Were Kucinich's remarks irresponsible?

[littlejoe]

In the debates the other night, Dennis Kucinich attacked , or should I say strongly disagreed with Howard Dean on the subject of a timeline for bringing our men and women in Iraq home.

Dean could not be specific on how long it would take to pull our soldiers out. He did say that we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. He then went on to say, that since we have already done so we just can't leave the Iraqi's to clean up our mess. We now have a responsibility to try and make a smooth transition.

But Kucinich said that if it was wrong to go in, it is wrong to stay. It seems to be his favorite campaign expression. He gave a timeline of ninety days, after he dumps the whole mess into the lap of the United Nations.

These are troubling comments. First, he assumes that the U.N. will be willing and capable of cleaning up our mess. also, he seems to be too willing to walk away from a great responsibility, no matter how distasteful it is.

No, we don't want another situation where there is no exit strategy, as was the case in Vietnam. No, we don't want to shed another drop of American blood for an unjust cause. But we need to be responsible enough to stay and do whatever we can to insure that we haven't just created more chaos , then walk away from it. There are no easy answers, but we should be able to expect more from Kucinich than just sound bites on the subject.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Yes.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Oh oh

:duck:

Anyway, I think Kucinich wants the UN to have a central role and hand over the oil to the Iraqui people. Sure, it would last 90 days, but the UN will still have some presence after that.

[goodhue]

10. 90 days

The 90 days starts upon passage of a new UN resolution. The UN takes over after the 90 days.

From the 11/03/2003 press release . . .

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/031103iraqstatement.html

“this Administration continues to deny the reality of post-war Iraq. Just today, General Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq, is quoted as saying that attacks against US troops are, ‘strategically and operational insignificant’. Last week, the President stated, that despite daily attacks on our troops, that US was making ‘progress’ in Iraq. These obviously false statements demonstrate that the Administration cannot and will not recognize the failures of its policies in Iraq.

“It is time for this Administration to be honest with the American people. They must no longer hide behind political spin and patriotic backdrops. The American public deserves the truth.

“Continuing the U.S. occupation is counterproductive. It is creating instability. This is why we need to get the United Nations in and the United States out.”

[littlejoe]

11. The issues are complex,

and require a new understanding and cooperative approach to the problems the Iraqi people now face, as a result of Bush's immoral and disastrous policy. To say that Kucinich wants to give Iraqi oil back to the Iraqis implies that Dean doesn't. We cannot simply dump the problem into the lap of the U.N. and walk away, as Kucinich suggests.

[tinanator]

nothing complex about Kucinich

complications are for obfuscating and shell games. Kucinich is perfectly correct. I dont believe your issues or concerns are valid in light of daily deaths and mutilations you implicate as an acceptable consequence? Why dont we discuss the BIG issues underlying a real withdrawal. Who is going to remove Halliburton et al? I can only think of ONE guy who could possibly do it. Our next President Dennis Kucinich!

[tinanator]

60. nothing complex about Kucinich

complications are for obfuscating and shell games. Kucinich is perfectly correct. I dont believe your issues or concerns are valid in light of daily deaths and mutilations you implicate as an acceptable consequence? Why dont we discuss the BIG issues underlying a real withdrawal. Who is going to remove Halliburton et al? I can only think of ONE guy who could possibly do it. Our next President Dennis Kucinich!

[AnAmerican]

64. He is not suggesting that....

You say you read his platform on the subject but I find that hard to believe, given your incorrect statements.

[stevedeshazer]

75. What "new understanding and cooperative approach"

et al, are you talking about?

[goodhue]

3. no, not irresponsible

The continued occupation is irresponsible and counterproductive and is leading to a less secure world at home and abroad. The occupation is irresponsible and must end.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[goodhue]

4. http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there.

Our troops are embroiled in a regional quagmire largely of our own government's making. These military actions are not perceived as liberations, but as occupations, and our troops are now subject to daily attacks. Meanwhile, without a clear mission, they are living in conditions of relentless austerity and hardship. At home, their families are forced to endure extended separations and ongoing uncertainty.

As military veterans and families, we understand that hardship is sometimes part of the job. But there has to be an honest and compelling reason to impose these hardships and risks on our troops, our families, and our communities. The reasons given for the occupation of Iraq do not rise to this standard.

Without just cause for war, we say bring the troops home now!

[Terwilliger]

5. could we get away from this "walking away from responsibility" crap??

Kucinich is the ONLY responsible person in the race. He wants to get the US soldiers out and thats good because its necessary. He wants to pay Iraq for the horrors the US has met upon it, give the UN controlling authority until a new Iraqi government is setup, and return control of Iraq's oil to the Iraqi people.

His is the ONLY responsible action that can be taken.

[littlejoe]

13. To say that we do not have a responsibility now is simply naiive.

[AnAmerican]

22. And to assume that our continuing presence

will ever lead to stability for Iraq is even more naive

[littlejoe]

44. Our presence over there, as long as Bush is in office is futile.

But it can be productive with someone like Howard Dean, who will commit to a RESPONSIBLE solution. Then and only then will we see a ray of hope for the region.

[AnAmerican]

86. This is not about Howard...or Dennis

It is about the US giving up on it's imperialist ambitions. The only way, after 4 yrs of the BFEE, is to make the offer to allow the UN total control in Iraq....reources, security, the whole enchilada. Anything less is to prove that we are not really interested in renouncing bushboy's ideas.

[stevedeshazer]

28. Bullcrap

Specifically, what are we going to do? Impose radical-right style "democracy" on a people who don't even know what it means?

[Bill McBlueState]

15. does the UN *want* controlling authority? n/t

[LWolf]

53. Thank you.

Of course, DK does not advocate "just walking away." A hopeful spin for adversaries, but false.

Dennis' plan is the most responsible and the most ethical.

[arcane1]

68. thanks, we get enough "cut & run" spin from the repubes...

hearing it in the debates last night was disappointing, to say the least...

:hi:

[Cocoa]

6. for your convenience...

here is a direct link to the withdrawal plan that Kucinich repeatedly refers to:

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

[Terwilliger]

7. dupe

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

[Bill McBlueState]

8. yes, irresponsible

You can't go in, make a mess, and then just leave. Real leadership is admitting the invasion was a terrible idea, and doing what is necessary to fix the mistakes that were made. (But this is different from sticking around for years and bleeding Iraq for all it's worth, like it's a colony of ours.)

[goodhue]

32. reparations

Kucinich specifically calls for reparations including payments to the families of the 1,000s of innocent civilians the US had killed. TO suggest that Kucinich wants to leave Iraq without making Iraq whole is a misunderstanding of his position. The point is that security and stability cannot be achieved until a neutral third party is given control. You all have been exposed to too much propaganda if you don't see that the occupation is counterproductive.

[arcane1]

70. "doing what is necessary to fix the mistakes "

such as...?


they will kill us for as long as we are there. We will, thus, kill back. The cycle continues...

how do we stop the hate, gain love, and yet STAY????

[moosedog]

77. Oh Yah

We did in VietNam didn't we? If we did it therr we can do it here.

[shcrane]

9. What are you talking about???

Kucinich was loud and clear that the people responsible for creating the mess in Iraq, that is the US, are more than likely not to be trusted by the world community to do the right thing and rebuild the country.

1. Kucinich said that his administration would NOT insist on being in control of Iraq's oil. Makes sense to me.

2. Kucinich said that he would end sweetheart deals to US firms and to companies and countries that gave aid, money, or UN votes and backing to invade Iraq. I think that would definitely show the world community that the US is simply not in the business of invading foreign countries in order to steal their natural resources. I completely support such a change in US foreign policy.

3. Kucinich asked that the UN be involved in helping to hold free elections within Iraq.

Kucinich said all this and more points in a very eloquent yet pithy way in the course of a few short minutes. Debates tend to limit the amount of time a speaker is allowed. Therefore, you should listen more closely to what you deem "soundbites". Some candidates were saying nothing meaningful in the way of discussing the course this country should take. Others were showing that they have clear-cut ideas about what to do with the country's politics.

[OhioStateProgressive]

16. Dennis is the only responsible candidate in the race

I agree

only Dennis will bring our soldiers home so they don't get killed or maimed

only Dennis will stop the waste of our money, money that could be spent on health care and making sure every american child could go to college, tuition free

to question Dennis is silly

[juajen]

72. To question Dennis is not silly

His plan is a good one. However, as much I like and respect him, he cannot get elected. I hope Clark will also endeavor to give the Iraqi oil back to Iraqis; involve our "old" friends in the process; do away with "sweetheart deals" and basically achieve what Dennis wants to achieve. I do trust Clark and I think he will always have the soldiers' health and well-being, as well as the countrys' at the forefront.

I want everything good for Dennis Kucinich. I am just looking at who I believe is in sync with my beliefs and has the stature and ability to get us out of this mess. Dennis has done remarkable things. His just running for president is a wonderful achievment, including the millions who love and support him. I was one and still do love and support him, just not for President at this time. Again, WES CLARK for this time and place. I hope Dennis will continue in whatever vein he wishes to serve his country. He is a brave and true patriot.

[OhioStateProgressive]

74. i can respect that (nt)

[littlejoe]

30. Any way you cut it,

Kucinich is abdicating the responsibility that we now must face up to. The next president, be it Kerry Dean Edwards or Lieberman will dismantle the policy that Bush set in place. Iraqi oil will remain Iraqi oil. We will strategize to bring our troops home. We will work closely with the U.N. But to simply dump it in the U.N.'s lap and say, we're leaving in 90 days is thoughtless and irresponsible.

[OhioStateProgressive]

36. it's irresponsible to american mothers and fathers for them to stay(nt)

[goodhue]

39. once again

Your clearly are not familiar with the plan.
Please see
http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

Kucinich does not want to abdicate responsibility for destruction but rather wants to abdicate continued control. Continued US control is not consistent with stability and security. To believe otherwise is myopic.

[arcane1]

41. Continued US control is not consistent with stability and security

well said

:toast:


seems like people think if we just stay a little longer, kill a few more civilians, sign over a few more natural resources, the Iraqis will suddely love us

:eyes:

[littlejoe]

51. I read it

It's nothing but a bail out to me.

[Cocoa]

43. what harm could it do to read the plan?

if you don't like it, you can go back to the responsible adults that you love so much.

So why not just read it, or at least acknowledge that it exists?

[littlejoe]

59. I have read the plan already, twice.

It is filled with platitudes and assumptions. It has enough holes in it to drive a truck through. It is based on the assumption that, once we give authority over to the U.N., we will then dictate to the U.N. how the Iraqi situation will be handled. It is a pure bail out, and Kucinich knows damn good and well it can never go down that way.

[Cocoa]

78. forgive me for not being 100% sure you read it even once

No offense at all, but I just re-read your original post, and you don't mention the plan. So could it be that you are simply intent on believing we have to stay in?

I read it twice myself, and to be honest I have no way of evaluating how successful it might be. It would be nice if the press gave it some coverage.

I'd advise you not always to go with the "responsible adults", sometimes they can be the most foolish of all. Read "The Best and the Brightest" for example.

[stevedeshazer]

62. That's all ya got?

What plan do you have?

Strategerizing to bring the troops home sounds a lot like what Kucinich is saying already.

How will you repair the damage done to the UN by the US?

Your posts are fluff, there's no "there" there.

[littlejoe]

73. Don't turn this on me.

I'm not running for political office. I don't have to come up with a plan but the candidates do. I wish Kucinich could come up with something remotely responsible.

[AnAmerican]

81. He already has

You are one with the problem with his plan. His plan is far better than waiting around for more of our soldiers to be picked off while Halliburton, Betchel, etc, grow fat off of the profits they are skimming from the Iraqi people.

And yes, I believe that if the US were to admit the enormous mistake we propagated and relinquished control over Iraq's resources, then the member countries would step up to the plate and provide the needed manpower, financed by the US, to aloow the Iraqi's to develop thier own government.

For us to assume that WE are needed to assure stability is the height of arrogance. And arrogance is what got us into this mess to begin with.

[littlejoe]

87. You are making one collossal and glaring mistake ,

in your assumption. And that is that the status would be quo, if Dennis Kucinich does not become president.

[AnAmerican]

89. I have seen nothing

to convince me that Howard would do what is right. That being getting our soldiers home asap.

[stevedeshazer]

83. Then what is your point?

You posted on a political discussion board, it's fair to ask.

What would be "remotely responsible?"

You asked the question, can't you defend your point of view? I've read the entire thread up to this point, and to be honest, I can't figure out what you mean other than that you are against Kucinich.

[littlejoe]

90. It is a fair question to ask.

But to give a tidy little sound bite answer is something to be questioned also. Dean wasn't trying to be vague. He has the vision to realize that, to try to determine just what he would do, without the resources that Bush has at his disposal is meaningless at this point. Like Kucinich, he wants our men and women out. Like Kucinich, he wants to turn Iraq back over to the people. He knows the issues are complex, and he isn't afraid to say so. And he is secure enough to not resort to feel good sound bites that he knows damn well he can't live up to.

[Droopy]

12. The only problem I have with his scenario is:

Just how are we going to sell that to the U.N.? I'm all for it if he can convincingly tell us how he'd achieve that.

I think it would be a hard sell to get other countries involved now after what BushCo did to them in the lead up to the war despite having a new administration. I think they are more likely to tell us we've made our bed and now we have to lay in it.

[Kanary]

24. The only option the UN has been given so far is for the US to remain

in control. That point must be stressed! Yes, the UN and other countries have repeatedly backed away. BUT that is because the control freaks in power have insisted that the US remain the one at the top of the heap.

If we actually acknowledge that we screwed up, do a reasonable Mea Culpa, and graciously hand it over to others who can fix it, then they will do so. However, it will still cost us the money, as it should.

I've had the same feeling about it. My mommy taught me to clean up my own messes. However, in this case, we have made just a huge mess that we're going to have to swallow some pride and allow others to take over and do what we couldn't/wouldn't do. It's gone so far that handing it over is the only way to get our foot off the throats of the Iraquis.

Kanary

[goodhue]

54. yes, yes, yes

This is the essential point apparently lost on critics. The plan is predicating on acknowledging the US screwed up and that continued US control is counterproductive. Once the US gives up control, the UN and other countries now being shut out will not stay away.

Its kinda like a drunk driver giving up the keys to their car after a tragic accident. No one denies the driver is responsible, but it makes little sense to leave them in control.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. The truth is ALWAYS called "irresponsible"

Democrats like to blame the Republicans for starting wars, but once we're there we have to "get the job done". That means the Democrats need to funnel even more money to their energy corporations than the Republicans do, and we can get a good shot at media coverage. Dean wants to keep us occupying Iraq for YEARS, to "get the job done".

Kucinich tells the truth, and if anyone heard him the whole scam would fall apart. That's why he's "irresponsible".

[arcane1]

17. dupe

I'm getting over-anxious

[arcane1]

18. the killings in Iraq will NEVER stop...

as long as American troops are still there...

it's that simple

[leftofthedial]

19. my only quibble is that 90 days is too long

all we have done is accelerate the rate at which the inevitable Iraqi Civil War must be fought to determine that hodgepodge's future. Waiting 90 days or 9 years won't keep the bloodbath from starting.

[BeFree]

20. I'm glad someone is saying get out

Dean's message is a little more involved and sure to be more representative of how most Americans feel.

This mess we are in....whew.. what is the right thing to do, now that we've gone too far?

International co-operation is needed. That will take time. Safety for individual Iraqi's is now our resposibility, like it or not. Whatever move we make needs to well thought out.

I'd like to see the troops home tommorrow, but that wouldn't be the overall best thing to happen. Its a good thing someone is saying it. Thanks DK.

[frank frankly]

21. no, to me, he's the only one saying the truth

we are looting that country, we are invaders and occupiers.

we must get the fuck out asap.

read the plan, brother. getting the hell out is an exit strategy. how is not leaving an exit strategy?

good question, though.

[Cleita]

23. Kucinich said it again today on Crossfire.

He thinks we should leave and said that Dean was wrong about staying. He actually moved down a couple of notches in my support for him. I agree we had no business going in, but since Dim Son put us there, I think it would be irresponsible to leave until the place is stabilized.

[goodhue]

27. Iraq will not be stabilized so long as US remains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/what/faq.html

Isn't it true that whatever you think about our going into Iraq, we're there now and we have to finish the job, otherwise our troops will have died in vain?

This same kind of reasoning kept us in Vietnam long after we should have left. How many thousands of the troops whose names are on the Wall in Washington, DC, would still be alive if the government had heeded the anti-war movement's call to "Bring Them Home Now!" earlier in the conflict? How many millions of Vietnamese would be alive? How much bitterness towards the United States would have been avoided?

Veterans, especially Vietnam veterans, are one of the core groups in the campaign to Bring Them Home Now! and they are here for good reason. They have experienced first-hand the costs of war. They have lived with the results of a war based on lies.

It is our job to do everything we can to make sure this doesn't happen again. Stopping this reckless and ill-conceived military occupation of Iraq must be our tribute to the 58,000 plus names on the Vietnam Memorial.

[littlejoe]

35. Do you honestly think ,

it will be more stabilized if we leave. Do you realize what the consequences of an even less stable area means for us? Do you think that we will be safer? Guess again.

[arcane1]

37. do you honestly think we were ever IN danger, from Saddam???

considering that the Iraqis are currently rallying around getting us out, what possible "safety" can we expect by staying there indefinitely? Maybe we can just kill 90% of them, and the remaining 10% will be too weakened and terrified to do anything about our occupation? Then we can declare "victory"?

How do you stop the killing? How do you keep ONE MORE NAME from being added to the long list of dead Americans??

How many dead young American men and women have to accumulate before you would you consider to be "worth it"?

[stevedeshazer]

42. Please, enlighten us

Tell us how it will be more stable if we stay. Take all the time you need.

[NNN0LHI]

49. Let me get some coffee. I can't wait to read this answer n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

56. thank you! As long as the US occupys Iraq, there will be no peace

The American people, thank God, would never allow a foreign country to occupy us, and the Iraqi people won't either. Bush really screwed it up for everyone, and we have no choice but to get out ASAP - we will send plenty of American troops in the UN, as we should, but America cannot rule over another country, and the American people don't want to.

[littlejoe]

66. It won't be, in the Bush form of occupation

But we are talking about Deans answer to the timeline question and Kucinich's response. Please stay on track.

[AnAmerican]

48. Do you honestly think .........

the killings of our soldiers will ever stop?!? We are seen as occupiers, invaders, colonialists. Wake up and smell the coffee, the US is not wanted there. The longer we stay, the more hatred we engender, the more likely it is that we will help create a new generation of people who see violence against the aggressor (ie the US)as a viable course of action.

I suppose you want to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi's. Good luck. The longer we stay the less likely it is that country will ever see peace.

Yes, the US invaded. Yes, the US cost thousands of Iraqi civilians thier lives. Yes, the Iraqi's would have a better chance at creating a new nation for thermselves under UN auspices. All we are doing is pillaging the country for it's oil.

Don't buy into the rightwing propaganda that we are creating democracy in Iraq. All we have done is replace one dictator with another.

[littlejoe]

84. I understand all too well the workings of the real world

I am awake, and it isn't coffee I smell. It is the blood of dead and wounded American soldiers who are fighting and have fought for no good reason. But you need to wake up to the real world and realize that we are in it now, and we simply cannot walk away like Kucinich suggests. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. When we pulled out of Vietnam, that was when the killing fields began. We have a responsibility now, whether you want to admit it or not, and we need leadership who understands that this is a complex issue, and that there can be no 90 day timeline. Human beings don't punch a clock to work out their problems. I know that most of you are Kucinich supporters, and are pissed. I support Dean, but I really believe that Kucinich's remarks were irresponsible. Take a good look at your man.

[AnAmerican]

88. I have taken a good look

I like what I see....a candidate more concerned about doing what is right than maintaining the fiction of control over a country that, plain and simple, does not want us there.

We provide the money, the UN, or NATO, or the Arab League provides security. Yes the US (actually the BFEE) screwed up and yes, we need to acknowldege that screwup and ask for help.

We give up control, we face the fact that we don't belong there.

We do that and it is much more likely that we will gain the help we so desperately need.

I am sorry, but Dennis is the only candidate who sees with clarity the way this needs to be handled. Right now the world is watching and seeing a US bound and determined to keep control over the resources of Iraq. Of course they are not going to help us right now. We give up that control and that help has a far better shot at becoming reality.

As far as the "killing fields" of Cambodia, not Vietnam, are concerned. We let the Khmer Rouge (sp?) take power because they provided a nice little foil against the Viet Cong. Then the Khmer Rouge decimated that country. Sound familiar?? Saddam Hussein ring a bell?

The US needs to learn to keep our butts home and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. We can start by renouncing any and all claims to any and all resources in Iraq and invite the UN to help us. If the world sees the US amend it's ways they may actually help out. What a concept.

[AngryAmish]

91. We can't control that country

Especially the Pentagon. They are intrinsically and ethically unable to bring peace anywhere. We can only bring peace through dialogue and compassion - things that are not taught at West Point.

[goodhue]

58. yes n/t

[Cleita]

76. I agree that we should bring in NATO and

and the United Nations as soon as possible as has been suggested by many Democratic officials, but we can't leave until the reins are turned over so to speak. This will not happen under Bush, so we will have to wait for another administration to do the right thing. Unlike in Vietnam, the United Nations and NATO are willing to work with the USA in the Middle East. They are not willing to have Dim Son dictate his terms to them. We will have Vietnam if the idiot-in-chief isn't sent packing.

Just pulling out of Iraq, like Nixon did in Vietnam, will leave the ME in a really precarious position with much danger to us.

[arcane1]

29. I repeat- they will continue to kill us as long as we are there

the question becomes- how long do you want this war to last? How many more of our troops do you want dead?

the Iraqi people have no trust of the US, rightfully so. Anyone who says we need to stay there until everything is calmed down or whatever, is saying that the war needs to continue, and more Americans need to die.


This horrid violence will go on until the last American is out of there, be they soldiers or CEO's

[goodhue]

33. exactly n/t

[loyalsister]

25. The really troubling part

is that the very survival of the UN is at stake according to a professor I have talked with about this. If we bail out completely, our credibility is diminished and we will be booted from the security council entirely. At that point, it becomes in danger of disolving because we fund it.
Our credibility is something that has been misused lately. That in no way makes it reasonable to throw it away. It is actually a better goal IMO to regain it and put it to better use.

[NNN0LHI]

26. Anyone who thinks that the responsibile thing to do is to continue...

...occupying Iraq has lost touch with reality. Believe me on this one. I swear people never learn.

Don

[anarchy1999]

67. Hear, hear!

n/t

You said it all! "when will they ever learn"? Wasn't it in a song from the Vietnam war protest? Um-huh, who sang it and what year? And I guess the answer to the question would be, no. Sad, so sad, but so true. Our history has been taken away, and those who don't learn from their history are doomed, don't they say?

[NNN0LHI]

80. Where Have All the Flowers Gone - Words & Music by Pete Seger, 1961

Recorded by The Kingston Trio, 1962
Also by Peter, Paul & Mary, 1962

Where have all the young girls gone,
long time passing?
Where have all the young girls gone,
long time ago?
Where have all the young girls gone?
Gone to young men, every one!
When will they ever learn,
when will they ever learn?

Where have all the young men gone,
long time passing?
Where have all the young men gone,
long time ago?
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone to soldiers, every one!
When will they ever learn,
when will they ever learn?

And where have all the soldiers gone,
long time passing?
Where have all the soldiers gone,
a long time ago?
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, every one!
When will they ever learn,
when will they ever learn?

And where have all the graveyards gone,
long time passing?
Where have all the graveyards gone,
long time ago?
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Gone to flowers, every one!
When will they ever learn,
oh when will they ever learn?

[arewethereyet]

31. well, of course

he probably hasn't noticed but the UN has left Iraq. Moreover, the UN does not do this sort of thing.

[BeFree]

38. UN left Iraq

And you say he hasn't noticed? DK hasn't noticed that the UN has left Iraq? Hell, even you know it, what makes you think DK hasn't?

"UN does not do this sort of thing" - arewethereyet

So tell us, what exactly does the UN do? They've sent peacekeepers into to places where the war machines had been many a time. Where DID you get this new information?

[arewethereyet]

45. they do humanitarian aid and some police work

if any heavy lifting has to be done its the US and Great Britan with some NATO help thrown in

[arcane1]

52. the reasont hat "heavy lifting" is needed in Iraq...

is because the American invaders are still there, killing and stealing...

[arewethereyet]

65. so why do they keep blowing up the UN buildings ?

it ain't just us they dislike, the UN will fare no differently, Iran would fare no differently. Only Hussein. You want that ?

[BeFree]

55. Isn't Iraq a police action now?

Still think DK hasn't noticed?

BTW: Why did the UN leave Iraq?

[arewethereyet]

71. they kept blowing up their stuff

if Mr Kucinich were keeping up he would understand that the UN would require the very US troops that are there to stay there to "be" the UN. The UN does not have an army, they borrow their police force. The UN is a bunch of diplomats in NYC.

It's not as simple as he believe it to be.

The police actions the UN gets involved with tend to be on a much smaller scale.

[Padraig18]

34. Only minorly so

I think the 90-day limit was pie-in-the-sky, because we have NO evidence whatsoever of any sufficient number of UN member states willing to pony up the troops and materiel neccessary to ensure that there is stability in Iraq after we begin to withdraw; to set a blanket, 90-day time frame for them doing so is simply fanciful, IMO.

I think his idea that we NEED to get out as quickly as possible is a good one, though.

[liberalmuse]

40. I wish it were that simple.

I want to pull our troops out NOW, but that would leave a big, gaping wound in Iraq. Bush made one helluva gawdawful mess--and I agree with Gore that this was the worst policy decision ever made my our nations leaders. If we pull out, we're pretty much leaving the Iraqi people unprotected--more and more women and children will be raped or 'disappeared', and many more civilians will be slaughered in the streets by the rebel factions that want to control Iraq. It's not right that we bomb the hell out of this country, completely destroy it's infrastructure, and then just leave them in a mess they can't possibly clean up. If the UN comes in, they will be targeted, and the UN is not designed to be an occupying force (neither are our troops, but that's another story). It is unconscienable that we would just leave. We owe the Iraqi people, now, thanks to the dumbasses in the White House.

On edit: I agree that we should pull out, but not without ensuring Iraq will be rebuilt by others, and the reconstruction will be completely funded by the U.S., except in the instances that companies from other nations are willing to foot the bill if given a contract. Also, Halliburton and all of Bush cronies should be shown the door, and either be fined, or made to pay for a large part of the reconstruction. F*ckers.

[Padraig18]

47. Exactly.

The UN is not well-loved in Iraq, either, something the 'let's let the UN deal with it" crowd fails to recognize. The UN is generally regarded as having cooperated with the coalition (from Desert Storm I), especially as regards sanctions and the oil-for-food program.

Some folks need to start dealing in FACTS, and quit dealing in fantasies.

[goodhue]

57. another critic clearly unfamiliar with the plan

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php
No ones suggesting leaving a big gaping wound.

[Padraig18]

61. No, just an arbitrary time table.

:shrug:

[liberalmuse]

93. Thanks, I just read it again.

I remember reading it some months ago, and it looks like a good plan, but since he doesn't have access to all of the facts, he would have to adjust it. My comments were more in response to what looks to me like usual, flippant, 'Let the Iraqi people decide for themselves' remarks which further explanation would help to clear up. I'm seeing, 'Pull out now, and let them fend for themselves'. We've made the situation so much more complex than that. I mean, the Iraqi people haven't been able to decide for themselves what kind of country and government they'd prefer, for almost as long as Iraq has been a nation.

In the best case scenario, the Iraqi people, and even the rebel factions would be more welcoming towards the UN Peacekeepers than they are towards US troops. I have this bad feeling that this will not be the case. Bush has stirred up a hornet's nest, and the UN is perceived as being the arm of the US. I think the first thing we would need to do is let the Iraqi people write their own Constitution (as stated in Kucinich's plan) and form their own government BEFORE we pull out--and then let them decide who they want in their country to help with reconstruction and protection.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Oh, dear. What WOULD people think if we admitted we were

wrong and let the Iraqi's decide their own fate? It would be SO embarrassing!!

[liberalmuse]

69. I don't know...

but I have the feeling the Iraqi people aren't going to be able to just decide their own fate. This is a very volatile region, and at least 4 countries are itching to get their hands on pieces of Iraq. We've destroyed their military. Everyone on the planet knows they don't have any WMD's. Sure, I feel about as good as doing that as I would dropping a two-year old child in the middle of a swimming pool and letting her decide her own fate. Sheeit! How shallow and naive do you have to be?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. So, we stay and "help" them with assasination squads?

Like we "helped" the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans, the Hondurans, the Cambodians, the Laotians, the Angolans, etc, etc. The world is littered with the graves of the people we "helped" and are still "helping" in the name of "democracy" as represented by the benevolent corporations that our troops protect.

How naive can you be?

[quaker bill]

50. I liked Clark's response

More or less - you can't put a timeframe on these things.

If Dennis was saying we should move to end the occupation as quickly as possible, I agree. But then, so do several other candidates.

It took, as I recall it, more than 90 days to get them over there with all their equipment.

Further, I very much doubt that there is a UN force prepared to mobilize and take over that fast.

In addition, how do we talk the UN into taking over this mess, if we are just washing our hands of it and leaving as quickly as possible?

"Here you go UN, we have made this very large f***ed up mess, it is all yours now?" If I were the leader of say France, Russia, or Germany, my reply would be - thanks, but no thanks. (perhaps, just a little more graphically)

I am no fan of this war. I protested it going in and I object to it each and every day. However CMB is right, we blew it up, we need to fix it. That being said, I am all in favor of getting our people out of there as fast as possible, responsibly.

[wiley]

63. I liked Clark's response,too!

Once Wes gets in there he'll figure it out and we'll leave Iraq a better place and America and Americans safer. Reason number one of 10 to vote for Clark.

DK was okay on the media part. he should have gotten more time and more thoroughly explained the 90 days thing. Not that that is feasible, but we Clarkies listen to what other people have to say. We just don't always agree with everything they say.

I don't like picking on DK,though. He's a good guy. Just not a President.

[LTR]

82. I agree whole-heartedly

Wes has a solid plan for cleaning up Shrub's mess.

And he has lots of pull and respect in the UN. Let them help out. And for that, they get to administer Iraq. And the US can buy Iraqi oil on the open market, instead of stealing and plundering natural resources. Take that, Monkeyboy!

I like the way Kucinich took on Koppel. Not as crazy about his Iraq policy. Not a slam, just my opinion.

[goodhue]

79. cleaning up the mess

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/what/faq.html

If your campaign is successful and the troops are brought home right away, won't there be a catastrophe in Iraq and further suffering by the people there? Don't we have an obligation to clean up the mess we have made?

We absolutely have a responsibility to help clean up the mess that we have helped to create. We have a responsibility to help re-build the country that we helped destroy.

But the reconstruction of Iraq cannot take place under US military occupation, it cannot happen at gunpoint. It cannot truly begin until the US has ceded military control. This is yet another reason we say: Bring Them Home Now!

Much of the chaos and violence in Iraq right now is in direct response to the U.S. military occupation. The critical first step to creating order and civil society in Iraq is a commitment by the U.S. to end the military occupation and remove the U.S. military presence from the country.

[littlejoe]

92. I appreciate all of your responses.

I know that you are passionate about your candidate. I hope you will be passionate about backing Howard Dean when he becomes the nominee. We will need your support.