Support The Illegal Occupation Of Iraq: Vote Dean!

[ChadCoffman]

"We need more troops in Iraq now."

"I know that we don’t have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq, not 200,000 troops"

--Howard Dean ('Meet The Press' June 22, 2003)

If we elect Howard Dean, we will have more troops, possibly an additional 100,000, putting their lives on the line, guarding Halliburton facilities and protecting our oil. We will have more troops protecting America's corporate interests. We will have more troops essentially working for the Carlyle group.

civilian massacres... troops dying... snowballing morale... troop suicides... civilian resentment... imperial ambitions... puppet government... plundering of Iraq's resources...

Don't Support The Troops: Make Them Stay!

Q: "Is it hypocritical for the Left to criticize the occupation of Iraq while supporting a candidate who not only favors the occupation but wants increased military presence in the region?"

A: "Dean's stance on the occupation is intended to solve the problems faced by troops. Increased occupation will make the troops safer and boost morale."

Rebuttal: Well then, the Left cannot rightfully criticize the occupation as a means to validate it's pre-war predictions that the conflict would lead to a Vietnam-esque "quagmire". For us to do so while at the same time calling for an increased occupation is hypocritical. We are thus limited to criticizing the ongoing Iraq crisis merely as a means to illustrate Bush's destructive post-war policy.

However, If you are against the illegal occupation of Iraq, you can rightfully criticize the occupation because it is wrong and illegal!

For the Left to endorse a candidate in favor of the occupation is a betrayal of the anti-war stance. It is an endorsement of the Bush administration's imperial foreign strategy -- that America be in control of Iraq's resources. It is a betrayal of the anti-war movement's original demand -- that Iraqis overthrow Hussein with UN support and remain in control of their own resources and their own future.

Have we forgot what we were marching for? Or were we merely "marching against Bush"?

Summary: By supporting Dean you are endorsing the occupation, so don't criticize it as a means to justify your pre-war predictions. I'm sick of the Left's giddy reporting of the Iraq crisis while at the same time supporting it.

Full withdrawal or full UN control, given the Iraqis will accept it, are the only acceptable solutions! Not increased presence.

If you support the occupation, you support the war. The war has become the occupation.

Those who would say that we now have to fix Bush's problem should be reminded of another problem which America had to fix. The problem we inherited from the French in Asia, not far back.


Support The Quagmire: Vote Dean!

***

"I would be surprised if didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons."
--Howard Dean (January 2003)

[Qutzupalotl]

1. He said, "Now that we're there, we can't leave."

Without a stable government in place, the whole region could destabilize.

[ChadCoffman]

3. it seems

So Dean and the Bush admin has it backwards.

So far, the method has been to stabilize THEN insert a govt.

Not vice-versa, as you claim.

[revcarol]

5. Yes, we CAN leave.

We can turn the "occupation" over to a UN peace-keeping force, under UN (NOT US) command, and start taking a more minor role. This would not further destabilize the government, the UN is experienced at this and some Iraqis might even end up getting clean water and power and order re-established.

AND THE U. S. SHOULD PAY FOR IT.(Not take it out of oil revenue!) We broke it, now we gotta get it fixed.

But the Bushies won't do it because "TO THE VICTORS BELONG THE SPOILS." They would have to let the Iraqis/UN control the oil money. So Dean is right in a back-handed way. SINCE THE BUSHIES WON'T HAVE THE U.N., we gotta send more troops.

But, he sure is thinking in the box. WHY NOT CALL FOR THE U. N. TO TAKE CHARGE?

[ChadCoffman]

6. good point

Aside from full withdrawal, UN control is the only acceptable solution, given the Iraqis will accept it.

[Ripley]

8. Dean's words on this:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."


I believe he calls for a limited number of troops to remain.

[revcarol]

15. He still would have Iraqi oil pay for it!!

And other nations who contributed to the "reconstruction Fund"!!

Dammit: we broke it, we are the bull in the china shop and our tax money, as much as I hate it, should fix it!!

[Nazgul35]

9. perhaps if everyone read the whole article...

and not just the juicy edits provided here...and in a much earlier and longer thread that already discussed this article (it really helps to go to more then just the first page of threads guys...) you would have read Dean's suggestion that we bring in NATO and UN forces to help out...the 40-50,000 troops Dean is talking about refers to the original force projection that the army asked for...which donny Rumsfeld ignored cause he wanted to prove his unit was bigger then anyone elses...

And I seriously doubt that the Governor would be talking about carrying war to N.Korea, Syria and Iran...as the current admin is doing....

I know it's fun to take pieces of what someone says and run away with it but we should really take the time to read original source material and not rely on what individuals who may or may not have an interest in slamming a candidate posts here...

[ulysses]

2. ...

Q: "Is it hypocritical for the Left to criticize the occupation of Iraq while supporting a candidate who not only favors the occupation but wants increased military presence in the region?"

Not everyone on the left wants to compound the harm done to Iraq by packing up and leaving now that we've destroyed that nation's infrastructure and destabilized it politically.

[ChadCoffman]

4. but...

The fact that the Iraqi people don't want us there should be evidence enough that they are able to administer themselves.

I doubt they'd be calling for our removal and cheering our casualties if they felt they still needed us.

Let them have it their way. Or, are you implying that the Iraqi people want American occupation?

[lcordero]

7. AMEN!!!!

The troops have already revealed that they are there to support Brown & Root, Bechtel and Halliburton and not to do peacekeeping. Any politician(and that includes Democrats) that advocates keeping troops in Iraq is part of the problem and should have their financial records thoroughly investigated for ties with Bechtel, Halliburton and Brown & Root.

[Cocoa]

10. there's no one "Iraqi people"

it's way overstating things to say "U.S. bad; U.S. must go."

I think the Iraqis need security desperately, and so many of them do not want the U.S. to go. They want the U.S. to stay, but to do a better job of providing security. If the U.N. is brought in, then the troops could protect the Iraqis better because they wouldn't have to protect themselves as much.

Just picking up and leaving would be a disaster for the Iraqis, imo.

[ulysses]

12. no.

Or, are you implying that the Iraqi people want American occupation?

Recent history, though, is littered with object lessons on what happens to a country when we "liberate" it then just leave.

If we simply pull out now, I promise you that Iraq will descend into civil war.

[JNelson6563]

25. ok, let's talk like adults here

We have gone in a trash Iraq. So far other countries have shown no interest in helping us clean up our own mess. Team Bush has not contacted the UN or NATO in regard to helping.

I feel that the Iraqi people would be less inclined to view this as an imperialist occupation if we got the help in there that Dean is calling for.

As to our troops in there, yes, there are too few troops period. Iraq is big, we are untrained for peacekeeping and it's getting out of hand. Hell I can tall you horror stories of running a large Dept. store way understaffed. Can just imagine this situation.

Take your smears elsewhere. Like to someone who actually voted for and helped enable the Simian to have his stupid war for oil.

Know that I let you off easy because of the Rules. Now go back to your hole.....you need waterin'

Julie

[Eloriel]

11. boy am I sick of

having Dean's position on things misrepresented. Shame on you.

Thanks to Ripley for posting his actual position.

I'm also sick of some Dems (or so they call themselves) and newbies coming in here to try to destroy this or that candidate -- with lies -- and stir up the shit.

Eloriel

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. If

we were to withdraw unilaterally it would destabilize a region of vital interest to the world and entice Iran into the mother of all land grabs. We broke it..... we have to fix it....

[NNN0LHI]

13. Listen bud. If you are going to be misquoting someone go elsewhere

He wasn't even talking about Iraq or all American troops. Nice fucking try. If you are going to post quotes from someone include a link to the full transcript. Run along now.

Don

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

Russert: All right, Afghanistan, we have 9,000. You would bring it up to what level?

Dean: Well, I believe that we need a very substantial increase in troops. They don’t all have to be American troops. My guess would be that we would need at least 30,000 and 40,000 additional troops. They don’t all have to be American because we have got to start taking over the security functions from the warlords in order to prepare the way for a unified Afghan police force that’s a national police force.

more

[ChadCoffman]

16. actually

He suggested that we need an additional 100,000 troops.

So I updated my post.

[ChadCoffman]

18. solution....

quote altered. point remains the same.

[DagmarK]

20. Thanks for really clarifying this Don...

And Chad.....your point doesn't stand..... sorry. You misquoted, left out big relevant portions of the actual policy, and used info on one war area for another...

You should just ask the mods to delete your post......

[David Zephyr]

27. Thank You, Don!

Looks like Dean's rivals and the supporters of them are becoming desperate and are over-reaching.

Dean will now be the nominee of the Democratic Party for 2004. This race is over, folks.

[DagmarK]

17. We can't leave.........that's a fact........

Not because we need to secure our interests.....but because we need to stabilize that country......one way or another.

We can't leave......

[poskonig]

19. Dean is exactly right on this issue.

Leaving Iraq would open up the region for terrorists to operate, create a power vacuum that other nations in the area could easily exploit, and would promote anarchy and death among the Iraqi population. Packing up now is *not* a strategic option.

Nor is it a moral one.

[MoonGod]

21. Dean's not my guy...

... but this looks like nothing more than a cheap smear. I'm still considering whether or not to hit the Alert button.

Neither DU nor the Democratic Party need members who are smearing primary candidates.

[Ripley]

22. Does the name Chad ring a bell?

Hanging or otherwise?

[MoonGod]

26. What kind of bell?

Like a doorbell? or a cowbell? or the Liberty Bell?

[DianeK]

23. what do you suggest our responsibilities are

trust me, we will be in iraq for years...W assured that...they had 130 degrees in baghdad today and very few have water and electricity..no one is coming forward to help with the nation building ( and can you blame them?) someone has to rebuild that country..it is not the fault of the regular working joe...again...what do you suggest?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. We Broke It... We Have To Fix It....

The challenge is that no other nation wants to send peace keepers because they don't want to send in peacekeepers to a volatile situation.... It's too dangerous....

We created a fine mess.... To cut and run now would be immoral.

[welshTerrier2]

28. We are Occupiers

your point is a noble one ... we have done tremendous damage to Iraq and its people and we have very real obligations there ...

but, not among those obligations is OCCUPATION ... many of the points raised in other posts are true ... Iraq will likely face a power struggle and a civil war ...

still, we must understand that the U.S. will not succeed in rebuilding Iraq ... certainly not under bush anyway ... there is no commitment to do so ...

in the end, we are Occupiers ... we are not welcomed in Iraq by its citizens ... we are not "nation builders" ... the military is not trained for nation building ... they are barely peacekeepers ... do you hold the view that we will "stabilize" Iraq by maintaining a military presence?? that over time, the warring religious factions will endorse democracy because they are unable to impose their will during the occupation by the U.S.?? do you believe we can be brokers for peace between the warring factions in Iraq? do you point to U.S. efforts in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to support your arguments?

your sense of obligation is important ... but occupation by a country with little or no commitment to help the Iraq people is not the way ... we need to get the hell out of there now ... we need to end our imperialistic, paternalistic foreign adventures ... if we really wanted to help Iraq, we should try to do for them what we have not really been able to do for our own people ... and that is to provide affordable healthcare, free public education of the highest caliber, and a real commitment to infrastructure redevelopment ... i just don't think that's going to happen ...

we should not compound the tragic mistake of the invasion by our continued military occupation ...

[dsc]

29. Under International Law we are responsible

for cleaning up this mess. It is up to the occupying force (which is us) to make sure that order is kept and basic necessities are supplied to the people. It would literally be a war crime to leave now without UN or some other force to take our place.

[Blue_Chill]

30. Abandon Iraqi People : Let's Pack up and Leave!

Who cares that no one has found Saddam, or that his people are still actively killing American troops, he is certainly no danger to return.

Who cares if we haven't fixed anything yet and that Iraq DOES NOT have a fully functioning goverment!

Let's hang them out to dry AGAIN!

Incredible....