Outsourcing the Occupation is not Ending It

[DuctapeFatwa]

I have made a couple of posts on this subject, which I thought were pretty polite; this one may be less so.

While each candidate feels that he is better qualified to run the war and manage the occupation, and each believes that he has the best plan to do it, and several of them use a different vocabulary to describe it, the bottom line, the net result from the point of view of Mr. and Mrs. Iraqi is that there will still be foreign troops in their country, killing people, seizing and disappearing people, maiming children, all the standard features that come with war no matter what you call it or where the troops are from or what they are called by the far away white men who sent them.

Now if you sincerely believe that the US knows what is best for its properties in other parts of the world, or, as they're called by anti-American terrorist sympathizers, "other countries," I am not going to try to change your mind.

I understand that you are sincere in your beliefs, and your candidate is sincere in his belief that he really does know what is best and is thinking only of the poor Iraqi people who need his expert guidance.
Party on, and gather ye rosebuds while ye may.

To those of you who are NOT colonialists, or do not consider yourself such, go to your candidate's website and read what he intends to do. REALLY read it, read past the pretty words and the stirring rhetoric, reduce it down its essence, and read it again, not from the point of view of someone who is thinking at all about US politics, but just read it from the point of view of an average Iraqi.

If you can't do that, then swap out the names. Find all instances of Iraq and change it to US, find all instances of the US and change it to Malaysia, to Finland, Chad, Chile.

What will this accomplish? I'm not expecting people to do it and come back here and post denunciations of their candidates. Just do it, you don't have to tell anybody about it, the candidates are not going to change their positions, the only thing that will be accomplished is that you will have thought about some things in a new way, and just in case your candidate does win, you may be a little less surprised and disappointed when the news stories don't change that much.

Candidate disclaimer: I do not support any of the candidates

[revcarol]

1. Dean doesn't want to outsource it.

He wants to put up to 50,000 more American troops in there.

[mike_c]

3. awww, you might have waited until there was some actual discussion...

...of DF's post before beginning the mud-slinging!

[mike_c]

2. dittohead here, chiming in to agree....

I've just been discussing this issue in relation to one candidate in particular (whose direct mention will serve for little other than derailing this thread). In that discussion I said that what I want to hear from the candidates is not how to "win" the "war" in Iraq-- both terms are smokescreens from the beginning, BTW-- but how to lose it. The invasion and occupation of Iraq does not present us with any winning outcomes, IMO, so we need to be thinking about the manner in which we lose it. Gracefully, and with important lessons learned, or as badly as we began it?

[Clark Campaigner]

4. Wesley Clark is the best qualified

to deal with Iraq properly.

[mike_c]

5. oh please, would you care to actually discuss the issues raised in the...

...original post? There ought to be a rule against having sig pictures occupy more room than your discussion.

I think this is going to be a wash, DuctapeFatwa....

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Actually, it illustrates my point nicely. There have been some

in all the ones I've done on this subject, people who either don't or can't read the whole thing, who just go into autopost mode with the "Candidate X is the bestest and will win" thing, but that is good in a way, the juxtaposition won't be lost on the thoughtful ones, and they are the ones who would feel the most hurt when they are reading the same AP headlines 2 years from now.

[revcarol]

7. OK, I'll play.

First, define "outsourcing."

Is this buying allies(except GB and one or two others) of Bush "outsourcing?" Several of the candidates want to seem to continue with this. They talk a good game about getting more allies or getting people from the region to police Iraq, but isn't this a continuation of Bush's policy in which he buys allies or gives them foreign aid or just happens to let them buy American airplanes with military aid from the U. S.They(candidates) never say what they would do to get more allies. They never say what they would do about contracts to rebuild Iraq or turn over the oilfields to Iraqis. Very colonial except we have a couple of poor patsy nations helping us brutalize Iraq. Would more nations make the U. S., the nation in charge, the nation who is stealing their oil, less a colonial power?

Is outsourcing turning everything over to the U. N., including awarding of contracts, control of the oil fields and oil money, policing, and helping Iraqis set up a Constitution and elections? They would still be foreign troops. We would have to pay for them since we are the ones who invaded.We would have to pay reparations for damage and civilian deaths.The U. N. isn't exactly in the good graces of Iraqis since they were in charge of the oil-for-food program that ended up decimating so many children.Would they be seen as patsies for imperial interests? Would the presence of troops from many nations still be seen as invasion, imperialism,occupation?One candidate proposes this.Would the U. N. command have the good will of the Iraqis, or would they fight it, just like "another colonial power?" Would the Iraqis forego immediate results for long term stability?

I apologize for the flip but true remark. Did not intend to close down debate.

Sorry, got to take my pain pill for my tooth and get to bed. Will try to play again tomorrow.


Edited twice.

[mike_c]

8. I don't think ANYONE should compound our error by continuing the...

...occupation of Iraq. The invasion was illegal, immoral, and based upon a pack of lies. The occupation is brutal, humiliating, and is producing an ever escalating series of U.S. war crimes. We did a terrible thing to Iraq. Continuing to occupy them, under any pretense, simply compounds the injustice.

My opinion: we should give the Iraqis their country back, apologize to them and the world, ship Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell off to The Hague with an American team of prosecutors, and start acting like responsible global partners with the rest of the world. But we have to start by eating some crow and getting out of Iraq. We owe them war reparations, not continued occupation.

[corporatewhore]

9. I understand what your saying imo dk views are good but not the best

My concern is to get the troops out of there. Alotta of people that i talk to say they would fight if the united states was invaded and then i ask them about if they think the iraqis are justified and then they just brush it off and say its different.I think that we do need to pay reperations(like dennis kucinich) i have been rethinking about the un's involvement i read a great article by Tariq Ali on why the un might not so great to put in charge because they put on the sanctions which killed 1.5 million iraqis and they are distrustful (with good cause) of the un.
I myself have know clue whatso ever to do
here is the article http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1103-07.htm

[revcarol]

10. Perhaps using the Red Crescent for all humanitarian aid

and jobs for Iraqis would take the sting our of the UN.With plenty of money so they don't have to be niggardly like in the oil for food program. And the U. S. would have to sell chemotherapy drugs and other stuff that was unavailable under oil for food. I think this could be worked out.

I still think that only DK's plan offers any hope for the Iraqis. You will notice that none of the other candidates have said that Iraq can have its own oil, and we can't steal it.None of the other candidates have said that the UN/Iraq ought to be in charge of their own reconstruction and letting of contracts, including contracts to Iraqis.They are planning to keep us as the colonial occupier...for years...or until our will to stay is exhausted. Better we go with the U. N. which has a pretty good record.Not perfect but better than being the imperialist, hated by the world.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Excellent observation, one that is astonishingly ignored by most

The UN is basically an extension of the US. After the devastating effects of sanctions, the UN chose to limit its "opposition" to the invasion to some stirring speeches, then proceeded to rubber-stamp the occupation.

The UN doesn't even have enough independence from the US to pass a resolution condemning the murder of UN employees if the US says don't pass it.