Is the Iraq War Still an Issue?

[Don1]

Poll question: Is the Iraq War Still an Issue?

It seems that there are several camps within the Democratic Party in regard to the Iraq War. Some oppose it due to poor handling. Some oppose it on principle. Some do not oppose it. The purpose of this poll is to sample DU opinion on the matter.

Comments are definitely appreciated. I myself am against it on principle, by the way. I have written extensively on the topic of why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1832524

[Dr Fate]

1. It's time to do Nation Building in New Orleans and other coastal cities.

I say we pull out ASAP- I'm not willing to go to iraq, so morally, I cant advocate sending others, or keeping them there.

[Don1]

8. I like that answer.

I like the phrase "nation building" as applied to the US. We should use that to refer not just to New Orleans, but everything...jobs, universal healthcare, education, etc

[Dr Fate]

10. If building roads, schools & hospitals in Iraq is "patriotic"...

...then it must be "patriotic" to do it here too.

[Don1]

12. I like that, too.

Ever hear this one?

Health care is part of the right to life.

Actually, I snagged it from the Venezuelan Constitution:
"Health is...a fundamental part of the right to life."

[Sandpiper]

2. My feelings on Iraq are best described by General David Soup

Former Marine Commandant (1960-1963) and winner of the Medal of Honor:

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

[Don1]

11. Bold quote. n/t

[Sandpiper]

15. "Shoup" not Soup

Apologies for my poor spelling

[uppityperson]

3. Define slow and immediate please

too vague of terms to be able to vote. Even number of days/months/years would help me. Thank you.

[Don1]

4. Okay.

By slow exit strategy, I am referring to what Dems are trying to put on the table. Something like give us a timetable in another 16 months...or out by a year or two and put in some UN people.

Immediately would mean more like start sending troops home today. Do it in a way that is feasible for their equipment and their safety. Perhaps it could take a month or a couple of months to complete this type of withdrawal.

The thing that distinguishes the two is not really time as much as ideology. The slow strategy is justifying presence by assuming Iraqis and US are safer this way. The fast strategy assumes we have no right to be there (and typically also says it would make us more secure).

[uppityperson]

5. We have no right to be there and need to leave as fast as possible

However, I think the UN needs to get involved, and other European/ME countries. The USA has no credibility left in Iraq and needs to get the hell out now. Not in a yr or two, but I'd go for 6 months. I don't think the Iraqis and US are safer by staying any longer than what is needed to leave. But, the UN needs to be involved, other countries involved.

[Don1]

9. I think you are right.

But I also think I have no right to decide such a matter on behalf of Iraq. I would be for letting the Iraqis decide for themselves if they want us, the UN, ME nations, or whatever else to help them with security. Referenda would be a better option than letting the puppet government decide. But again, I don't really have a right to dictate this approach. The only thing I should be doing is asking my Congressman when he is going to charge W with war crimes: 50,000 children dead.

[welshTerrier2]

6. none of the above ...

unless the American people come to understand the reasons for the war, it will happen over and over and over and over and over ...

if we can't talk openly as a Party about corruption, greed and imperialism, we are fighting against an enemy we refuse to identify ...

a majority of Americans now oppose the war but most do so for the wrong reasons ... most Americans have lost patience; they've had enough; they don't believe we can win ... they're right, of course ... but in failing to function as an opposition to the underlying evil in Iraq, the Democratic Party will allow the identical conduct to continue unabated ...

this isn't just about Iraq; it's about the stranglehold the oil industry has on our governmnet ... look at Colombia, look at Darfur, look at Iran; look at Nigeria; look at Venezuela; look at the southern states of the former Soviet Union and even look at Afghanistan ...

it's greed; it's oil; it's evil ... we know it; "leading" Democrats know it; and still they refuse to speak the truth ... it's our job to convince them to stand up and fight to regain control of our country ... this doesn't just mean winning elections; it means empowering the American people with the truth ...

[Don1]

7. Well said.

Let's assume for a moment that the majority of Americans understood these things. Then, which would you be for?

(I am going to guess that you would be okay with either (3) or (4) so long as the people came to that conclusion based on this new understanding and rational debate afterward.)

[fujiyama]

13. It's finished

We have accomplished nothing. Their "constitution" is a failure. The Sunnis are on the verge of lashing out.

I think it's time to go along with Feingold's bill which calls for a timetable.

[Don1]

14. The only question I have is

Is it in the Reich Wing's interest to split up Iraq or keep it together? If keep it together, they will pay the Sunnis off to accept the Constitution. If it is in their interest to split it up, then they need not do anything at all.

Feingold...I need to know more about him. Wasn't he the only one to stand up against the Patriot Act when they first proposed it?

[IndianaGreen]

16. We lost the war and it is time to bring the troops home ASAP

so that no more of them are killed or harmed. Nearly 2,000 dead GIs for nothing!

[Don1]

18. and...

100,000 Iraqi civilians. This includes 50,000 children.

http://www.yourtaxdollaratwork.com/index.html
(WARNING: graphic images)

[IndianaGreen]

19. Not counting the ones that died between 1991-2003

as the results of sanctions and indiscriminate bombing under the pretext of "no-fly zones."

[Don1]

20. That's right.

Also not counted in the 100K is how BushCo napalmed the crap out of Fallujah. When the study was performed, the Fallujah numbers were so wild and out of order, that they could not be included in the study (statistical outliers). Additionally, the study was a comparison of violent deaths before the war versus after. The delta was estimated to be 100K and the majority of the deaths were related to bombing. That means that the 100K is deaths beyond the conditions that already existed prior to the war...

This study was published in The Lancet and is referenced in my "write-up" here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1832524

(Reference #2)

[mikelewis]

17. We need to use the catastrophe in New Orleans to pull our troops...

out right now.

[Don1]

23. The really, really sad thing is

that very few Dem leaders will have the guts to say this. It would be spun in corporate news immediately as using the hurricane deaths for political gain. On the other hand, Pat Buchanan could get away with saying it. Sucks, doesn't it?

[mikelewis]

24. Then our Dem leader need to find a different line of work...

Do you think for a second Newt Gingrich would dit quietly by while Clinton pulled this sort of shit? Hell no. He'd be standing on his chair screaming bloody murder. This timidity is disgusting.

[Don1]

25. The disgusting thing (imo) is

that timidity is complicity. And yes, Newt Gingrich would have shut the government down by now. Good point.

[brentspeak]

21. I don't fit into any of the choices

At this point, we can't cut-and-run, because then the Iraqi civilians will become even more a target of violence than with us there. But we also have to admit that, under the present conditions, the insurgants can't be defeated.

The best thing to do - and I don't even think this is possible - is to somehow gather about a gigantic security/peace-keeping force of at least 400,000-500,000 troops from all around the world. That was the kind of troop levels that certain generals in the Pentagon said would be necessary to prevent the kind of chaos we've seen ever since the fall of the Saddam regime. (Those certain generals, of course, were fired or kicked upstairs by Bush).

Basically, the goal is to saturate Iraq and the borders so that more foreign fighters can't come in, and to outnumber the insurgants so that their attacks can be diminished. In any case, we, the United States, need to get out of there once this international force is in place.

[Don1]

22. Hmmm...

You are right. You do not really fit. I think you might be able to squeeze into (3) because you seek an exit or (1). You are best not answering the poll...damn non-conformist!
:P

[FrenchieCat]

26. Is any politician calling for an

Immediate Withdrawal?
Is this really an option that's on the table?

I heard that Feingold gives a Dec 2006 date. My question on that is why would Feingold give a date that comes after the 2006 elections? How does that help us? I mean, the Bushshit could just make rumbles through the election and draw down a few troops for photo op purposes, to give the impression that it is possibly being done....so doesn't that take the issue from us during the election of 2006 and insulate the GOP more than they deserve come November 2006.

Please someone, explain Fiengold's strategy to me on this one, cause I don't get it. :shrug:

Thank you.

[Don1]

28. I don't get it either.

The time to speak the truth on this is now.

[sakabatou]

27. I feel that once the government is set up completely

then it's time to start moving out.

[Don1]

29. Okay.

But shouldn't part of that be the Iraqi people setting things up on their own? Especially, considering that our continued presence there causes death and BushCo is a controlling force in their government?

[sakabatou]

30. Of course.