Send more troops to Iraq?

[Postman]

Dean, Kerry , Gephardt, Clark.....all support sending more troops to Iraq.

How can you sell yourself as an "anti-war" candidate and still advocate sending more troops to Iraq, Mr Dean?

If Iraq is still unstable by this time next year: if a Democrat other than Dennis Kucinich wins the Presidency: What then?

Go to the UN and beg for troops? If Iraq, as I said earlier, is still a quagmire by this time next year, what makes you think that anyone in Europe will want to send their sons and/or daughters into that snake pit? Just because Bush is gone they will? I doubt it.

Would the Kucinich Plan to get the "US out and the UN in" work? What will it take to get the UN in?

If the UN (i.e. Europe) stays out, there isn't enough soldiers to the occupying. Does Charles Rangels idea of Conscription become a reality at that point? Then it becomes the Democrats' tar-baby.

Either way, Bush has f**ked this countrys' future bigtime.

[mike_c]

1. this is the essence of the "exit strategy" query I posted...

...a couple of days ago. Since many dems (myself included) have aligned ourselves with the anti-war movement, which advocates the quickest possible disengagement and return of U.S. troops, how do the dem candidates propose to achieve this? Kucinich appears to be the only one with a real plan for disengagement in Iraq, whether realistic or not. If Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephart, or Lieberman (who also advocates more troops) is elected, will we be marching in 2005 to protest the democratic administration's occupation of Iraq?

[Gloria]

2. I'm truly surprised none of the Dems have picked up on Richard Holbrooke's

suggestion, which he's discussed a couple of times on Charlie Rose.

He says: No UN (blue helmets), we have to internationalize by going to Norway, which has had a good relationship with the Iraqis for years, and have Norway coordinate troops from different countries to go in and help with setting up the governance. The UN is tainted, we are hated.

Holbrooke's idea should be at least looked into by someone....I can see the merits of having a trusted friendly country going in rather than the UN or, certainly, the US staying there and perpeutating the sort of unrest and distrust we are seeing now.

[Postman]

5. Sounds good, but..

The floodgates to hell of already been opened. What I mean by that is that Iraq has now become a magnet for Al-Qaeda. Pourous borders have enabled the country to be flooded with "terrorists".

I'm sure there are a good number of Iraqi nationals who are engaged in the insurgency, on the other hand, there are God only knows how many Al-Qaeda inside Iraq.

Where at one time, before the US invasion, Iraq was Al-Qaeda free: It is now a rallying point, an "Alamo" if you will, a magnet for Al-Qaeda.

Even if Norway coordinates troops from other countries it won't matter. You have to remember these Al-Qaeda types are fighting a "Jihad", a religious war. They think this is a second Crusade. They aren't going to go limp once it's announced that Norway is now taking the position formerly occupied by the US.

It's worse than you think. Bush has f**ked this up royally.

[madfloridian]

3. You are not quoting the candidates correctly.

They agree it would be disaster to just cut and run, but all recommend the use of NATO and UN resources.

I agree with them. We broke it, and we can not just run away. I believe the candidates feel that you have to give a little get the help we need.

I do not agree with Kucinich that we can just leave, just walk out.

Please go to the candidates' sites and read their issues sections. They are all pretty clear.

On edit, I know Dean advocates more troops temporarily, though "not necessarily US troops."

[Postman]

6. Kucinich doesn't advocate cutting and running.......

UN in US out. I think you missed the "UN in" part. How you do that is beyond me at this point.

[madfloridian]

10. Excuse me, how did you mean that.....how I do that?

You missed what 3 candidates said, I missed what DK said. I think you just said that I do this a lot. Yes, that is what you implied. Am I wrong?

I don't do this. I present fair statements. You missed 3, I missed 1.

"How you do that is beyond me at this point"
Just what does that imply? Have you checked my posts? Have you read the various topics I post.

[Postman]

12. I meant...

How you get the UN in is beyond me at this point given the situation in Iraq today.

[madfloridian]

13. I see what you mean.

Bush is not offering them anything at all. He wants all the goodies. I believe if someone else with some heart and soul were in there now, they could get cooperation.

Right now, with this fool in there, no other country will help us.

You are right in that it is a disaster, and our soldiers are paying with their lives. We are paying monetarily and in the loss of respect from the world.

He needs to be impeached. They all need to go.

[Kamika]

4. How they can say theyre anti war..

You know sometimes you NEED soldiers to prevent a war.

Check out kosovo.. Germany after ww2 etc.

If we would just pull out now you think the iraquis would just pick up where they left off?

[Postman]

9. Kosovo and post WWII Germany doesn't even compare to Iraq situation..

Kosovo and WW II were wars fought and won with an enemy that understood it lost.

[Kamika]

15. Youre not getting my point

We need soldiers there to keep "peace".

We pull out now in best case theres a civil war, worst case it becomes a big terrorist camp.

[Postman]

17. I understand that. How do we get the UN in?

Do you see Bush going back to the UN again? I don't. Do you see Iraq becoming more peaceful? I don't.

I understand that Bush broke Iraq and now, since he broke it, we have to fix it. Problem is Bush isn't sending his kids to Iraq to fix it.

[Kamika]

18. I dont think we have the right to get Others involved

Its our moral responsibility now. I dont think we have a moral right to ask others that were against the war to come and die for us.

[Postman]

19. Funny, Bush can be as immoral as he wants in launching an unprovoked

attack on a defenseless country but us little people have the moral responsibility to send our kids to die to right the wrong.

I don't take responsibility for that assholes immoral acts, sorry.

[Kamika]

23. you know what

Those "kids" blew up that country. Bush didnt do it. They did.

We didnt stop Bush, we could have, but we didnt. All that makes it OUR fault. You cant blame this solely on bush and the rightwingers. EVERY single American is responsible for Iraq.

[Postman]

28. Ridiculous.

Was every German responsible for Hitler? Is every Jew responsible for Sharons acts of violence. Your collective guilt strategy sounds like an excuse someone in Al-Qaeda used on 9/11. Were those people in the twin towers responsible for previous US foreign policy that may have been the cause of that act?

How about the children of the dead parents in the twin towers? They're madde to suffer because their parents were responsible, right?

You're scary

[Ardee]

25. We CAN pull out

if we are replaced with real peacekeepers, namely, UN forces. The problem is that Bush then gives up control of which corporations reap the "rewards" for his invasion.

It is only through the auspices of the United Nations, both provided peacekeepers, controlling the rebuilding along impartial, economical and fair lines and assisting Iraq with its new government that a peaceful solution to this Bush created mess may be found.

[Mass_Liberal]

7. I am really conflicted, myself

I was completely and utterly opposed to the war, from the beginning, and attended many rallies and marches. And so while our troops should come home, and in fact should never have been exposed to danger, don't we have an obligation to Iraq that we have created? We have destroyed their infrastructure, and means of food and money. We have destroyed their order. How can we leave them to face all of these crisis alone? It is all americas fault that they are in the situation they are in now.

Peace :kick:

[Postman]

11. Double, triple the re-construction aide and cut the military aid.

Here's a novel idea....How about holding elections now? All this bullshit about Iraq not being ready yet is just that. The only ones not ready are the corporations who haven't sifoned off enough of Iraqs resources yet.

Somehow Iraq is ready for free market capitalism but not yet ready for political democracy. Yeah, right.

[Mz Pip]

8. Clark wants

to International the troops as soon as possible and "get our fingerprints" off Iraq.

I think the UN would be willing to work with us, but would want more control than Bush is willing to give. Basically, Bush has to go because he is a crappy representative for us. Bush will never, ever admit that he made a mistake with this one. Why would anyone help us with an attitude like that.

MzPip
:dem:

[Karenina]

14. It is pure arrogance to believe

The U.S. *gubmint can be of ANY service to Iraq whatsoever. Get the hell out now and pony up to pay for what got broke. The "shock and awe" of the price tag should wake up a few dozing citizens even though the toll in human destruction has yet to be grasped.

[Abaques]

16. The war is already happening....

Unfortunatly, we are stuck with the current situation to a degree.

To pull out of Iraq immediately would be disastrous for both us and the Iraqi people. We need a real exit plan instead of the "Bring it on!" plan Bush has.

We should concentrate on the following:

- Involve as many other nations as possible in putting troops on the ground and aid in the Iraqi's hands. This means involving the UN and speciffically nations like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. I have reservations about the Saudis, but they are an important player and need to be involved.


- Get a workable timetable for transferring power back to the Iraqis and then execute it.


- Rebuid the Iraqi infrastructure, prefferably using the Iraqis themselves. (You tend not to want something you built yourself to get destroyed, but it matters less if someone else built it)


- Make the ground secure now. If that means sending in more troops now to ensure that we can properly police Iraq until their army and police force can be rebuilt then so be it. The lack of security on the ground right now (and since the war started) has been limiting everything else we try to do.


- Ensure that whatever plan comes about for Iraq, that it is fully democratic and upholds the UN declaration of human rights.




I feel that Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Clark are advocating similar policies to what I laid out, and my support is divided amoung those cannidates.

[Karenina]

20. - Make the ground secure now.

The ground will NEVER, I repeat NEVER be secure as long as U.S. soldiers are there. THEY are a part of the problem having not been trained for such duty. Their cultural insensitivity is appalling and their continued presence as effective as trying to extinguish a fire with kerosene. They are are being used and abused by a *corporate machine that cares not one whit about them. The only way to silence them and prevent the story of what is REALLY happening in Iraq away from the delicate sensibilities of American citizens is to hold them hostage there. Their deaths, injuries and illnesses are already on "ignore."

GET OUT NOW!

[Abaques]

22. ....and leave the Iraqis with nothing?

Yeah, leaving a complete vacuum and nothing but chaos will be great for the Iraqis....

[Karenina]

26. They already have nothing

thanks to 12 years of sanctions and *crusader bunnypants military misadventure. Here try this on for size:

joeunderdog Tue Oct-28-03 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. ...a related link with some disturbing details of what's going on.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1226

...All American soldiers are supposed to believe - indeed have to believe, along with their President and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld - that Osama bin Laden's "al-Qa'ida" guerrillas, pouring over Iraq's borders from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia (note how those close allies and neighbours of Iraq, Kuwait and Turkey are always left out of the equation), are assaulting United States forces as part of the "war on terror". Special forces soldiers are now being told by their officers that the "war on terror" has been transferred from America to Iraq, as if in some miraculous way, 11 September 2001 is now Iraq 2003.

snip

The rot comes from the top. Even during the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, US forces declined to take responsibility for the innocents they killed. "We do not do body counts," General Tommy Franks announced. So there was no apology for the 16 civilians killed at Mansur when the "Allies" - note how we Brits get caught up in this misleading title - bombed a residential suburb in the vain hope of killing Saddam. When US special forces raided a house in the very same area four months later - hunting for the very same Iraqi leader - they killed six civilians, including a 14-year-old boy and a middle-aged woman, and only announced, four days later, that they would hold an "inquiry". Not an investigation, you understand, nothing that would suggest there was anything wrong in gunning down six Iraqi civilians; and in due course the "inquiry" was forgotten - as it was no doubt meant to be - and nothing has been heard of it again.

snip

But on the ground in Iraq, Americans have a licence to kill. Not a single soldier has been disciplined for shooting civilians - even when the fatality involves an Iraqi working for the occupation authorities. No action has been taken, for instance, over the soldier who fired a single shot through the window of an Italian diplomat's car, killing his translator, in northern Iraq. Nor against the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne who gunned down 14 Sunni Muslim protesters in Fallujah in April. (Captain Cirino was not involved.) Nor against the troops who shot dead 11 more protesters in Mosul.

[leftofthedial]

21. give the UN control over the economic, rebuilding, & political efforts

and rapidly transition control over security to a reconstituted Iraqi Army and police force with UN supervision. Get the US OUT!

As long as we are there in any significant capacity , we are the BAD guys. We made that bed by invading a sovereign country for no reason. Now we have to own up to it. They need nothing from the US but our money.

[jokerman93]

24. As much as the idea nauseates me

I fear the damage is already done on many levels.

I can understand, I think, why so many of the Dem candidates are accepting the US presence in Iraq as somehow irrevocable, and proposing policies based on that postulate.

If the Bush War-support industries hope to reshape the world order to ensure their own perpetuity and dominion in the coming century -- this is their last best shot at it. The cat's already out of the bag.

It's as if they've (we've) plunged a huge barbed spear into one of the hearts of the Arab world. You can't just rip it out now and run when you find you've made a grave mistake. That would cause uncontrollable bleeding.

I think the candidates know that Bush will not relent and by the Winter '05 we're going to be way past reversing course.

I feel I have to consider the proposals of the various candidates in that light. Regretably.

And I find myself wishing America was ready for Dennis Kucinich today.

[AnnabelLee]

27. Locking

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator