burned, and hurt.

Put me down as naive if you must, but as far as I'm concerned it is time to get out. Now.

[retread]

67. Not just a pullout. Massive reparations!

*

[jmatthan]

69. First step - Move the UN

out of the control of the US. Let the funding of the UN by US be stopped completely. (After all the US is only funding the UN marginally and even that out of borrowed funds.)

http://MoveTheUN.blogspot.com

Move the UN to more conducive surroundings that people have faith in this organisation.

The UN has to be REFORMED and made more democratic. The veto powers have to be removed. The Japanese, Indians, Chinese should be part of the power equation in the UN presently controlled by US, UK, France, the Russians and the Chinese.

After that any move taken by an independent UN will be accepted by the Iraqis and others as being legitimate.

Then even nincompoops like John Bolton cannot do anything to destroy the UN and war crimes against Bush and Blair would logically follow.

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland

[Disturbed]

76. Wolfowitz-World Bank

That was part of the PNAC plan.

Bush Regime Iraq Successes

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits, esp. Bush Junta fave ally Saudi Dicktatorshit.

The Bush Regime will never leave Iraq unless they are forced to by Iraqis &/or Congress.

“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

[mittenlandgirl]

73. A pullout from Iraq is the only answer

Remember who is in charge. Massive demand for pulling out is the only way to save our soldier's lives and Iraqi lives. The lives lost after we pull out will most likely be far less than if we stay "and try and fix things" (which we won't) No way will the neocons let the UN do anything even if they could.

please listen to this:

http://pws.cablespeed.com/~debidee/The_John_Kasper_Band-We_re_the_Enemy.mp3


:cry:

[southlandshari]

80. EXCELLENT song, mittenlandgirl.

I would really like to see you post this link and anything you know about the group singing the song, history of the song, etc... as a stand alone post. If you do this, send me a PM and I'll post the first reply in the thread!

Good stuff, and welcome to DU!

southlandshari
DU Moderator

:hi:

[dkofos]

75. If we pull our soldiers out tomorrow or in 10 years,

the only difference will be fewer dead US soldiers.

There WILL BE CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ NO MATTER WHEN WE LEAVE.

Do it now and save our kids.

[Swamp Rat]

81. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!