Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If a Democrat wins, how soon will the occupation of Iraq end?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:49 PM
Original message
Poll question: If a Democrat wins, how soon will the occupation of Iraq end?
Assume that the Democratic nominee is either Kerry or Edwards.

For "occupation," I include a puppet Iraqi regime "inviting" the continued presence of no less than 75,000 US troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
waylon Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. It wont n/t
Id rather not fool myself on this one. We are there to stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
metisnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. 5
non-escalting years. A good foreign policy has the ability to stop this atrocity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I agree, and it's as depressing as hell.
To be rid of Bush's smirk without ridding America of his bloody legacy will be a damned hollow victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Astarho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. agreed
unfortunately
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nothing in particular is inherently wrong with "the occupation."
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 07:02 PM by JohnLocke
The last thing we need is what Kucinch has proposed, to immediately transfer control of the region to the ineffective, toothless UN, where nations will demand that this nation pay debts it is unable to. As I see it, since we destroyed Iraq without cause, we have an obligation to help its reconstruction - infrastructure, education, power, light, a popular democratic government with basic freedoms. Once we have secure the area and provided for this, we should transfer power directly to the Iraqis without the UN involved.

ON EDIT: I'm not saying that occupation is a good thing, I'm just saying a temporary U.S. presence to aid reconstruction is. Iraq has a right to its dignity, and the US should help it along to achieve those ends -- becoming safe, secure, liberal democratic nation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Wrong on several counts. First, Kucinich ALSO says we have an
obligation to help its reconstruction. That means, pay reparations for what we destroyed. You're totally misrepresenting what he proposed.

Second, "we" are not there to "reconstruct" Iraq. We are there to control its oil, privatize anything of value in the country, and establish huge permanent military bases. Your claptrap about the US "helping" Iraq to become a safe democratic nation is simply neocon propaganda - it's exactly what Wolfowitz says.

Third, the UN is only "toothless" when the US wants it to be toothless. It wasn't so toothless in 1991, was it. That's because it served US purposes in 1991, for it not to be toothless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Response
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 07:54 PM by JohnLocke
Kucinich also says we have an obligation to help its reconstruction. That means, pay reparations for what we destroyed.

Reparations do not a reconstruction make. Though an excellent idea (which I support), reconstruction cannot simply be giving reparations. There are many more things we can and should do as far as putting Iraq back on its feet while avoiding the extremes of taking Iraq's independence away or putting our own national security at risk.

"We" are not there to "reconstruct" Iraq. We are there to control its oil, privatize anything of value in the country, and establish huge permanent military bases. Your claptrap about the US "helping" Iraq to become a safe democratic nation is simply neocon propaganda - it's exactly what Wolfowitz says.

That's true: In a disgusting, corrupt administration like Bush's. Their "reconstruction of Iraq" is simply lip service by Wolfowitz, Bremer, etc. I am expressing hope in a Democratic president that would be the real deal -- someone who would actually value Iraq's freedom, not oil. Call me an idealist, but I think the US can engage in real humanitarian interventionism under a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Please let me remind you that Vietnam policy under LBJ and Nixon
was basically the same. One a Democrat, the other a Republican (and one of the most vile of Republicans, at that). Yet, the policy didn't really change. // Even under Carter, an unusually decent man, as US presidents go, the US supported the Shah, Somoza, & many other dreadful regimes.

The point is that US imperialism is a deeply-rooted characteristic of our society, and it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with which party is in power. The US plays on the world stage to maximize its control - always has, always will. It's kidding oneself to think that this behavior is a feature of one party only. The style, rhetoric & faces change, but the drive for domination and control does not change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Oh, I see. America is naturally bad. We can't be trusted, Dems=Repubs, eh?
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 08:41 PM by JohnLocke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. RichM is right, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 08:19 PM by Wonk
"For globalization to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is. The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonald-Douglas, the designer of the F-15, and the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technology is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

Thomas Friedman, New York Times, March 28, 1999

Want to play dueling philosophers, Mr. Locke? Yes, I'm familiar with your namesake. He may have been liberal for the 17th century but now he's way out of date.

(snips from The Unconscious Civilization)

The acceptance of corporatism causes us to deny and undermine the legitimacy of the individual as citizen in a democracy. The result of such a denial is a growing imbalance which leads to our adoration of self-interest and our denial of the public good. The overall effects on the individual are passivity and conformity in those areas which matter and non-conformism in those which don't.

(snip from Chapter 5)

I have already mentioned a number of oppositions central to this daily effort. We can now add to the list such simple battles as that for consciousness versus the comfort of remaining in the unconscious; responsibility versus passivity; doubt versus certainty; delight in the human condition or sympathy for the condition of others versus self-loathing and cynicism regarding the qualities of others.

This idea that sympathy for others is the essential characteristic of the human condition was, incidentally, central to Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, a treatise that is rarely mentioned by false disciples of his economic theories. They limit themselves to a narrow reading of The Wealth of Nations and then apply it to the general organization and conditions of society. There is no indication that that was what Smith intended.

(end snips)

John Ralston Saul
http://www.geocities.com/radiochomsky/unconscious-civilization.html

edit: cross link to the other thread you started about this where I said the same thing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=365516#365639
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. So what makes you think we are 'reconstructing' anything now?
That's like saying it would be irresponsible to demand that the bull leave the china shop.

http://www.madhattersimc.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2824&mode=thread&order=0

So that was, that set me thinking what the hell is going on? It's just the opposite of what you would have thought. Then we come into Baghdad. It's a long car drive. It's about twelve hours total. We come in and of course the one thing I expected to see all over Baghdad was construction. Remember, we're reconstructing Iraq. You've heard about this, right? We're reconstructing Iraq. We're spending 20 billion dollars to reconstruct Iraq so there must be a lot of reconstruction. And amazingly, there was nothing, and I'm not kidding. In all our times going around Baghdad I saw two buildings with construction crews. If I had gone around New Delhi in the same amount of time I would have expected to see about 50, and New Delhi hasn't been bombed recently. Baghdad is a city full of bombed out buildings. Not a huge number but a substantial number of bombed out buildings and there's no construction being done.

So I am seeing this and I'm saying what in God's name is going on here? What could be happening? And this is born out by everyone, everyone I've talked to. You ask, I asked one reporter who has been there since May, is there any reconstruction in Baghdad? He said well, I saw some guys putting some paint on something a couple times. We actually saw some people painting an underpass some horrible lime green color for no reason I could imagine, but that was all the reconstruction we saw in Baghdad, a whole city of six million people.

http://www.umrc.net/downloads/Iraq_report_1.doc

Unemployment levels in major urban areas exceed 70% to 80%. Those employed receive salaries 20% to 30% of pre-war income levels. There is a robust underground economy, the trading and bartering of goods and services, but it is cash poor. A new social and economic elite is comprised of those engaged in selling goods and services to the Coalition, business and government operations permitted to function by the Coalition, and those few commercial and civil organisations linked to the Coalition-sponsored, Governing Council. The Coalition is refusing many businesses and factories the permits to resume business activities. The largest group of newly employed and the widest distribution of US dollars is to the IP (the Coalition controlled, newly formed and fast swelling ranks of Iraqi Police).

The narrow and short economic supply-chain is insufficient to trickle resources or cash down and out to the majority of unemployed Iraqis. Contrary to disparaging western press reports about local Iraqi looting and rampant civil disruptions by “loyalists and rebels”, Iraq is experiencing the brunt of pre-planned, organised crime, raping the country of its liquidable assets. For example, sponsored from adjacent countries, Iraq suffered organised and well-finance theft (demonstrated by witnessed convoys of heavy equipment and transport trucks) of thousands of kilometres of high-voltage power transmission cables – dismantled and sold for their copper and aluminium content.

In deference to overly enthusiastic and badly researched western press reports claiming wide-scale, disorganised looting and vandalism, Iraq has been systematically dismantled. A second organised program of theft extracted tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pre-cast, galvanised steal door and window frames, virtually destroying in the process, every undefended government, military, state enterprise and private commercial building in the country. This program began before the launch of OIF and continued until the Coalition became organised, well after the end of the combat phase of the war. Building materials were loaded and transported on commercial trucks under the watchful eyes of the Coalition, taken to neighbouring countries and reserved for resale – pending the planned, multi-billion dollar urban renewal program. The crime was very sophisticated; using decoy tactics of setting fires, indiscriminate high profile looting designed to feed western video cameras, and inciting riots to attract security forces. Supervised theft succeeded in destroying all major buildings in Baghdad (that survived the bombing), collecting all heavy equipment, construction and building materials’ stockpiles, heating, air conditioning, plumbing and electrical equipment and all commercial and government inventories. This theft was deterred only where Iraqis made a concerted effort to defend their personal businesses, protect public property and their homes. Iraqis complain and accuse the Coalition of intentionally facilitating the theft and looting, refusing to protect homes, businesses and government facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I'm not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom2kpro Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Reply to "Since we destroyed Iraq . . ."
"As I see it, since we destroyed Iraq without cause, we have an obligation to help its reconstruction - infrastructure, education, power, light, a popular democratic government with basic freedoms."

This was not like World War II, where the allies really did level a lot of the industry and cities as part of prosecuting the war. The US did some serious damage in Iraq, but a lot of this expensive "reconstruction" that everyone is talking about is actually improving the country to make it a showcase. I do not quite understand why the American taxpayer needs to pay dearly to make dramatic improvements to Iraq's infrastructure. I mean, if we ever invade North Korea, will we feel obliged to bring the living standard up to that of residents of Tokyo or Geneva?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. We have an obligation to leave the place better than we found it.
So to answer your question, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. The US will not help it along...
rather, it will impose a puppet colonial state controlled by the US firms that will come to dominate Iraq's industries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Not if a democrat is in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Democrats have certainly done their share of harmful imperialism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. So who will you vote for in November?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. ABB...
the Democrats are the lesser evil, however slim the difference may be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Oh, please....
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 09:34 PM by JohnLocke
There are huge differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Shouldn't "Dem will bring in UN" be an option.
That is what I am sure will happen within months of our candidate being sworn in. Our Dem candidate will have many burned FP bridges to repair, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Never. Both Dems understand perfectly about O-I-L. We never left
Korea, Japan, or Germany, either, under administrations of both parties, & those conflicts were 50+ years ago. The USA NEVER gives up control over regions of great strategic value. Why would it?

The oil is worth trillions of dollars & is key to world domination. Is ExxonMobil going to say, "Well, on moral grounds, we really ought to give it back to the Iraqis. Our consciences just feel awful about this, so we'll give it back. It's the right thing to do!!" Or maybe Lockheed-Martin will be overcome with moral malaise about its profiteering, and they'll lobby Congress, imploring all the nice honest Congressmen to cancel all their contracts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Other:
Depends on who the DEM is. If it's Kerry or Edwards probably not for a while. If it's Sharpton or Kucinich probably quicker. If it were Dean probably not for a while, he did say we can not totally pull out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Sorry! Not reading closely
My bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. Well technically "civil occupation" ends in July,
I doubt the Kerry administration will change any of the Iraq policy substantially.

Bush and lameduck Congress will get 2005's $50 billion for the ongoing military operations in Iraq to take some heat off Kerry.

And our troops will be there in fairly large numbers for ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. Other.
Depends on which democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec 03rd 2024, 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC