Howard Dean warns of danger in Iraq pullout

[ECH1969]

"Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," he told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

An American pullout could endanger the United States in any of three ways, Dean said: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. "That's where Al Qaida will set up," he said.

Dean, 56, outlined his strategy for returning Democrats to electoral success in campaigns large and small. "We need to get organized in all 50 states," he said. "You can't win the presidency if you're an 18-state party. I truly believe this is a Democratic country -- with a big D." Beyond that, he said, Democrats have to learn how to speak from the heart and with respect to Americans who have found more comfort in Republican appeals to their fears about their jobs, health care, schools and national security.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5360513.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. We lost this war, and rightly so (as Pope John Paul II warned us!)

The only decent thing left for America to do is to stop our rape of Iraq and bring all of the troops home, immediately and unconditionally.

We also have a moral obligation to pay war reparations to Iraq and to prosecute American war criminals, civilian and military alike.

Nothing else matters!

[Kagemusha]

21. Um, no. National security matters too not just morality.

Not that I'm saying the occupation enhances national security. Really I'm not. But morality is not the only thing that matters when it comes to this stuff.. just no.

[OneBlueSky]

22. um . . . using national security as an excuse to invade . . .

and occupy a sovereign national is morally reprehensible . . . our little war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with national security, and we should arrange a way to leave asap . . . then we have a moral responsibility to rebuild and decontaminate the nation we destroyed . . .

[Teaser]

38. Don't mischaracterize Kagemusha's post

He/she didn't say what you appear to be attributing to him/her.

[tinanator]

54. back atcha

making the comparison to after the fact and before the fact excuses is 100% valid, totally relevant. You are doing what you accuse one blue sky of doing (which wasnt the case). National Security? I thought BULLSHIT was one word?

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Calling the Iraqi regime under Saddam a

"sovereign national" is an afront to most of the legitimate states in the UN.

[tinanator]

103. How?

Go ahead and explain that statement, or take the cowards way out.

[vincent_vega_lives]

141. Simple

Saddam's government was as much a legitimate government as the Mafia is a legitimate business enterprise.

He propped up a minority, oppressed the majority and killed any dissidents.

The only segment of the population that prospered under Saddam were his immediate "tribal" relatives.

His idol was Stalin, and modeled his government after his brutal reign, right down to the paranoia and secret police. The purpose of the Iraqi "government" was to maintain power. And it did this by rewarding the loyal and repressing the rest.

Saddam turned the UN "Oil for Food" program into a joke. He used it to further make his political enemies suffer while lining his friend's pockets.

Argument to the contrary makes one wonder what happened to the progressive movement in this country. Seems to have taken the "cowards way out".

[tinanator]

147. you need to replace Saddam with Bush to make a proper analogy

you act like he had no friends, and that we have done better somehow.
get real.
You fail to include all the other real and lesser thugs we have backed much to their subjects dismay, and death, and the many who are still large and in charge.
Its just a relief to know it doesnt matter whether or not we were threatened by WMD's or lied to in gross ways by the very fellas making bank on this atrocity.
Youre severely deficient in supporting your assertions.

[vincent_vega_lives]

155. We have

"you need to replace Saddam with Bush to make a proper analogy"

I know that is a popular analogy, but if you think that life in the United States under Bush is equivalent to life in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, well... get real.

you act like he had no friends, and that we have done better somehow.

Who Saddam? Sure he had friends. I hear he liked dogs too. Have we "done better"? Well lets see, elections, and the fact that the majority of Iraqis don't have to fear their government is a start. Those supporting the insurgents DO have something to fear, however, or do support their efforts?

You fail to include all the other real and lesser thugs we have backed much to their subjects dismay, and death, and the many who are still large and in charge.

I thought this was about Iraq? If you to start a discussion on global dictatorships, start another thread.

Its just a relief to know it doesn't matter whether or not we were threatened by WMD's or lied to in gross ways by the very fellas making bank on this atrocity.

I said nothing as to the reasons we invaded Iraq. That has nothing to do with whether Saddam's regime was legitimate or not.


You're severely deficient in supporting your assertions.

Hardly. I made a bunch of assertions, and you have responded by not addressing them. Kudos on bringing up irrelevant points though. Now if you can explain why you think I'm severely deficient in supporting my assertions...or will you choose to take the "cowards way out"? ;)

[tinanator]

156. here is what you said and failed to justify

<Calling the Iraqi regime under Saddam a
"sovereign national" is an afront to most of the legitimate states in the UN.>

thats just nonsense. The list of nations we have saddled with "Hitlers" is long, and more than a few continue on their merry way. If they dont, we go back and right the situation as in Haiti. But, hey never mind that little lesson in reality, we gots Iraqi's to save from themselves. I cant get over the lack of sophistication in the majority of the millions of monkeys banging away laboring under the delusions theyve been advertised into. Look at the freepish nonsense in the post below, straight outta FR.
We were Saddams friends, friend.
do continue.

[vincent_vega_lives]

161. So now you're justifying Saddam's regime

because the West has propped up dictators?

Is that what you really want to do?

Yes the US sided with Saddam over Iran. Again does that make Saddam a guy you would back? Does it?

It's really very simple. Either YOU think Saddam was the legitimate ruler of Iraq or you don't.

But continue to do the Cha-cha-cha.

[tinanator]

163. not hardly quit that shit

I cant blame anyone else, I knew you were going to waste my time, but hey...
Dont let the fact that I never said Saddam was anything stop you from whatever it is you think your doing. I spose the next, and last, wasted question would be which illegitimate dictator do we take out, and are there any limits to the number of innocent lives that can be destroyed in pursuit of said noble goal.
Keep bringing that straw man to the dance, God knows youd get awful bored waiting for me to actually do the things you claim.

[vincent_vega_lives]

169. Full Circle

I stated that Iraq under Saddam was not a legitimate government.

You asked me to explain, which I did.

You then dirided my argument by stating that the US has propped up tinpot dictators in the past. That is hardly an argument. In fact it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Saddam's regime. Talk about a waste of time.

The question as to how/if his regime should be "taken out" is a different matter, and up for argument.

True innocent lives are in the balance, as was innocent French, Dutch, Belgian, even German and Italian lives at risk to rid Europe of the Nazis in that "noble goal".

[tinanator]

171. I asked you to explain how calling him legitimate was an insult to etc

Because that was a really weak remark that cant be taken very seriously in a region full of infant monarchies WE PICKED.
To be honest, any way the Iraqis and Iranians could get rid of our chosen rulers is 100% more legitimate than the way we installed them, even if the same methods were used.
Ah, theres that sweet siren of WWII's just war, waxing nostalgiac are we? Dont make that comparison, its just too much to take.

[vincent_vega_lives]

197. It is an insult to SOME UN members

certainly not all. Plenty of "nations" in the UN, recognized BY the UN that amount to a dictator's social club. It's a disgrace, and yes the US is guilty of supporting petty dictators in the name of anti-communism and "regional stability".

Not something I condone but the sins of the past do not negate the need for more democratic progress in the world.

Sure Iran replaced one colonial dictator with an Islamic dictator. Guess what, Iran now has one of the most pro-US population in the ME. Iran was a very progressive country before the Ayatollahs took over, now they are going back wards. If you consider that "100% legitimate" then you are willing to condemn a majority of Iranian population to the dark ages of sharia law.

My point was not to "wax poetic" over a just war, but just to point out that your concern for innocents is noted, and valid. But sometimes extreme measures are required in the short term to prevent a LOT more innocents oppression, suffering and death over decades.

THE point is that it is a fallacy to support the continuation of Saddam's Iraq just because you disagree with US policy.

[Mondon]

201. Thanks

for the rational discourse. It's frustrating that the excesses of the Bushco regime causes some progressives to feel they have to defend the Ba'athists.

[tinanator]

206. thank you no

once again somebody has to accuse me of defending anyone like Saddam. How sad you cant see the blood on your hands for all the blood you think you might have seen if you hadnt actually gotten bloody.
Its the difference between hypothesis and murder.
And of course the unspoken but firmly adhered to assumption that WE are morally superior (LAUGHABLE) maybe even obligated to invade what FUCKING WAS a sovereign country. Half truths might make it into the history books, but they dont make it in an honest debate.
Just quit pretending you arent four square behind every dollar Dick Cheney makes off this, because EVERY DAY it continues his wealth directly increases.
You are Bush and Cheney if you want this one long lie to continue because corporatist Democrats want it to.
I wonder what the prevailing sentiment would be if Dean's opinion was the same as Kucinich?
baaah baah Bush sheep.

[Mondon]

210. Nice ad hominem

Msg me when you want to be civil.

[tinanator]

212. what do you expect from a Baathist defender?

dish it out like any American with the bravery of being out of range. Women, children, men, US Soldiers, their families? Screw em, we got Saddam! And we got rid of Aristede too! We're on a roll!

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merwin]

73. It's not that easy though. That would be why it's called a quagmire.

If we pull out immediately, there will be tens of thousands of Iraqi's that will pay the price. The country will spiral into chaos, which is exactly how they planned it.

[Southern Dem 2005]

84. Wow, you are wrong in so many ways

I have never supported this war, but Dean is right in that we are there now and can't just leave.

You know, being for peace is a commendable stance, but when its divorced from all reality it is just as dangerous as the belief that preemptive attacks are ok. Not only do we owe it to the American people to try and establish some sort of stability, we also owe it to the Iraqis. The Iraqis that were shot and thrown in the river weren't killed by Americans, nor were the ones who were lined up and shot in the soccer stadium. Leaving now puts the Iraqi people at the mercy of thugs and murderers.

We should never have invaded Iraq, and a lot of people have died because of an unjustified attack, but folding up tent and going home is the worst thing we could do.

As for the claim that we should pay war reparations, well, not only is it never going to happen its just goofy. War criminals should be prosecuted. However, I'm not aware of any civilian war criminals.

[tinanator]

96. no, you are

nyah nyah

Oh the wisdom of the white man will finally save us all from those savages in the cradle of civilization.
We cant even save ourselves from GW, where the fuck do you get the notion we can do something for someone else?

[Southern Dem 2005]

181. You are really detached from reality

I'm not suggesting we can save anyone. But the simple fact is that we went into Iraq and screwed things up so badly we can't just pull out. Although Iraq wasn't a threat to national security before the war it would be if we left.

You need to see a shrink about your dislike of the white man.

[xchrom]

2. hmmm -- well then we'll never leave.

the west cannot force events to suit their own cause.

it will only make things worse.

the invasion was stupid -- but not letting iraq evolve on it's own terms could be far worse.

[eridani]

3. Now I am reminded of why--

--I supported Kucinich in the primaries. Howard, honey, we are the CAUSE of the instability. We can't 'win' short of obliterating at least 1/3 of the total population and putting barbed wire and concrete around the rest permanently.

[XemaSab]

60. The US isn't the cause of the instability

the crusty white Europeans who drew the political boundaries in the first place are the cause of the instability. Saddam created stability in Iraq, but it was at gunpoint. We have removed the stabilizing factor, and this is what we've got.

[acmavm]

4. This really disappoints me. The unrest will never stop as long as we

have occupying troops in their country. The presence of Americans in Iraq is a daily reminder of what we did to them and their country all because of WMDs, I mean, getting rid of an evil dictator, no I really mean bringing them freedom.

Let freedom reign y'all.

[IndianaGreen]

5. We liberated Iraq in the same way Hitler liberated Poland

And we are as criminal as the Germans were.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Really?

Which Polish dictator was brutalizing the majority of his population? I didn't realize Poland was such a destablilizing influence in 1930s eastern Europe. Refresh my memory please.

[Lilith Velkor]

121. They threatened Germany with WMDs

Something like that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. This why we have to change

from an occupying force to a peacekeeping mission. Unfortunately, we can no longer ask the UN to come back but the DOD needs to restore normalcy to the country and that includes ending the daily bombing runs and nightly raids into people's homes.

[truthisfreedom]

6. Dean is taking a very carefully-planned position on this. he puts himself

just beyond the reach of the "hate America first" bashers by saying that he hopes bushco's
"policy" works, while he severely undercuts bushco's stance on Iraq by revealing that it was the worst of all choices to go to war there.

his statement that we "can't get out" doesn't read as "we have to stay" to me. it says "the thugs and the military-industrial complex and the oil companies won't let us leave so long as they're in power, so stop wasting energy on it and focus on winning elections so we CAN get out."

[IndianaGreen]

8. We are well past the point of issuing apologies for Democrats that

enable the ongoing war in Iraq, no matter how they frame their arguments.

We need more Dennis Kucinichs!

[truthisfreedom]

12. you may be well past something, but don't speak for all of us. i'm a Dem,

and i'm not apologizing for Dean. Dean rocks. he may be our only hope of recovering control of this country.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. What is Dennis's current stand on the situation?

I doubt if he would support cutting and running at this point?

[Zorra]

57. DK: Not One More Dime/Insight on Iraq

Not One More Dime
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House

"Mr. Speaker, today the House is going to be asked to approve a supplemental appropriation of $82 billion, most of which will go to continue the war in Iraq.

"We now know more than 2 years later that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction which was the immediate occasion of America’s intervention. We know that Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Yet this country has spent over $200 billion and today is determined to spend another $82 billion in furtherance of a war we did not have to fight at great cost of human life, the lives of our troops and the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians.

"Yet while we are contemplating going ahead and spending $82 billion, we should be thinking about the fact that on January 30 the Special Inspector General for the Iraq reconstruction issued a report that the administration’s Coalition Provisional Authority mismanaged $9 billion in a development fund for Iraq funds. Not a single penny of the $9 billion could be accounted for by the Inspector General.
snip----
"We have people who do not have decent education in this country, decent housing, our highways are falling apart except for our transportation bill. We need to focus on why they do not and have not produced a single shred of evidence of what happened to that $9 billion. The American people have a right to know."

http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/iq_notonemoredime.php

Insight on Iraq
Here are some more insights from Congressman Kucinich on this issue.

http://www.kucinich.us/insight/iraq/

DK's excellent website:

http://www.kucinich.us/

[tinanator]

104. hey dont be derailing the nonsense with decent thinkin

its only money, its not like we would have any better uses. anything for the future security of our new petrocolony.

[Larkspur]

116. So when is Dennis going to run for senator of Ohio?

Or is his base of support only the district he represents?

[Zorra]

124. Corporate controlled MSM will probably never allow DK to get the

needs to become Senator or President.

His plainly stated FDR like populist, anti-fascist ideas and policies present genuine long term solutions to the problems faced by this country. It is difficult to understand why some Democrats feel the need to trash a most excellent and intelligent Progressive Democratic Congressman like DK.

The corporate elite would never stand for DK getting MSM exposure. They would mount a massive campaign to trash him, or ignore him, if he ran for Senator.

The thing about DK is, he does not sell out. He tells it like it is, he does what is right, even if it makes him temporarily politically unpopular. Some people may find this to be a negative in a politician; personally I would like to have a President with this type of integrity.

But that's why nothing ever changes, and why the US keeps going steadily down the tubes. We just keep getting stuck with having to vote for the corporate choice of the year.

The best and the brightest are not allowed to get past "Go" in the global game of "Monopoly".

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers..."

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[bemildred]

7. Mr. Dean is wrong on the facts of the case,

we can and will leave in due course, voluntarily or kicked out
on our butts; but he is right to avoid picking a fight on that issue,
for now anyway, as he has other fish to fry.

[reprobate]

100. I think you are spot on. Look at all the rhetori coming from iraq now.

More calls for apologies and removal of american troops. And this is coming from the current government(?). I think we will be presented with no choice.

Until now the insurgency has been coming from the sunni side. At least according to the budhistas. It now seems to be spreading to the general population. If this happens, it will be untenable for american forces there. Every window and doorway will harbor a shooter.

I believe the time will come in the not too distant future when our troops will be forced into a mass retreat from iraq. And it may be bloody enough to depose the republican coup.

[saigon68]

112. SAIGON April 1975

The more it changes the more it remains the same.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

209. Dems and Repubs: "Permanent war is the only moral choice."

Glad to see you here, saigon68.

So are you going to take General Clark's recent advice in LA and "get over Vietnam?"

According to him, Dems "have no choice."

I think he's part of the problem, not solution. What do you think?

[Lilith Velkor]

125. The Shia/Sunni divide is way overstated

The general population has been in it for a long time now.

I mean really now, if we were invaded do you think anyone would give a damn who's Protestant and who's Catholic?

[bemildred]

136. Thanks.

I do get a kick out of people who insist on talking about Iraq as
though we were in control. While the timing is unclear, the outcome
is certain, and some of us here said so before this boondoggle started.

[NVMojo]

9. He's just echoing Senator Harry Reid ....

[NNN0LHI]

19. And Reid is full of shit too n/t

[pazarus]

36. nah-- reids a hero

in my book. recently, anyway. I didn't really know him before he took over a senate minority leader, but he's done a fabulous job so far. He hasn't given an inch and he explains himself very well.

[slay]

10. Sorry Doc, but we should get out of Iraq and bring the troops home now

Our children should not have to pay for the horrible decisions made by BushCo. The depleted uranium is reason enough to get all Americans out of there ASAP. This was about oil back when the CIA acquired Saddam as an asset and it's still about oil today. Should the draft be reinstated, I will refuse to clean up BushCo's mess in Iraq and I hope all y'all have the sense to do the same. It's a sad fact that with no real political opposition to our occupation of Iraq, we will be there for a long, loooooooong time - at least until we are no longer dependent upon oil for energy. :(

[KansDem]

63. "I will refuse to clean up BushCo's mess in Iraq..."

I'm with you on this. I have two children (ages 13 and 7) and no way in Hell are they going to be drafted to bring home Bush's oil profits. NO WAY IN HELL!!! I know they are still several years away from draft age, but how long were we in Vietnam?

I've taken a lot from the Bush Family: I spend several hundred dollars a month on prescription drugs and would like to have cheaper ones from Canada, but Bush says "Nooooo can do! Must "protect" Americans from inferior drugs from "third-world countries" (he really means must protect American drug companies from competition). I would like to see more research using stem-cells for cures for diseases since I have diabetes, but Bush says "Nooooo can do! Must "protect" life (while he murders 1,000s of Iraqis). But the way I see it, as much as I despise the Bush Family and would like to see them in prison for robbing me blind, I have just a couple of decades left to endure. My children, however, are a different matter. THEY WILL NOT GO TO WAR FOR BUSH FAMILY OIL PROFITS. Period. End of discussion.

And I intend to make this VERY clear to my representatives (as well as anyone standing withing earshot of me) at the slightest hint of reactivating the draft.

[Frederik]

11. Bad idea, Howard

The number of American troops in Iraq is simply insufficient to provide any semblance of order and security there. I should think that is pretty obvious by now. It would probably require half a million troops to do that. And as long as the country is occupied, and the occupation is so hated by most people, how can it evolve into a stable, democratic and sovereign state? I fail to see how a continued occupation is going to do any good for anyone. Take the demonstration that gathered 300,000 people in Baghdad as a hint: time to start thinking of pulling out.

Apart from that, I agree with his asessment:

"The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before."

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. We have plenty of troops there

we just have to learn how to treat people and to begin the process of giving Iraq back to the Iraqi people. It can be done but the Bush misadministration is not interested in pursuing those goals.

[candy331]

13. Seems Dean is forgetting that the US had to pull out of Vietnam

and only after some 50+ thousand American troops were killed, by the way a war that was waging when he got his deferment. It is easy to say stay when your kids are safely tucked in at night...... .

[Larkspur]

50. And Howard lost his brother Charlie in Vietnam

Charlie was abducted and killed by the Communists there, so Howard did suffer a personal loss from Vietnam.

Oh, and the deferment he got was legit. The Army, not Howard Dean, gave the deferment. So stop whining about it.

[DrDebug]

14. Iraq already is a big threat than it ever was

> by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was;

That's just a fact already. Regardless of whether we stay or leave, it has become a bigger threat than ever before and staying will only make things more. Of course the country will not be stable after the troops have pulled out, but leaving them will make it even more unstable.

[catastrophicsuccess]

77. A threat to who?

They gonna nuke us with their wmd's ? :eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

18. That is exactly the same line of line BS I heard about Vietnam

Remember that "war" Howard? The one you were unable go to participate in because of your "bad back". Next Howard will be calling for a draft. Watch and see.

Don

[renaissanceguy]

196. Where do you come up with this logic?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

[wildmanj]

20. can't get out

you simply declare victory and leave---no wmd's----the entire purpose of our being there shot to hell---

[XemaSab]

62. Exactly

We've got a "legitimately elected" government and we've turned the country over to the Iraqis and trained police forces, so that means we've won and succeeded in democratizing the region, right? RIGHT???????

[pazarus]

23. I don't think its a political calculation

I think he believes this, and i think he's right. One of the main reasons I marched against the war was because once it started I knew it would be wrong to destroy the country and leave, so our invasion meant a lasting presence in Iraq which I was strongly against.

The United States has an unfortunate record of not going through with what they start. They have a tendency to go in and do what they want regardless of the consequences of their actions. I thought it was wrong to go in, but I knew that if the country made the choice it would have to see it through until the Iraqis could handle it on their own. I didn't trust the Americans to do any more than destroy the country and leave it in ruins, claim victory and watch it grow unnaturally into a country of warlords and repression.

Once again, it would be best if we had not gone, but it is absolutely necessary not to leave before they are ready. It is my hope we will leave, and I think if we can get any single person in power with a hint of diplomacy in their blood then we can start the healing process and hopefully leave Iraq in a good state. It would be a complete disaster to withdraw now and watch someone fill the power void with an iron fist, as we have seen happen so many times before, and as Howard Dean points out here.

I think the positions of conservatives and liberals on a presence in Iraq will switch as time passes. When Iraq is in a humanitarian crisis and the liberal groups demand we help (maybe through the UN), the conservatives will ignore the problem they created and blame liberals for trying to spend too much.

I couldn't agree with Dean more on this issue.

(edited for typos)

[bemildred]

25. If he believes this shit, he can kiss my ass goodbye.

That would make him a lot dumber than I thought.
He was there in the VietNam days, he ought to know the score.

[pazarus]

26. i think its better to fix a mistake

than to ignore it.

[bemildred]

27. They kept saying that for a long time in VietNam.

It was horseshit then and it's horseshit now.
The notion that the answer to a massive fuckup is even more
fucking up is, ummm, "confused".

[pazarus]

30. the lesson we should have learned from vietnam

was not to invade the country in the first place. It causes problems. It's not easy to stay in, its not easy to get out. We should not have invaded Iraq, period.

But lets just assume for a minute that we invaded anyway, swept up in a fury of nationalism and led astray by cherry-picked intelligence and a fancy bunch of power-pointed bullshit. We destroyed the entire infrastructure of the country and destabilized every part of the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Do we go just after the last bomb is dropped? Do we just not care what happens to the people after that? Do we want to see a warlord overthrow the country and impose another tyrannical regime? Do we want a country with no infrastructure and no leadership to find leadership through brutality and 'natural forces' of power?

Or do we stay until they have a parliament and a semblence of order and maybe some democracy, like the British in India? At what pont, assuming the worst of the destruction has already stopped, do you want the US to leave? Do you want to replace the US forces with UN forces, or just let nature take its course and let the Iraqis sort through the mess we caused.

Like it or not, those actions were the actions of our country, and if we don't see them through, there will be an even greater hatred for the US than the mistake has already caused.

On the other hand, with the current administration, I think we'll only see them through to the point that our oil futures are secured. With Bush in charge, we'll be happy to accept a murderous, repressive, military dictatorship (see: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) as long as they claim to be friends of the US and back it up with oil. My God I wish Kerry was president, he could do things right.

[bemildred]

31. I agree with your first paragraph.

I disagree that we can fix it, and I disagree that the Iraqis cannot
sort out their own affairs - the VietNamese did. The sooner we butt
out the better, there is no reason at all to think that any of the
fuckwits in Washington have the foggiest idea what needs to be done in
Iraq, rather the opposite.

I do think we owe them support and reparations and whatever friendship
they are willing to accept. I think a UN security force with NO US
PARTICIPATION would be accepted gratefully and would do some good.

[pazarus]

35. i understand your reservations that we can fix it

and I think under this administration is a long shot. this administration understands diplomacy as an inconvenience and a hassle created by liberals who don't understand the world needs a pax americana. If any other president had the reins, we would at least have the OPTION of bringing in the UN. But no, Bush appointees don't believe the UN exists (or has any relevance), and Bush scoffs in the face of international law, even laws our former presidents helped to create.

So what are our options? I don't think Iraq will grow into a safe place on its own. I think a military theocratic dictatorship will take over if given half a chance, just like Iraq before and Iran and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Syria. I would rather see us try to help enough to give them a shot at a democracy, because I do think the average person in Iraq would rather have a democracy than a dictatorship. I don't know for sure, but I think.

Will the thinking fuckheads in the administration care whether the average Iraqi is helped? Absolutely not, but with the political pressure we have put on them to show a healthy Iraq, maybe something good can come of their grand mistake. Maybe they'll have to actually follow through, give them freedom, help set up a democracy, and accept the loss of the oil fields. Its a dream I had once, and a nice one. I'd love to see a stable Iraq and to see us without Iraqi oil or bases in Iraq in the near future, it would completely fuck the neocons over. Maybe, just maybe, the rhetoric the administration used about freedom being all that matters will come back and bite them in the ass.

[bemildred]

37. Let's leave it there.

I appreciate the civil discussion.

[pazarus]

39. ok

and I completely agree with what you said earlier

"I do think we owe them support and reparations and whatever friendship
they are willing to accept. I think a UN security force with NO US
PARTICIPATION would be accepted gratefully and would do some good."

I wish it were possible, but this administration has made such mistakes...

[XemaSab]

67. As George Bush sr

(Played by Dana Carvey) said in the buildup to the first Gulf War:

"It's not gonna be another Vietnam. We've learned well the simple lesson of Vietnam: Stay out of Vietnam."

[pazarus]

98. ah thats good

it does seem we haven't learned anything broader since then. Vietnam taught us only about Vietnam, and what happens in Iraq will teach us only about Iraq. No sense extrapolating the data before we invade Iran...

[XemaSab]

106. Hey now....

Iran's a whole different country, with a whole different language and culture and history.

There's no reason why we shouldn't be totally successful.

/sarcasm

[clem_c_rock]

79. I don't think Kerry would have done much different

He's part of the Dems version of the PNAC (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004), he voted for this war and don't believe 1 fucking second he didn't know the intelligence was a lie.

[pazarus]

82. right, no difference between kerry and bush

...and no difference between gore and bush either, right? I guess all rich white men are the same?

It's people like you who helped Bush take the throne. Maybe in your world politicians are all the same, I don't really care what your explanation is though. If you think Kerry or Gore would have started a war in Iraq like Bush and co. did, you are really off the deep end. I understand mistrust of politicians, but I really don't understand people equating two heavily contrasting ideologies.

Also: he didn't 'vote for the war', but he did give the president the authority to declare war. Would he have declared war? Absolutely not, and I bet he hoped Bush wouldn't either.

[clem_c_rock]

92. Hmm - let's see here..

"It's people like you who helped Bush take the throne."

1. I gave quite a bit of money to Dennis Kucinich's campaign.

2. I voted for Kerry - I agree - he would have never got us into this
war. I just don't like his stance that this war was just being
handled wrong.

3. I've attended about every anti war march in my area in the last 3
Years

4. I'm volunteering time to these 2 organizations:
-http://internationalistbooks.org/
-http://www.mfso.org/

[pazarus]

95. fair enough

"I voted for Kerry - I agree - he would have never got us into this
war."

I thought you were saying he would have done the same or that he was an active part in pushing for it. I don't think he knew the intelligence was lies (as you mention), but I do think we agree that he knew it wasn't a "slam dunk" case and he would not have started a war over such questionable intelligence.

I didn't mean to be cruel, but I do take issue with progressives who refuse to acknowledge the difference between Democratic and Republican ideologies. Kerry might have been a bit too soft on opposing the war for you, but he was in a tough position and nothing he said could take back what we did. I respect the work done volunteering and being active for everything, but even the most politically active people helped Bush take the presidency in 2000 by withholding support for Gore.

[clem_c_rock]

101. Well - you're not talking to a guy who w/held support for Gore

And I don't think there's a large % of "progressives" who didn't support Gore.

But then it becomes a mute point if we start getting into the topic of election fraud which I believe was the case in the last 2 elections.

[pazarus]

105. gotcha, and I'm glad

but i knew quite a few in 2000, some even within my family, and its still a point of contention. it doesn't take such a large %...

...and lets not get into the subject of fraud, theres no more frustrating feeling than thinking about the possibility and being powerless. It permeates everything, as even this discussion indicates.

[tinanator]

107. does it help to rest on lies?

how sad to have to reach back that far to a fairy tale when the subsequent FACTS dont provide a lick of credence??
That aint cruelty, its just dumb all over.

[pazarus]

108. guh?

can you phrase any of what you said in the form of a question or a comment relevant to my post?

It looks like you took offense on behalf of the guy or girl I was responding to. I spoke a bit rashly because his post seemed to indicate an indifference to whether Bush or Kerry had been handling the situation. He responded and clarified, and then I clarified my defensive posture.

I am now going to assume that you were one of the Nader-voters in 2000 and you took offense to my characterization of them being part of the problem. I can't think of any other reason you'd be so defensive and tell me I'm reaching back to a fairy tale and that I'm dumb all over and that my position is sad.

If I've made an incorrect assumption, or if you have a coherent sentence to type on the subject, I'm listening.

[tinanator]

110. coherent sentence?

cant teach pigs to sing.

[pazarus]

113. thats two sentence fragments,

only one of which makes any sense. Are your responses generated randomly by a DU argument bot? Take a small string from the post above, generate random words, search database for common argumentative phrases, then throw in common quote that addresses nothing in the post above.

I guess you didn't feel like clarifying what you said before. I'll get my singing lessons elsewhere.

[tinanator]

114. youre the talking non-sequitors

nothing you have been supporting is factually supportable, but quite heavily marketed on the media and other forms of persuasion.
Its not that difficult, I swear. You just need to make a leap into reality.

[pazarus]

120. that was fabulous, but it supports my 'randomly generated' theory

Now I really can't tell if you exist.

"you're the talking non-sequitors"

It sounds maybe like the word repository is some sort of eighties business jargon mixed with common phrases that mean nothing, like "nothing you have been supporting is factually supportable". I'm sorry, but that by itself means nothing.

[renaissanceguy]

198. EXCELLENT post.

I think the sensible solution would to start bringing troops home while calling on the U.N. to help Iraq stabilize. Granted, if we had JK as president, he would have not kept the troops there any longer than he needed, and he would have pushed for stabilization. Under the * cartel, staying there longer only means more destruction.

So it's really a tossup. As someone else on this thread had said, we're screwed either way. If we stay there, under this current admin, you can only count on more death and destruction. If we run, then yeah the troops would be safe, but you also have to understand that THIS WAR HAS ONLY INVIGORATED TERRORISM. While I do not believe we should tell the Iraqi government how to run, it would be smarter for the world if we help them until they reach a stabilization point. Otherwise, imagine more terrorist attacks on the U.S.--that would give * and the RWers a blank check to do whatever they want, like they did right after 9/11.

This is why we need to internationalize the efforts. The best thing to do is start pulling out while bringing in the U.N. That way, our troops will eventually come home, and we can assure more security for the quagmire we created.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

[clem_c_rock]

76. Exactly - every colonial power says the same thing

1. We're here to bring these savages a better life. (This makes
the soldiers feel like they're fighting for a noble cause,
and their families will happily give them up)

2. We can't leave because these savages will rip each other limb
from limb. We need to protect them from their savage, primitive
urges.

this shit is will go on like this until the end of time. When will we stop buying it?

[pazarus]

83. so whats the solution?

I'd say the solution is stay out and don't be a colonial power. I think you'd agree to that. It's too late for that though.

So is the answer to just drop the bombs and run? Assassinate Hussein and move on with our lives regardless of who takes over and at what cost to the Iraqis?

Assuming we already did the worst part, the destruction of their army and civilian infrastructure, I'd say we have a duty to try to make it better and only then get out. I didn't want to asume this duty, but I think we have to after we destroy a region of the world. I didn't want the war to happen, because of the responsibility it entails.

You don't think we have any responsibility there now?

[clem_c_rock]

160. How about this:

Remove our military presence - It's clear this is what the people want, most analyst are agreeing that our presence is THE problem.

Everyone's appalled at the heavy handed aproach the US is using. The British, the world's #1 imperialist nation, is shocked at our approach. This violent pacification (IE napalm, DU, chemical weapons) proves that we're there to crush the Iraqi people. We use the Israeli tactic of massive collective punishment. 14 bases later and bases popping up all over the middle East (have you noticed the latest arms deal w/ Pakistan was in return for US bases - We've got Iran surrounded now) proves that the PNAC imperialist agenda is about PERMANANCE. THEY DON'T INTEND TO LEAVE.

Replace all military effort w/ MASSIVE humanitarian aid. This would be far cheaper than the 5 b we spend each month and far more productive.
The only military forces in the country would be to protect contractors who would rebuild infrastructure. Whatever they ask for to rebuild they receive.

Of course there is going to be chaos, but I don't buy our media that it would be any worse than if we were there.

If there is a civil war, well guess what, we had ours and you know, sometimes, it has to happen. We've only been a true democracy since 1965. It took us as long as that to get where we are (and we're losing it all quick). We might have to be patient while many other parts of the world find the path to reform. I believe much of the Arab world wants it but, it may take decades to find. It sure as hell will NEVER come from our bombs.

I don't believe there's ANYTHING good that can come if we stay. We are the fucking problem.

As my daddy said: "People make mistakes and people pay for them too".
Well guess what-trying to be an imperialist nation is always a mistake. Admitting it is the first stage. Leaving people the fuck alone is the second. We will never change anything by invasion. The only way we will change anything is by example and we are setting the worst one possible.

The responsibility we have towards the middle east is to finally LEAVE THEM ALONE. Let's look at the history of Iraq:

1. British invasion in 1917 over oil - 600,000 troops invade.
-King Faisel and his son are propped up as puppets and paid
big money to protect British oil rights.

2. Overthrow of Abdel Kassim and the propping up of a monster
dictator who we rabidly support for over 35 years.

3. The sanctions that strangle the Iraqi people (mainly children)
and do NOTHING to harm Saddam except making him oppress his
People more.

When is enough, enough? Haven't we already done more damage than
can ever be repaired. These people are not cavemen like our media portrays them to be. If you look at the last mass protest it was a huge mixture of Shias and Sunnis protesting the occupation. They are banning together to get rid of US. Sounds a bit like democracy to me. not rigged US elections.

[OETKB]

180. First

You have to admit you made a mistake first before you can fix it. Who's going to do that?

[CTLawGuy]

66. did you support the guy, who crowed about serving in Vietnam,

who voted for the war in the first place?

[atreides1]

29. "....not to leave before they are ready..."

Who gets to decide when they're ready? It's apparent that a good portion of the Iraqi people want the occupiers out of their country,
it's also apparent that the "training" being provided by the US to the Iraqi security forces, in one word, SUCKS.

Just yesterday they reported that 19 bodies were found in a soccer stadium, and it's suspected that all 19 men were members of the new
Iraqi army.

The Iraqi police, the "security" forces, are dying in droves lately, the insurgents are even killing government officials.

So either Iraqis don't grasp what they are being trained to do, the US training program isn't worth a damn, or, and this is my take on it, the US military is intentionally providing substandard training, so as to have a reason for the Iraqi government to keep occupation forces in the country.

In other words, the US has no intention of leaving Iraq, and possibly every intention of using the country as a jumping off
point for the invasion of Iran.

[pazarus]

32. because this administration is shit

If we were in the same predicament with Democratic leadership, I wouldn't have to worry that Iran is next, or that all we want is oil, or that they don't care what happens to Iraqi civilians. The rest of the world, including the Iraqis, can see the blatant thirst for oil from the Republican administration. If we could make it clear it was more about the people (impossible for Bush to do, because it could never be true), then we could garner more support within the country and throughout the world.

I don't trust Bush to know when we're ready, I would have trusted Kerry. Bush will be ready to leave once the oil fields are operational and the government, no matter how repressive and theocratic, is giving us oil and plenty of space for military bases (hence not really leaving). A Democratic leader would have different conditions, and might be reaady to actually leave if the country is in alright shape.

[eridani]

177. I'll say this for Kerry--

--he explicitly disavowed the goal of permanent military bases there.

[shadowknows69]

42. This BS about the Iraqi army needing our training PO's me

We're talking about a country whose people have more on the job war training than we do in our history. I don't think they need any help learing to use guns. Give them some weapons, leave the instruction manuals and tell them. There. your dictator is gone. try not to give us a reason to come back and bomb the rest of you back to the stone age but we've gotta go.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. Sure they can shoot a gun.

But there is a whole lot more to counterinsurgency than pulling a trigger. Organization is key. And all Saddam ever taught these guys were cannon-fodder tactics.

The best trained joes were the ones most loyal to Saddam, and got all the benies, so are now the ones doing the fighting against the US.

[shadowknows69]

99. You're right then

we need to stay there and train the poor helpless Iraqis how to fight insurgency for the next 10 years. Bonus! Maybe we'll learn how to do it too while we're at it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

143. 2 years

At most. Most will be out by FY07. We'll have a presence there, but no where near the troop levels we have now. Already the ING has made huge strides in the last year.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Bullshit

"and this is my take on it, the US military is intentionally providing substandard training, so as to have a reason for the Iraqi government to keep occupation forces in the country."

Where the fuck do you come up whith this bright Idea. I have friends over there right now actually doing the training, going out on raids in the worst parts of Baghdad with ING troops watching their backs. You really think they are providing "substandard training" so they can take a bullet for the Iraqis?

Check yourself before you spout off.

[indepat]

24. Just one of many neocon-inspired messes we will never get out of?

[Jacobin]

28. Its like riding a tiger

You are crazy to stay on it and you will die if you get off.

Smirky got us into this goddamned mess and it will take a fucking magician to get us out.

I disagree with Dean that we can't get out, but the problems he raises in leaving are valid.

[Itsthetruth]

33. Howard Dean Never Opposed Occupation Of Iraq

Howard Dean never supported the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Howard Dean never spoke out against the invasion of Iraq before and during the invasion.

And yet Howard Dean was portrayed as a great opponent of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

So what was Howard Dean's "role" as a "peace candidate" in the Democratic Party last year? That should be easy to figure out.

He got the anti-war movement and activists off the streets and into Democratic Party electoral activity. And later on he helped to mobilize anti-war activists and organizations into working hard to elect a pro-war and pro-occupation candidate! John Kerry.

The anti-war movement still hasn't recovered from the Anybody But Bush election disaster. A mass movement was dissolved in favor of electoral action for a pro-war candidate. It will take some time to rebuild that mass movement but it can and must be done no matter how many Democratic Party leaders attempt to subvert it.

And Howard Dean has been justly recognized and rewarded for his efforts. He now heads up the Democratic Party leadership body, a body that does not fight against many of Bush's policies such as the bankruptcy and class action legislation nor most of Bush's presidential appointments. The Democratic Party National Committee does coddle Bush enablers in Congress and is absolutely silent on political issues that might embarass Democratic enablers of Bush.

Howard Dean hasn't changed that.

Dean's most recent statement in defense of the occupation is not at all surprising. What is surprising is that many progressives are surprised by Dean's opposition to withdrawl from Iraq.

Many well-intentioned liberals and progressives didn't bother to check out Howard Dean's real political history and record. They just wanted to "believe" and many still do. Serious and critically minded political people are not misled so easily.

Any Democratic Party politicians who want to participate in and help build a renewed anti-war movement should be welcomed with open arms. But, I bet Howard Dean and Senator Reid won't be among them.

[Larkspur]

47. Rubbish!! Howard Dean strongly opposed the war in Iraq

precisely because he forsaw the problem we are in now.

During the leadup to the Dem Primaries, Howard Dean always opposed the Iraq war, but he honestly admitted that he was not a pacifist, like Kucinich is. Dean said that the President's oath required the President to defend this nation from harm, both domestic and foreign, and that means that the President may be required to order troops to attack a country or terrorist base. A pacifist would break his oath of office and be negligent in his/her duty as President, if he/she did not deploy troops to safeguard this nation if the situation warranted it.

Dean does not support imperial occupation of Iraq like Bush, the Neocons, and the DLC does. He supports an occupation based upon securing Iraq for both it's people, for it's regional neighbors, and for the world at large. He does not want Iraq to become Taliban Afghanistan ver 2.0 which would nurture Al Queda, who will strike against Europe, regardless if they supported the Iraq war or not, and the US.

[frictionlessO]

74. About Pacifism, thats really not how it works.

I've been a devout pacifist for nearly 20 years, and I'm sorry but even the most stringent vows of pacifism outside of clericalism are merely path markers. When you take seriously these vows you also take seriously that there may come a time where you have to enact violence for the greater peace. You can justify a violent action in order to stop ongoing violent actions (not Pre-emptive wars though! at least not the neocon kind).

If one is a devout pacifist it does not mean they wont attack it means they will consider any violence the last most failed act. Failure to illuminate the violence before it is enacted is usually the only cause for reactive violence.

To put it into context... We get attacked by a foreign nation, we failed to see the oncoming attack and/or saw it coming but couldn't stop via peaceful methods. Now that the attack has happened violence must be enacted to stop further bloodshed. Sounds like what we used to do right? Sounds like most peoples way of going about fighting... don't kid yourself, its not. Many people will go to violence over small but played up fears, insults and the perception of having been wronged. Many conflicts arise that could have been settled peacefully if people would let go of some of these perceptions as ego based falsities or fear mongering.

Pacifism means not giving into any of those natural caveman instincts, pacifism means not giving the violence a chance to get at you. You avoid violence through a variety of methods and means (literally thousands), however its hard on the ego and reactive emotional conduct.

Many people can't get to the point of calling themselves a pacifist because they know they'd just kill someone if that someone wronged them in the right kind of way. So what! Why sit there and say I can't over a hypothetical?? Why not strive toward pacifism till the day arrives when you have absolutely no choice but to maim or kill another being?? I guess it is just still too hard for most people to give up their "right" to a violent reaction for anything they deem worthy of such...


edit: context

[Larkspur]

115. And Dean said during the Primary campaign that he would not send

our troops into combat unless it was to defend our nation or to support humanitarian needs, like stopping genocide, and he emphasized that he would never send our troops to war based on lies, so I guess by your definition, Howard Dean is a pacifist.

[frictionlessO]

159. Close but unless he thinks of himself as a pacifist, hes really not.

Pacifism is as individual a thing as spirituality. I was just trying to show ways that pacifists are not really bad for making life and death decisions in regards to public office. That pacifists aren't always never ever going to do anything violent because of being a pacifist its a rare thing but every so often they have to enact violence in order further true peace. There are as many ways to go about being a pacifist as there are stars.... the conscious dedication to live as a pacifist is the difference.

I love both Dennis and Howard, my goal these days is just to elect people that will at least be rational and that can work with my ilk...

[eridani]

178. Kucinich isn't a pacifist either.

But he is very definitely against unnecessary wars.

[Jacobin]

153. Gee, what happened to your internets those months?

:hi:

I remember sending Dean LOTS of money (for me anway) when he warned against the invasion. He was the only one other than Sharpton and Kucinich who would stand up to the jingoistic propanganda being spewed day and night.

The day your internets must have been down, when Saddam was captured and all the u.s. politicians crowed about how it 'made the world safer' Dean said BULLSHIT, and was roundly criticized by everyone, including Kerry and Lieberman because everyone 'knew' that once Saddam was captured, Iraq would become peaceful and the war would be won :eyes:

I don't understand posters who make up facts about Dean that are simply not historically correct. It's just too simple to check on it, dude.

If you don't like Dean, say so, but please don't besmirch him with statements that are simply demonstrably untrue. He has suffered enormous slings and arrows from the media for defying Smirk and he doesn't need gratuitous untrue bashing.

Thanks for listening.

[Megahurtz]

215. This simple analogy makes sense to me.

Although I think it's best to get out.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. No one here has mentioned what is implicit in Dean's statement

That for the next three years, we don't have a choice.

What about the UN? As soon as we get some reasonable people in charge, we can go to the UN, apologize profusely for the last 8 years of shitty leadership, and ask them to help us maintain order in Iraq. It would shift the focus much more away from us, allow us to bring some of our troops home, and hopefully diffuse the situation. That is the only way out at this point.

But the Democrats can't do that alone, while the Congress and Executive are held by the GOP.

Dean is saying we can't get out, and he means it. We can't. Not until we toss these chuckleheads out and get the UN in to help us.

[Itsthetruth]

40. Yes We Can!

Yes we can. A mass anti-Vietnam war movement forced the Nixon government to pull out of Vietnam. An effective and powerful anti-Iraq war movement can force the Bush government to withdraw.

Howard Dean will do nothing to help build such a movement. That should be clear. Any proposal that suggests we should just give up and accept the occupation of Iraq for at least the next three years should be rejected by anti-war activists.

What are we suppose to do? Sit on our hands in the hopes the Democratic Party runs a pro-withdrawl candidate for President in 2008? And what if the Democratic Party selects yet another pro-occupation candidate in 2008? I guess we will just have to sit around and wait for the 2012 election!

[Larkspur]

45. Bobby Kennedy did not organize the anti-Vietnam war movement

He was a "Johnny come lately" to it, but that didn't stop him from getting enough support for the Dem nomination to force Lyndon "Gulf of Tonkin" Johnson to not seek another term before Bobby was assasinated. Of course, Bobby Kennedy also pushed out Eugene McCarthy, who was closer to the anti-Vietnam War movement than Bobby.

Just as the anti-Vietnam War movement was not formed around a single person, the anti-Iraq war movement won't be formed around a single person, like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich, either. And you won't see a massive anti-Iraq war movement in this country until the Draft formally reappears. By not issuing a formal Draft, Bush and the Neocons are successfully stifling the anti-Iraq war movement. Right now, they are hoping that by eliminating good paying jobs, that they can create an informal Draft based upon economic needs; however, even that is failing, which is why rumors of a formal Draft are appearing now, but most GOP Congressional members don't want a formal Draft unless they can be reassured of keeping their cushy elected offices.

[karynnj]

191. The Vietnam antiwar movement analogy is not comforting

There was a major anti-war movement that was already big by 1967. (There were earlier protests) There were also Congressman and Senators who were easily identified as anti-war. Eugene McCarthy stunned the country by an impressive showing in NH in 1968, which was part of the reason Johnson announced he would not run for election, but channel his efforts to end the war. RFK entered, also as an antiwar candidate (who was also great on other issues) and was on the way to being the Democratic nominee when he was killed.

Both parties included ending the war in their 1968 platforms. But the war continued, although the number of soldiers was reduced. In May 1970, Nixon went on TV announcing that we were undertaking massive bombings in Cambodia, a neutral country, to stop the movement of enemy troops and supplies. Most campuses had massive anti-war rallies. Kent State and the comments of Nixon and Agnew shocked most college students. In 1970, there was the huge anti-war moratorium day. In 1971, John Kerry was invited by anti-war Senators (including Fullbright)to testify before the Senate foreign relations committee. The anti-war movement was then not limited to a fringe or to college students, but was very wide spread.

Much of the press and many TV anchormen presented the anti-war arguments fairly and tried to accurately describe the war itself. Every day, we saw footage on TV from Vietnam. The atrocities of Mi Lai were talked about in the press and on TV. Commentators in their editorials became progressively more adamant that we leave.

Still Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide. Although that campaign was dirty,compared to last year's campaign's vicious attacks on Kerry and his family it was civil. Nixon's press was also far more negative and included none of the adulation given to Bush. After winning, Nixon launched massive bombings in North Vietnam.

The US pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, getting the same terms that we could have had in 1968. This was after at least 6 years of a strong antiwar movement, which was supported by a large number of Senators and congressmen of both parties, and a supportive press and media. At this point, Bush can correctly say that it is only his political opponents who want the war to end and that his base is still supporting the war and his party backs it 100%. These facts diminish the pressure that the antiwar rallies can exert.

I'm not knocking the anti-war movement, my teen daughters and I went to protests in 2003 in DC and NYC, at that time, there was some hope of averting the disaster we are now in. Now, it may be more the case that it's important in and of itself to stand up against what is wrong.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Is the UN up to the job?

It appears they can't even handle Haiti:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/haiti/11409044.htm

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/haiti/11398674.htm

[Larkspur]

43. Dean is right. Thanks to Bush and the pro-war Dems the US is now in a

Catch-22 in Iraq.

Dean's view is shaped by Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal and on US abandonment of it to Osama's men and Afghani supporters. Taliban Afghanistan, who nurtured Al Queda, not US corporate imperial desires, is what is shaping Dean's view on not pulling troops out of Iraq. It is a valid viewpoint that needs to be discussed thoroughly, but we also need to determine if it applies to Iraq now. In some ways it does and in others it doesn't.

Dean is definitely right about the Kurds in Northern Iraq causing regional instablilty with their dream of creating somekind of Kurdish homeland, and that instability, not necessarily the Kurds themselves, will aide Al Queda. Although, Al Queda did have camps in Kurdish areas when Saddam still ruled central Iraq, so it's possible that Al Queda will help the Kurds, not the Sunnis. I don't know if the Sunnis will invited Al Queda since they don't share the same religious philosophy, but if they are desperate in their fight with the Shiites, they'll take help from whomever they can get it.

I disagree with Dean on the Shiites. I don't think that the Shiites in Iraq will be worse than those in Iran. Sistani is closer to the new Pope in political philosophy than he is to the Iranian hardline clerics, but Sistani does favor Sharia law as the base for Iraq's social laws. Muqtada al Sadr is closer philosophically to the Iranian clerics than Sistani.

And I don't think Al Queda will be the real winner if we leave. It will be Iran.

My view is that if we leave, we'll create a power vaccum that will hasten Iraq's descent into open civil war, and if we stay, we keep fueling the insurgency there. The real problem for the US is not our presence per se, but why we are there and what are we really protecting. Bush did not have the Iraqi people's basic needs and security in mind when he invaded and occupied Iraq. Our failure to provide security to the majority of Iraqi people in the wake of our invasion has fueled the insurgency and mistrust of the US by a majority of Iraqis. The problem with staying now and changing gears by spending more on protecting average Iraqis more than the Oil Ministry, is "Is it too late to win back the trust of most Iraqis?"

The only way maybe to win back their trust, if we stay, is to humbly listen to them and help them fulfill their basic needs -- security and economic development. If we do that, we might be able to win some valid NATO support to help secure Iraq. But if we continue to view Iraq as a corporate colony and military lauching pad against Iran and Syria, the US will continue to go it alone militarily inside Iraq and will continue fueling the Iraqi insurgency, which I see expanding to Shiites if we launch military attacks against Iran.

[Itsthetruth]

46. Winning Their Trust At The Point Of A Gun?

"The only way maybe to win back their trust, if we stay, is to humbly listen to them and help them fulfill their basic needs -- security and economic development."

Will U.S. military forces be bombing and shooting down Iraqi's while "we win back their trust" and "humbly listen to them"?

If U.S. forces don't "stand down" you should not expect much success in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. And if U.S. forces do "stand down" what would their purpose be in Iraq.

The old "hearts and minds" argument is the same old one we hold explaining why the United States government could not "cut and run" from Vietnam.

And how can any United States government win back something the government never had, the trust of the Iraqi people? There is one way. Bring our troops home and let the Iraqi people determine their destiny free of colonial rule.

[Larkspur]

49. And US forces must help Iraqis against armed gangs, criminals, and

insurgents, so the point of the gun is necessary.

The US did have the trust of the Iraqi people after we removed Saddam from power. Most Iraqis were willing to give us a chance to help them establish a better government, and they were willing to suffer some fatal mistakes at our hands, but over the months, it has become obvious to them that current US leadership is not interested in helping them form self-government, but want Iraq to be a US colony.

We won't win over the Iraqi people with our current leadership. We do need a change in leadership that will publicly recognize our fault in the mess and be willing to work with local Iraqi leaders and our allies to help the Iraqi people govern themselves, instead of making them our colony.

[Itsthetruth]

52. So ..... Should Anti-War Activists Sit On Their Hands Until 2008?

" We do need a change in leadership that will publicly recognize our fault in the mess and be willing to work with local Iraqi leaders and our allies to help the Iraqi people govern themselves, instead of making them our colony."

So once again, are you suggesting that anti-war activists sit on their hands and wait until the 2008 election rather than build a powerful mass movement demanding an end to the occupation of Iraq?

If you're against withdrawl from Iraq than I suggest you organize a movement in support of the occupation of Iraq. I'm sorry. It already exists! Support Howard Dean, the Democratic Party National Committee and the DLC!

However, its not much of a mass movement you'd be joining. Most people, especially those who are registered Democrats and independents, would not join it. They favor withdrawl from Iraq now!

[Larkspur]

59. Ok, where's the massive anti-Iraq War movement?

I participated in Moveon.org's anti-Iraq War campaign in 2002 and did my duty writing/faxing letters to my 2 Dem senators (Dodd and Lieberman) and my Repuke Congresscritter (Rob Simmons), but IWR 2002 passed anyway and all 3 voted for it.

I supported Howard Dean becase in early 2003 he was the only Dem Prez candidate to bravely oppose the Iraq war, a war that 70% of Americans supported at that time. Kucinich wasn't a Prez candidate at that time and I still consider Kucinich a kook.

I don't see a massive anti-Iraq War movment forming until the Draft formally comes back, and frankly, I don't have the time to daily protest. I have a job, a house, 5 cats and one horse to care for, and plenty of bills to pay. Most moderate Americans are in a situation similar to mine, so unless something drastic happens, you won't see massive protests happening in this country like they did during the late 1960's.

[Itsthetruth]

70. The Anti-War Movement Dissolved Into The ABB Election Campaign Fiasco

Moveon and other groups helped dismantle the anti-war movement by dissolving it into the Anybody But Bush election campaign.

Now it has to be rebuilt. The March anti-war protests was a good start.

[tinanator]

170. yeah I hope somebody got a nice raise for that one!

The question is, which party did that marketing genius really work for?

trick question, of course :P

[vincent_vega_lives]

69. Just like the way Bush v1.0 did in 1991?

"Bring our troops home and let the Iraqi people determine their destiny free of colonial rule."

It is estimated that between 150,000 to 250,000 Shia died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam, sparked by HWB's encouragement to them to revolt.

Revolt they did and the US did nothing to help them, and they got slaughtered.

Lets do that again huh?

[OETKB]

44. Circling The Wagons

Discussions of pulling out the troops or not is still premature. The stage needs to be set, not on our terms, but what rings true with the people that we need to help us to do this. Unfortunately at the present time this means just about the rest of the world.

What we are missing is partially exemplified by Dr. Dean, whom I supported, and what was strongly advocated by Dennis Kucinich. This calls for different national leadership than what we have now. We need people who will state firmly and without eqivocation that we made a huge mistake in invading this country and feel it is in everyone's interest that we depart. Such leadership should make it clear that we are always ready to defend ourselves, but this situation was not in our security interest. Admitting this major mea culpa, IMHO, needs to be the first step in enlisting any other nations's help in extricating ourselves from this mess. Without this admission, other governments, feeling the heat from their own citizens, will not lift one finger to help us. Our policies have caused people to be humiliated and worse has caused suffering. We can not take it back but a meaningful apology along with meaningful diplomacy and action from different representation would move us in the the right direction. Everyone posturing one position or another is a call to jump up and down in the same place.

So Dr. Dean is right that we need a grass roots movement to bring in representatives who are comfortable in changing failed policies and who will work for international cooperation. Mr. Kucinich is right that we must get our forces out of Iraq. What is missing is the groundwork to accomplish it. All parties that will need to be involved will need equal political footing. This is what is presently absent from the scene.

[Itsthetruth]

48. Ignore The Wishes Of The Iraqi People?

I don't think we should ignore what the overwhelming majority of Iraqi people want from all religious and political sects. An end to the occupation. Period.

I suppose you could go over to Iraq and explain to them why you think it's just way premature to even "discuss" withdrawing from Iraq. How do you think they would respond to you? You'd probably have to beat a hasty retreat into the Green Zone. They won't like you very much! Iraqi's would think you have colonial ambitions .... liberal or otherwise.

We had colonialism with a liberal face in Vietnam during the Johnson Administration.

[OETKB]

71. OK

Explain to me then with this present crowd in charge how we leave Iraq. What steps would you advocate to bring the troops home. I am not talking about about years or decades, but it may take until the 2006 elections to accomplish anything.

Admitting a failed policy and getting out is the process I see. If we don't set down some ground rules how we operate in the world, this will only happen again. When something is wrong, the first step is to 'fess up. By the way who's in charge now in terms of Iraqi leadership? Mr. Allawi?, Mr. Sistani?, Mr. Talabani?, Mr. Barzani?, etc., etc. We have inflicted the seeds of a cruel civil war on these people. There will be no political solution without outside help. We have another Dafur in the making if we do not play our cards right.

[catastrophicsuccess]

87. The Civil war is already underway

US troops are just pawns of Sistani and Iran.

[Southern Dem 2005]

88. Huh?

[catastrophicsuccess]

89. What dont you understand ?

US troops are being used to fight the Sunni insurgency so the Shiites dont have to.

[Southern Dem 2005]

90. So that makes American troops a tool of the Iranians?

That's a pretty big leap. In fact, I'd say that is illogical.

[catastrophicsuccess]

97. We invaded based on Iranian inteligence

Doesn't seem like much of a leap to me.

[Southern Dem 2005]

182. It s a HUGE leap!

Seriously, your crazy

[catastrophicsuccess]

203. thanks for the compliment

You know i find the most ingorant people on this board have either sports avatars or 'southern' in their handle. You are 2 for 2, congrats.

[Southern Dem 2005]

217. Thanks for calling me "ingorant."

What does "ingorant" mean?

Do you have any logical, well-reasoned arguments? Or are you simply reduced to responding to all disagreements by calling someone "ingorant?"

And, wow, your insult of Southerners and sports fans shows a lot of class. With attitudes like that the only people left in the Dem party will be...well, I guess people who hate sports from outside the South. I'm sure that's a huge political base.

[Itsthetruth]

91. Bring Em Home!

"Explain to me then with this present crowd in charge how we leave Iraq. What steps would you advocate to bring the troops home."

I suggest that those who are opposed to the occupation do exactly what those who opposed the Vietnam war did. Put aside petty factional and political differences and agree to do just one thing. Organize a mass movement that will attract and involve millions of people in all kinds of mass actions to demand that our GI's be brought home. During the Vietnam war, the anti-war movement stayed in the streets and eventually involved thousands of active duty soldiers in the anti-war fight. That's when Nixon had no choice but to withdraw from Vietnam.

GI's published anti-war newsletter at over 50 military installations, over 1,000 active duty GI's signed a full-page anti-war ad in the New York Times demanding to be sent home and of course the soldiers in Vietnam did other things to protest the war. Furhter prosecution of that war became very, very difficult for Richard Nixon. In fact, impossible.

So what do I advocate? That's simple. Build a movement against the war. Demand our troops be brought home. That's how all great things are accomplished from the civil rights and women's rights movement to the labor movement and all other movements.

[OETKB]

158. I agree, but

there were congressional leaders, McGovern, Morse, and prominent personalities, Martin Luther King, Mohamed Ali, Jane Fonda,etc. Besides Michael Moore, there is no riveting leadership to steer the ship of state. Movements are needed, but they are carried by unwavering prominent individuals to make the change. Faceless social protest will fall flat. Even Scott Ritter, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Byrd do not get the play they should.

[nolabels]

51. All these YO-YO's that think the US will be able to stay are delusional

I guess this will have to wait for another "told you so"

Do any of these folks running around DC even know what the situation on the ground is over there?

http://www.antiwar.com/
http://occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

[Barrett808]

55. Delusion and corruption are the coin of the realm

The geniuses that got us into the quagmire intend to bomb Iran in June. How's that for pure madness?

[nolabels]

109. Often when people find themselves in a world of madness.............

They often take up the same techniques. None of what they could ever do worries me anymore. I fully expect them to make a surge toward the irrational in the near future. It's the one common trait the Neo-Cons all seem to share and pass around

[tinanator]

53. thats what he was saying when he was the "anti-war" candidate, right?

what was that, about 1200 US casualties ago?

[CTLawGuy]

75. premature pull out =

10,000s+ of dead civilians in a civil war and an Iran-style theocracy where the rights of women will be severely curtailed and Islamic law will reign; an allied Iraq and Iran to threaten Israel and Saudi Arabia and others.


Dean was opposed to going in in the first place for the same reasons I was, because it was WRONG, and he KNEW we would be stuck there for a LONG time.

We may not be able to avoid the above scenario in the long run, but we at least have time to try.

[ECH1969]

81. That is actually the positive outcome

The negative outcome is similar to above except the Sunnis do well against the Shia and that lets al-Qaeda have the time to continue to set up shop and plan the next big attack on the US. There are no good ways out.

[tinanator]

86. how can you do the math without the figures?

so exactly what kind of opposition is that? Sounds like we or the Iraqis might as well lay back and enjoy it once its inside.
After all, white men know whats best for these savages right?
If only we had some small pox infested blankets we could really help them out.
Your reasoning is ludicrous, 19th century white is right BULLSHIT!

[CTLawGuy]

194. no, you're wrong

what is bullshit is YOUR idea that we should just pull our troops out and who cares if the brown people in Iraq get slaughtered in a bloody civil war. our AMERICAN soldiers are obviously much more valuable than a bunch of people halfway around the world. :eyes:

So don't pull that racism crap on me, you are the one who is devaluing their lives if you say let the country descend into civil war, save our american skins.

And furthermore, we have an international law duty to care for the country we invaded until they can care for themselves.

I was against going to war in the first place and so was Dean, because I knew this is what would happen, that we would be destabilizing the region and would have to stay a long time to keep it safe.

[catastrophicsuccess]

102. So an Islamic Theocracy which is democratically elected

Is illegitamate to you?

[CTLawGuy]

193. if it is democratically elected

it is legitimate, but its not something I'd be in favor of since I am pro-women's rights.

[Fleshdancer]

58. He's been saying this for a long time

While I don't know if I agree yet or not, I can see why he thinks we need to stay. I think it's a lose-lose situation either way and I really can't figure out which plan is the lesser of the two evils.

[malmapus]

68. Iraq is slightly balanced on a swords edge

Bu$hco put us all in a fine spot by going in there and blowing the country up in the name of "shock and awe."

Up until recently I have always believed in the rule of thumb, "you break it, you bought it." I felt that since we went in there and blew up their country we owed it to the Iraqi people to at least get their country back up on its feet so that they can get on with their lives.

If we had a real administration I'm sure that the country would of been back on its feet within 6 months, heck if we had a real administration we wouldn't even be there in the first place.

But now, 2 years after the fact, and the country isn't that much better off than when we went in, if at all.

The current gov't won't last if our 130k+ troops aren't there. Heck it's not really an effective body right now anyway, and many people rightfully question its legitimacy.

I have known this war was wrong, but inside have wanted to see the Iraqi's come out on top. They have been through so much because of us and we owe it to them to just not pull out. But maybe it is for the best that we do as us being there isn't getting them anywhere except to funerals.

[madfloridian]

72. He has said this for two years.

Why get so upset now? Only one candidate during the primaries advocated pulling out of there.

My own feelings aside, why are so many so surprised and stunned? Did you never hear the discussions during the primaries?

The country itself is divided on this issue. Part of it is sympathy for the Iraqi people whom we shocked and awed into such a horrible mess. Part of it is fear for the safety of other countries, and part of it is fear for our own.

Why are some of you so very upset now when he has always said that since we are there we can not just leave?

No matter how you feel about it yourself, you can not say he is shocking you by saying this....he has said it on TV and in speeches ever since we went there.

[bklyncowgirl]

80. Divide & Conquer

Get the opposition fighting among themselves. I'm not saying that the person who started this thread is a disruptor, I do think that the result of this sort of thing is to keep progressives argueing among themselves.

Unless the situation in Iraq gets so much worse that the masses revolt and Bush is forced to pull out with his tail between his legs and thousands of Americans in coffins, or, more likely, he is able to convince the country the Iraq is a great success and so on to the next trumped up war in Iran or Syria, we are stuck there.

Restoring a sane, reasonably honest government in Washington is the only way we are going to get out of there and that should be the priority. I'm not sure I agree with Dean on this one but there are very few options and none of them are good for us or for the Iraqis.

[daleo]

78. Viet Nam redux

Major spokespeople of both parties agree that once in a quagmire, the only solution is to stay there and hope it dries up by itself. I guess it will take tens of thousands more dead Americans and hundreds of thousands more dead Iraqis before they will admit to the futility of it all. Empires have been nothing but trouble throughout history, and all to benefit a very small portion of the empire's elite ruling class.

"The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Micheal Parenti explains this very well.

[info being]

85. I never cared much for Dean...this is one of the reasons.

DK is the only Dem who's totally right on this issue.

[Larkspur]

117. So when is DK going to compete against one of the Repuke Ohio Senators?

Or is his base of support only as large as the district he represents?

[info being]

144. Good point. America doesn't derserve him.

[confludemocrat]

93. Presence US military: more killing; US gone: less killing

It has been ever thus, Dean being the politician rather than the leader nothwithstanding.

[xxqqqzme]

94. at the CA dem convention,

this part of his speech was met w/ the sound of crickets chirping.

[tinanator]

111. I suspect your post might as well

What kind of way is that to receive the mighty Dean?
Fruits and nuts, you know.

[pazarus]

118. that was amazing!

You, tinanator, are truly a great man or woman.

So needlessly aggressive. Are you drunk right now? I've read several of your posts over the last hour or so and none of them make any sense. What did the previous post have to do with your "fruits and nuts" comment? Why ask "What kind of way is that to receive the mighty Dean?" Did they put deference to Dean in there anywhere that I missed?

I mean jeez, they just said that part of his speech was met with questionable support, which I was interested to hear.

[tinanator]

126. you whacky sack

Not one beer in me, but thanks for thinking of it. Needlessly aggressive? Maybe I shouldnt be biting my tongue trying to address your illconsidered beliefs? I dont expect my posts to make sense to anyone who can follow the absolutely ludicrous notion that remaining in Iraq for reasons entirely bogus is WORTH THE LIVES AND HAPPINESS OF THE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS AND THEIR FAMILIES THAT YOU FIND WORTHY OF SACRIFICE.

read my mind.
thank you.

[Larkspur]

119. It shows that Dean has the courage to say things that even his supporters

don't like to hear. It proves that Dean is not about promoting Howard Dean but about fighting for the Truth and what is right, even if the right way is not popular.

Yeah, I'd like us to get out of Iraq, but we need to think through all the possible consequences. Because if we pull out suddenly and Iraq goes to hell, the US will get blamed for that. The US is in a losing situation no matter what choice it makes, but the decision and plan to withdrawal should be based on sound and moral reasonings.

[ElectroPrincess]

123. Wake up ...

Dean is part of the ruling class now ... I am not into Idol Worship, but if I were I'd pick some person who took a vow of poverty and is helping the underclass over any politician.

IMO Dean's speaking out of his arse just like Kerry. There's a lot of money to be made by this blessed "war machine" ... well, everybody's making money and gearing up for even more fun - can we say bunker - busting NUKES? Yes, I thought we could.

Don't go and ruin all this industry by suggesting we pull out of Iraq. Do you have any idea what that will do to the economy, Lockheed Martin, GE, Halliburton, Raytheon etc. etc..

BIG BUCKS in this war business ... even some of our dear Democratic Representatives (especially those who line some of their campaign coffers) are invested up to their eyeballs.

No time (profits to be made) for peace. :(

[Larkspur]

137. Dean is not profiting from the Iraq War

Cheney is Halliburton's friend, not Howard Dean.

And Dean is not accepted by the Dem Ruling Elite. The Hill Dem leaders opposed Dean as DNC Chair and they still mistrust him.

You can go ahead and run to the margins of society, which is where you are, but you will have no lasting impact upon our society.

[ElectroPrincess]

162. Of course Dean is indirectly profiting ... every Democrat 44 and older

- remember the Vietnam Conflict (WAR!) and how hard it was to get even our blessed Democratic Representatives to pull out of that hell hole?

Again, ***Please*** just follow the money trail. That will lead you to a whole lot of BOTH Republican and Democratic representatives profiting from the WAR MACHINE.

That's your answer. We will NOT pull out of Iraq until *WE THE PEOPLE* demand it.

Trust me on this ... I honestly believe with all my heart and soul that the situation will NOT improve - only degrade.

In 1975 as the national media televised the TRAGIC scenes of our troops pulling out, we as a nation (those of us teenage and above) promised ourselves and future generations the following: Never again will we be drawn into taking over a foreign country. NEVER AGAIN?

After 58,000+ American troops and 2+ million Vietnamese deaths - we learned nothing. Tragic. We have no business in Iraq and the longer we stay, the longer we breed generations of hatred for America throughout the Middle East.

Newsflash: We are NOT winning their hearts and minds.

[Larkspur]

187. So you are accusing me and my brother who didn't have to go to Vietnam of

profiting from the War Machine? My brother is 52 now and he got lucky that the Draft had ended by his 18th birthday, so he didn't have to go to Vietnam, and I am the secretary for my town's Dem Committee.

You say "follow the money trail." Prove it that Dean and all Democrats, elected and non-elected over 44, are profiting from the War Machine.

You know, I could say the same for you, that you are profiting from the War Machine too.

[tinanator]

127. LOL!

His REAL supporters are quite in tune with the notion of remaining in Iraq. You probably cant differentiate betweeen your self and the REAL powers that be?
So sad. So sad.

[Larkspur]

138. I'm just a software engineer, not a member of the Ruling Elite

I don't like the idea of remaining in Iraq, but we made a mess, thanks to Bush and the Neocons, and if we had a regime change in the US, it would be immoral to pull out. If we pull out suddenly, it will embolden Al Queda and other Muslim extremists.

[ElectroPrincess]

164. Honestly, it will be even more immoral to stay ... that argument

was used (and failed) in the early 70s. The situation on the ground will NOT get better in any way, shape or form. You can throw 500,000 troops in there, and you know what? We may kill millions like we did in Vietnam, but the native Iraqi people will NOT quit fighting to get their country back.

In the meantime, Osama bin forgotten and the terrorists who's seemingly everywhere, Zarkowi (sp?) will profit greatly from exponential increases in recruiting numbers due to family members "getting in the way." (collateral damage)

Nope, the time to leave is NOW. IF we were smart enough to pull out now (which we are not), perhaps after 20 years we may be able to re-establish some diplomatic relationships with other Arab nations.

Again, we have to learn the hard way.

[Larkspur]

190. And it would be immoral to pull out and leave the region in chaos

We are also responsible for the security of Turkey, Israel, and most of Iraq's neighbors. Pull out hastily will infuriate our allies in that region.

The real solution is to change the current strategy to helping the Iraqis govern themselves and not treat them as a colony. If we could change this strategy, and it won't change until Bush & Cheney are removed from power, then we'd more likely get help from our allies. Getting a real multi-national coalition force to help us establish security and to help Iraqis get basic services running smoothly would be the moral way to resolve this problem.

[plasticsundance]

122. The Iraqi resistance is fighting the US occupation

I think Naomi Klein said it best on DemocracyNow.org

NAOMI KLEIN: Those forces are already controlling Iraq. The resistance largely controls Baghdad at this point, a situation where there are between 50 and 60 attacks a day. The militias that Erik is warning about already control large sectors of Iraq, because providing security for the people of Iraq has never, from day one, been a priority of this occupation. We saw the abandonment immediately by allowing the looting to take place and only guarding the Ministry of Oil, and it’s only gotten worse. You know, when I was in Iraq a year ago, this was the most persistent complaint -- was spiraling crime. And that's actually how the militias were created. They were created as a response to the fact that US Occupation never, ever prioritized giving security to Iraqis. The other issue is this idea that somehow US forces are helping to train Iraqi police, and that it's just a problem of training. What's actually happening is that there is -- is that the greatest liability for Iraqis to gain control over their own country security-wise, is the fact that the security forces have been embedded in the occupation itself and are seen as an extension of the hated and loathed occupation. So they get attacked as collaborators and slaughtered. They're not provided with any protection, and so on. So the best way for them to build up their own force and their own credibility, which is really what's needed, is a clear break with the occupation, which means immediately announcing a withdrawal of troops and setting up a transition plan. The first step has to be the announcement of troop withdrawal.

NAOMI KLEIN: -- withdrawal tomorrow. It’s that there has to be a clear policy demand, which is an end to the occupation. Iraqis have been extremely clear about this. A majority of Iraqis voted in the election for a political party, the United Iraqi Alliance. The second plank of their platform was calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Then you have all the people who boycotted the elections because they believed that a clear statement about withdrawal was the prerequisite for having elections, that you couldn't have elections before you had that commitment. So immediately after Iraqis have expressed this through opinion polls, through protests, through their votes, the first response from the Bush administration and from Blair is, well, of course, we have to honor the Iraqis who took this risk by staying the course and not having any timetable of withdrawal. That is the political context, Erik, in which you are working, total defiance from the Bush administration, talk of keeping 170,000 troops in the region until 2007. You need a very clear, unambiguous statement that we are against this occupation, that we want it to end now. That's the starting point for any actual anti-war movement.


Should U.S. Troops Withdraw Now From Iraq? A Debate Between Naomi Klein & Erik Gustafson

Dean is delusional. He's just a passive colonial imperialist.

[Guaranteed]

128. WTF?? You guys are bitching about THIS????

This is the strongest possible position that we can take. It puts FULL BLAME for EVERYTHING on the Bush Administration and completely recognizes that this war never even had to happen in the first place.

For fuck's sake.

I bitch about Dean's weak stance on abortion rights and everybody's like "Yeah, but" this and "Yeah, but" that in defending it.

This position is STRONG. I have absolutely no problems with what he's saying. It's all the truth.

[tinanator]

129. truth and falsehood

what a steaming pile.

[Guaranteed]

130. What? What did he say that isn't true?

Every single word of it is totally right on.

[tinanator]

131. no its not

but far be it from me to disrupt your preferred reality.
Feel free to peruse my other posts in this thread, it doesnt take long to make a case against further dead bodies courtesy of my tax dollars. Deans a fucking sham, and the Democrats of California aint backwoods victims of their TV.

[Guaranteed]

132. All Dean cares about is what's best for the Iraqi people.

While the situation is far from perfect, we want this to work out for them.

BTW I give Bush NO CREDIT for those extremely rare things that've gone right, and every single death since the invasion I place squarely on his head.

[tinanator]

133. You want troops in Iraq?

Could have voted for Bush and been just as happy with the result.
I CAN ONLY SUGGEST YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE RESULT OF TROOPS STATIONED IN LEBANON AND SAUDI ARABIA HAS WROUGHT. And I can tell you I have full knowledge of the real consequences. I am a genuine victim of Osama, for whatever thats worth to any and all armchair generals. Either you support bringing the troops home or you support their inevitable deaths and the SHATTERED lives of their loved ones. This BULLSHIT marketing campaign about Iraqi strife if we pull out is based solely in the gullibility of their target audience. Decide for yourself how foolishly you want to be played.

[Guaranteed]

135. No, not at all. If I had my way we would have never even thought about

this.

But we're there, and the Iraqis are making some progress.

We have to hope for what's best for them and help them in that regard.

That said, the sooner we leave, the better.

[tinanator]

140. please reread my post if you havent

since you responded before the edit.
Had to add the bottom line in a nutshell.
Thanks.

[Guaranteed]

142. Is that what's best for the Iraqis? nt

[tinanator]

146. none are so blind

what makes you think we have their best interests at heart, let alone COULD POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR AN IRAQI?
Are you retarded?

[Guaranteed]

148. You don't think Dean cares about the Iraqi people?

As for the second part of your question, what makes you think it would be so great for them to go up against the terrorists who have invaded their country ALONE?

Do you think it's best for them to elect their government, whatever it may be, or do you think it would be best for them to be ruled by whoever blows up the most people?

What's best for them IS what they want- they want to vote and elect people to represent them. They get to make the decision.

Yeah, it hurts to say it, but at least there COULD BE a silver lining to this whole thing and all these dead Iraqis and Americans. You think we should give up on them NOW? The mistake has already been made.

WE HAVE TO MAKE THE BEST OF IT.

By the way, your inflamed rhetoric is way out of line. You should try to relax.

[tinanator]

149. I think its their business

they got their elections, and the sooner Buchcorp evacs the sooner they can take care of their own problems like adults should be able to. What terrorists? Who decides? Oh yeah, BUSH.

[Guaranteed]

151. The terrorists are the people setting off bombs deliberately

in crowded public areas.

They need to be taken care of if the Iraqi people are going to live in peace and with a legitimate government.

The Iraqi troops are being trained, and if the media isn't lying to me, like they usually are, it looks as if they are also making progress in that regard. This is a GOOD thing- not a disappointment.

I think the difference between you and Dean is that Dean really is able to take a step back and, even though he KNOWS this never should have happened, actually be hopeful for the Iraqis. TRULY. The Iraqi people. He's able to separate his views on invading and the occupation where it's at now. He really wants things to go well.

We can't go back.

[tinanator]

152. those cute little Iraqis need us, they really need us!

Its so good to be needed. three little letters seem to be missing from these heartfelt explanations.
O

I

L

they need US?
nothings changed.
Dean's full of shit.

[Guaranteed]

165. .......

The Iraqis are being blown up ten at a time on the street.

And don't lump Dean in with the warmongers. That's disingenuous as hell.

[tinanator]

168. its ok they were worse off under Hussein

and disingenuous is saying I lumped Dean in with anybody, he's full of shit, is what I said. At least they arent blowing up ten at a time on Wall Street, that would really get Dean concerned.

[ElectroPrincess]

166. We have to accept the fact BullGooseLoony that

both you and I have "edgy personalities" that tend to bring out the BEST and WORST out in other people. :-) <friendly tease>

[Zhade]

134. I don't agree with Dean on this.

Our presence is the problem, and will be until we leave or are thrown out.

Looking like the latter, these days...

[Zerex71]

139. Iraq is Arabic for "quagmire"

[MisterP]

145. &@#$_)+(~! Say it ain't so, Howuhd!

don't let the DNC pods eat you!

[bklyncowgirl]

154. Why is everybody worked up about this? Nothing new here.

This has been Dean's position all along. You can disagree with it, of course but don't act like the guy betrayed you.

There are no good options here. Bush screwed up royally by getting us into this mess and short of somehow getting international peacekeepers in there to keep the warring factions from each others throats, I can't see any way of getting out. If Bush does decide to pull out it will only because he needs the troops for Iran which will be another quagmire.

Nothing is going to change until the Neocons are ridden out on a rail. The only way to do that is to vote them out--assuming we can get enough votes to overcome the Diebold effect. Like it or not, there is no viable third party. Dean is trying to reform the Democratic party. I don't agree with the man on every issue but I think that the outrage of some on this board when he has the temerity to question some of their pet positions is a little over the top.

If you don't think there's any difference just look at the difference in the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

[renaissanceguy]

199. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the Dean bashers

were the ones who so vehemently opposed him in the primaries.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

[Cha]

157. I wish there were a sane way

we could pull out of Iraq.

It's been all WRONG from all the lies leading up to the invasion and WRONG in the planning and execution inside. It's a death trap..bush doesn't go to the Soldiers' funerals..the fascist media covers up the whole truth about what's going on over there...IT'S A BIG DEADLY SCAM!

The Soldiers aren't even protected properly from what I've read.

PROTECT OUR SOLDIERS!

[dragon695]

167. Damned if we do, damned if we don't

What does it matter? We're screwed if we pull out because, unlike Vietnam, there is not strong opposition government to step in and fill the power vacuum. So what you are left with is something like pre-WWI Balkans, a very weak central government holding together ethnically polarized peoples. In other words, Iraq would be a powder keg waiting to explode (that’s not to say that it isn’t pretty close to being one already). Do not forget that we are beholden to the defense of Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, should the proverbial shit hit the fan in that region.

We're screwed if we stay in because our presence inflames the situation while causing Iraq to move forward at an extraordinary slow pace. Even more, the fact that it’s like the dumb leading the blind makes matters in the situation even worse. This fact, combined with meddling by Iran and Israel, is just complicating the whole mess.

While I strongly disagree with this war, what’s done is done, so what can you do? Life, like many things, is not black and white. After all, there’s a reason they call it a quagmire. The analogy implies that once in, it is not so easy to just walk out. In some ways, this is 10x worse of a quagmire then Vietnam ever was. Also, there is a matter of morality. We have an obligation to fix what we’ve broke (ala Pottery Barn). We must do this, even if that means fixing the house while it’s still on fire. And we must realize that we are going to suffer more as a consequence of our actions, but it’s the very least we owe the Iraqi’s for our terrible actions.

So, it is with regret, that I believe we must stay and fix what we broke. However, if we do, we need to force this administration to do three other things:

1)Stop any plans to build bases and remove any in-progress construction.
2)Pay massive reparations to the Iraqi people (unlike the west, there are ways to pay for forgiveness of killing).
3)Get rid of the American contractors and institute a FDR-style WPA program to give the Iraqi’s a *real* stake in their future.

[ElectroPrincess]

172. No, our representatives are beholden to the AMERICAN PEOPLE first!

"Do not forget that we are beholden to the defense of Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, should the proverbial shit hit the fan in that region."

Consider current *economic* events: 1) Our manufacturing jobs are all being OUTSOURCED to other countries; 2) BushCo. doesn't want to defend our southern border because you don't have to pay much for illegal labor paid "on the sly" in cash by selfish corporatist. Therefore, each and every day we have scores of illegal immigration to take up minimum wage jobs at a fraction of the cost; 3) The Bankruptcy bill passed has NO exceptions for those families who have to declare because of a medical illness without insurance; and interest rates are on the rise.

What does the USA Corporate media focus on: 1) Sex offenders who kill child victim (very tragic but not news to hyper focus on save for the Court channel); 2) Michael Jackson (ad Nausea); 3) Banning the filibuster so right wing judges can overturn Roe v. Wade; and 4) Gay Marriage.

Is it just me or are we, the American People being played for fools? We need to focus on OUR COUNTRY not the Middle East. We also need to shed these "religious" wedge issues that our ancestors thought would be sanely addressed (balanced anyway) by the functioning of three separate branch of government.

We need an honest media. The Democratic representatives who do not vote for the best interests of the working and middle class people need to be voted out. That includes replacing Howard Dean within the DNC if he continues his transition toward obscurity, i.e., staying in Iraq until we've lost so many soldiers that "the people" rise up a la Vietnam.

[tinanator]

173. since NOT ONE of those options has a snowball's chance in Hell

dont you think you should reconsider your support for what we already know is going to happen? Id prefer to base my decisions in reality rather than wishful thinking, dont you?

[PATRICK]

174. Unfortunately you are right.

Add also the REAL inclusion of an international peace coalition once we get our hooks out of Empire. Pretty much Kerry,s plan. Besides shrinking the world threat by getting out from under the oil market.

What we cannot do in any event is shoulder the losing responsibility alone, militarily, cannot rule Iraq directly or indirectly, cannot "win". Cannot. Should not, because any good results will be an illusion enabling far worse to come.

The easy isolationist argument easily boils down to a sour retreat attitude that doesn't care a damn what happens to the Iraqis. When peace groups side with that group it might well be a sign that the easy thing is the wrong thing in just about every way.

Once again, whistling in the dark while Bushco marches on we might as well provide the REAL answer not the easy reaction or swift pullout and let the victim bleed or turn into a monster.

Dean however should keep making clear the peace people are the ones inevitably right and healing this nonsense must move in their direction not rationalize empire as "Bush made us do it." That the peace people seem too idealistic and cannot "win" in any way is an exact measure of our modern peril. People must wake up and realize our survival depends on this. Must, but won't of course without a lot of unavoidable tragedy.

But no, I don't in the long run wish for a Bush fantastic success simply because it will keep getting repeated until the eventual failure is even more catastrophic. Academic I suppose because he is repeating it anyway.

Hard to get Americans to get their minds around how really bad Bush is for the world? Don't give up by granting him more than his due and hoping his crime succeeds. So what will Dean's plan be for Iran?

[quaker bill]

175. I believe this was the Kerry/Edwards - democratic party platform

Would it be proper for the Chairman of the DNC to come out advocating a different position? It seems not.

All of the candidates with even a remote chance of becoming nominee in 2004 supported this stance.

The apparent fact that Dean knows the stance of the organization he has been hired to represent should be shocking to no one.

[CWebster]

179. Well then

he ain't gonna be be in the counting house counting all the money, by echoing Democrats echoing Republicans, is he?

[Southern Dem 2005]

183. The posts here remind me of why Dems get crushed on national security

Look, a ton of people opposed invading Iraq, including me. But its done and can't be undone. Its naive to say "well, lets just leave." You can't do it without putting national security at risk until we feel pretty sure that al Qaeda and its allies aren't going to take over. If we just leave we run the risk of ending up with another Afghanistan situation--a terrorist training ground.

Some of the people on this board need to get a little more in touch with reality. Your idealism is clouding your grasp of whats reasonable and what isn't.

[CWebster]

192. Oh please

I am so tired of this parroting of the same arguments used about how we had to win in Viet Nam.

We are fucking OCCUPIERS, not LIBERATORS. In that context we are the REASON for the "TERRORISM".

[tinanator]

208. as always of course, I wonder what the reason appears to be to some?

They hate us for our freedom I guess?

[Southern Dem 2005]

218. What? Vietnam?

What are you talking about? I didn't mention Vietnam. Do you just fail to read what others post or are the arguments too complicated? I never claimed we were liberators. Regardless of what we are, we are there now, and leaving isn't an option. How many national figures do you see calling for us to immediately pull out? None. There's a reason for that, but apparently that reason is a little too complicated for you to understand.

[chlamor]

222. None?

I'll start with Chavez.

The reason the colonialist national leaders such as French German Dutch etc. don't care much either way is that they are positioning their industrial oil junkie countries for a piece of the oily pie.

[chlamor]

200. 'We can't leave now"-"We broke it we have to fix it" is BS writ large

Anyone, including Dean, who believes this is either capitulating, delusional or has deeply internalized racist assumptions. That cant which is recited by many liberals is just a smokescreen for continued occupation and war profiteering.

Iraqis by an almost 9 to 1 ratio want the US out. Their lives will improve the nanosecond the invaders depart.

I'm quite in touch with reality and know not only what continued occupation means for the Iraqis but understand what that means domestically as we spend another 81 billion that should be going to social programs.

[Southern Dem 2005]

219. Racist? What kind of goofy argument is that?

How do you think their lives will improve? By empowering the murderers who line people up against a wall in a soccer stadium and shoot them? That sounds real safe. Man, I wish they would put those people in power here.

[quaker bill]

220. True but, the party has a platform

If the Chairman of the DNC, say Terry McAwful for instance, decided on his own to come up with an entirely new set of policies the moaning and howling would never end.

I believe that the job of the DNC chair is to communicate the party's platform in as favorable a light as possible. Now, no doubt, the Chair is supposed to be working internally to change that platform where it no longer makes sense. But I do think ultimately he is supposed to take his marching orders from the larger body.

The larger body of Democrats approved this platform, as unfortunate as that may be, it is none the less their decision. I am pretty sure in this position, we want Howard Dean marching to our tune. If we don't like the music, we should change the CD.

It's that old "you have the power" thing, remember?

[lojasmo]

176. Nothing Dean said is unreasonable.

We broke Iraq. We have an obligation to facilitate peace there. Of course it won't happen. Now when Iraq is no longer our primary concern, the administration will withdraw troops, the situation will destabilize, and the democratic party aparatus will point out that we had the resposible position.

I heard it was a great speech.

[pokercat999]

184. Howard you are wrong about the "war". eom

[Larkspur]

188. Howard was right about the war. He opposed it on moral grounds.

You are wrong about Howard Dean.

[flaminbats]

221. How is he wrong?

Has this war weakened terrorism? n/t

[clem_c_rock]

185. After Dean's little "Things are getting better in Falluja" comment

Maybe he should strap on a gun and fight on the front lines this summer.

I'm sick of this shit.

[ECH1969]

186. What are you talking about

Do you have a link.

[clem_c_rock]

205. Shite - I'm an idiot. A friend sent me an email about this

And I believe he was talking about the wrong Howard.

I saw a DU post about Howard Fineman saying that.

Sorry Dean, People like me need to be carefull before we shoot our mouths off.

All this shit going on these days is turning me into an irrational nut.

[CWebster]

189. So am I

So am I

[renaissanceguy]

195. Do you have a link too?

I've been following Dean closely, and I don't remember him saying anything like this.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

[madfloridian]

216. Clem apologized. You should as well. Was Howard Fineman.

.

[madfloridian]

202. Wrong Howard, Clem....you need to be careful. Don't spread lies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3524462

Howard Fineman said that.

[madfloridian]

204. Kucinich delegates went along with Kerry's position on this last July.

Same thing Dean said, same idea. This was said by Kerry and Edwards all last year, Dean was consistently saying it, and the Kucinich delegates agreed to agree. So let's all be fair here and not just direct righteous anger to one person.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0711-01.htm

[tinanator]

207. HEY! Lets be real fair and include the context

Kucinich was raped by the Democratic Party last year and his supporters were entirely disregarded, except when they were needed in a body count. not so nice try.

[madfloridian]

211. Be fair.

The "party" no more "raped" Kucinich than they did anyone else.
Read the article. I am frankly quite understanding about compromise, and I believe it is necessary for a Democracy. I just believe in being honest.

[tinanator]

213. like hell

7 minutes in the middle of the afternoon, and Kucinich still delivered the best speech that week. The primary process nationwide and vote counting in this state reeked of the same stink emanating from Florida and Ohio. Votes are not being counted properly, I guess thats the final punchline in this dog and pony show. ABB? If not then, never.

[chlamor]

214. Out Now!

The Soldiers

Down some cold field in a world unspoken
the young men are walking together, slim and tall,
and though they laugh to one another, silence is not broken;
there is no sound however clear they call.

They are speaking together of what they loved in vain here,
but the air is too thin to carry the things they say.
They were young and golden, but they came on pain here,
and their youth is age now, their gold is grey.

Yet their hearts are not changed, and they cry to one another,
'What have they done with the lives we laid aside?
Are they young with our youth, gold with our gold, my brother?
Do they smile in the face of death, because we died?'

Down some cold field in a world uncharted
the young seek each other with questioning eyes.
They question each other, the young, the golden hearted,
of the world that they were robbed of in their quiet paradise.

Humbert Wolfe, Requiem: The Soldier (1916)

[chlamor]

223. The Good Doctor needs a vacation from politics-He's sounding like...

Like the good partisan he is Dean blames Bush for a war most in his party voted for and an occupation that most in his party recently voted to continue to fund. Of the President Dean said: "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."

Chairman Dean does not seem to understand that the illegal occupation of Iraq is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In fact, the many fears he expresses regarding pulling out of Iraq are made more likely by the US occupation of Iraq.

According to an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Dean claims that an American pullout from Iraq could endanger the United States in any of three ways: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

<snip>

According to an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Dean claims that an American pullout from Iraq could endanger the United States in any of three ways: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

From his comments, it is evident that Chairman Dean only believes in democracy if the voters support the kind of government the U.S. wants. U.S. officials find a puppet government led by U.S sympathizers preferable to what Iraqis want. Indeed, we find autocratic governments like Saudi Arabia and Egypt preferable to democratic governments that are likely to oppose U.S. interests.

The fears expressed by Chairman Dean indicate that we really don't want a democracy in Iraq. We want a government that will continue to keep Paul Bremer's decrees as law, decrees that make Iraq very friendly to U.S. corporate interests. The decrees allow complete foreign ownership of Iraqi industry, very low tax rates that allow profit to be funneled out of Iraq, no trade unions to be organized by workers and no lawsuits against U.S. contractors. And, where through our puppets we get a seat at the OPEC table and first dibs on Iraqi oil. And for our military interests, a government that allows the U.S. to build 14 permanent military basis so Iraq becomes the center of U.S. military dominance over the region.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_16999.shtml