Kucinich's Ten-Point Plan to Bring Our Troops Home From Iraq

[ThirdWheelLegend]

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

****************************

The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President
that will quickly bring all US troops home from Iraq.

1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of
   Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.



2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton
   sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts
   to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent
   conditions.
   


3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq.
   It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions
   for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and
   sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone
   must have the right to determine the future of their country's
   resources.



4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to
   Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people
   develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair
   elections.



5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.



6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi
   civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.



7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping
   mission.



8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000
   peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can
   maintain their own security.



9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.



10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism
    and commit to strengthening the UN.

Dennis Kucinich will work tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to
gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action,
bring all US troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new
direction will we be able to persuade the UN community to participate. Such
a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan.

**************************

We must stop the illegal occupation and support Iraq and the rest of the world in an effort to maintain peace and allow the citizens of the country to create a government for Iraq. A government under which the people can believe in and know is their own. The U.S. occupation will lead to none of that. It is time to stop the bloodshed that occurs in the name of American Imperialism.

TWL

[mmm]

1. There he goes, making sense again!

As always, I stand in awe of Dennis.

[Terwilliger]

2. kick

[Nederland]

3. #2 and #8 are impossible

#2 is impossible because all the contracts will be awarded by the time the winner of 2004 takes office.

#8 is impossible because no other nations want to enter the wreck that is Iraq.

Its our mess DK, and we'll have to clean it up ourselves...

[damnraddem]

4. #2 need not be impossible. #8 is not.

Illegal contracts are not valid. Any contracts let by the U.S. for Iraq could be declared illegal, so invalid.

Plenty of nations would be glad to enter Iraq -- it sits on massive oil deposits. The trick is in getting back to control by Iraq of which nations get into Iraq.

We are not cleaning it up ourselves, we are making it worse.

Where I disagree with the position is in specifying for the Iraqis that it is the UN that should do these things. Many Iraqis are understandably distrustful of the UN. It is likely that the UN is the only body that could accomplish what needs to be done; but the request will have to come from the Iraqis if there is to be any chance that the Iraqis will accept the UN role. Any UN presence mediated by, or even invoked by, the US will be, quite justifiably, rejected by most Iraqis.

[Nederland]

5. Illegal Contracts?

Please cite either the US law or international law that was broken by granting the contracts. Be specific.

[benburch]

6. Why they are not impossible;

#2 is possible because those contracts can be voided by the incoming administration as not being in the best interests of the United States. It has been done before, and I see no reason why it cannot be done now.

#8 is possible because as much as people do not want to go into the mess we've left, they are MORE afarid of letting us continue to fsck up Iraq (and possiibly the whole region.) Countries like Russia, France, and Germany would be happy to have stability in this region.

-Ben Burch
White Rose Society Webmaster
http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/

[Nederland]

7. Disagree

The President of the US cannot simply declare a contract signed by a previous President as being not in the US interest, especially if the intention is re-award the contract to a foreign corporation. Any such action would be challenged in court and take years to resolve. In the end, it would be extremely difficult to convince a US jury that awarding a contract to a US firm is not in the US interest but awarding it to some French firm is. You'd probably get laughed out of court.

[benburch]

8. No court involved

The Emergency Powers granted to the President over the years (And never revoked) cover this. Roosevelt did just this to Bush's grandfather!

[Nederland]

9. I doubt it

...but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong. Got a link?

[benburch]

11. It's called an "Executive Order"

If you will read through the long list of executive orders, you will note that the President has the power in time of war or Emergency (which Bush argues this is) to do just about anything with respect to foreign contracts or to seize assets. A contract is generally construed to be an asset.

[Nederland]

12. I researched it. You are wrong

Executive orders are not immune to court challenges. Here are several examples of executive orders being challenged in court:

http://www.ffhsj.com/govtcon/ffgalert/gcarch/fa960201.htm

http://www.pen.org/freedom/pressrel/papers.htm

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/takings/courts/snaps/snap55.htm

In sum, unlike what you argued in post #8, the courts would become involved and companies are perfectly and legally able to challenge any executive order that cancelled their contracts. Therefore, as I argued in post #7, an action such as cancelling Iraqi contracts would inevitably be challenged in court and take years to resolve. In such a legal dispute, DK would have to convince a US jury that awarding a contract to a US firm is not in the US interest but awarding it to some French (or other foreign) firm is.

FYI, when you don't provide links to back up an opinion, people tend to think you're making shit up. I'm not accusing you of making things up, but it is apparent that you really didn't understand what you were talking about with respect to executive orders.

[benburch]

13. Yes, but...

in my reading of the history of executive orders, though they get challenged, only one was overturned in my recollection, one by Clinton in (I think) 1995, and that was overturned if I recall because it was in conflict with a Supreme Court decision from the '30s.

It is hard for me to cite links for lots of things that I post about because I read so many physical made-of-dead-trees books. Mostly these are not online. I did research into executive orders back in the late 90s while helping a friend write a SciFi novel in which a Presidential order played a part.

It is possible that with this remove from the research I did, I may be incorrect, however. I will do some more research over the weekend and see what I can come up with.

-Ben

[rhite5]

14. Competitive Bidding vs No-Bid contracts is the big

issue on the contracts question.

Remember that any NEW contracts would be open competitive bid contracts, open to Iraqi contractors as well as American companies and the contractors in all other countries.

The no-bid contracts that have been awarded are shameful drains on our Treasury and the Iraqi financial resources we are holding in our country's banks. You know they are priced double, treble and quadrupal what they should be. You also know the Iraqi contractors could likely underbid most all other companies. (and of course do a better job -- it's their country, their schools and hospitals and bridges, etc.

That the original contracts were allowed in the first place only happened because our Congress gave Bush carte blanc to declaring Wartime conditions so he could issue Executive Orders.

If it comes to a court challenge on any uncompleted earlier contracts, I cannot imagine any American jury choosing to go along with those tainted contracts once they know the facts.

Even if the jury is packed with Republicans.

#8 The reason other countries have refused to commit troops is because they refuse to bow to anything led and controlled by BushCo. Once supervision is turned over to the UN, that picture changes drastically.

You gotta know the killing on both sides will not end until our country is out of there -- our troops and our leadership.

[rucky]

10. Eggcelent....DK's position needed clarification

People consider his plan to get the US troops out an oversimplification of the problem.

But it is the critics who have oversimplified - and mischaracterized DK's solution. I'm glad he's committed a number of troops. he shouldn't have a problem getting that, since a country as poor as Bangladesh is able to contribute 6,000 peacekeepers for other missions. I assume that what's left of Bush's 87 Billion would go toward repirations & funding of the UN mission instead of the hogs it's being doled out to now.