Kerry: "virtually all U.S. combat troops will be out of Iraq"

[WilliamPitt]

If elected, Kerry promised that virtually all U.S. combat troops will be out of Iraq -- away from "the death zone" -- by the end of his first term.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2580582

[kentuck]

1. Four years ? I was looking for a little sooner ?

Sounds eerily familiar to the Vietnam timetable...

[WilliamPitt]

2. Develop an "Out Now" scenario that works

[theivoryqueen]

6. Establish a draft in Iraq

and man all positions - except executive - by that system. After Iraq's own army and police forces are filled by draft - hold free elections for a governing council and a president. If this plan fails, they are left to sort it out alone.

[LoZoccolo]

And when you're done, develop an "out now" scenario that works...

...with George W. Bush* in office.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Hello! Hello! No one's responded to this one!

Hello!

[theivoryqueen]

32. Yes I did. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

34. I don't see a little line going from that one to yours.

And nothing about how George W. Bush* would do a better job.

[theivoryqueen]

46. the perils of my non-linear brain...

no line, agreed. No way bushipants would do a better job at anything.

[spanone]

106. Get lost.

[el_gato]

8. Well You load up and get the hell out, Quite Simple

How many times does the whole white man's burden concept have to be discredited before people finally stop trying to perpetuate it.

[LoZoccolo]

10. We pull out and tons of people die...

...it'll be your burden, sir. Remember the mass graves? A lot of them were people we encouraged to rise up against Saddam and then abandoned. Let's not let that happen to the people that are helping us this time around.

[leftofthedial]

14. yes much better to stay

and fill mass graes with our dead soldiers and those we kill.

[Solidarity]

16. People Will Die If U.S. Troops Are Brought Home?

Lots of people are dying right now!

And I don't want NATO troops defending and protecting a colonial puppet regime in Iraq!

[LoZoccolo]

19. Yeah, and?

More people will die if we pull out. I can almost guarantee it. My position respects Iraqi lives.

[sangh0]

45. Some people only care about American lives

They only act as if they care about Iraqis. They wail about all the dead innocent Iraqis, but they're happy to leave the live Iraqis to their fate, regradless of their innocence.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

58. "leave Iraqis to their fate" is the same old "we know best" bullshit.

The Iraqi people have every right to SELF-determination. If they can not do it on their own without bloodshed, then there is NO WAY IN HELL you can FORCE them to do it without bloodshed! Why can't people understand that simple concept?

Democracy CAN NOT be imposed. It either develops naturally, or it NEVER develops.

This is even more true in Iraq, where any time a natural leader among the Iraq people steps forward, the US supresses him. The US does NOT want democracy in Iraq, it wants a US puppet regime.

So all you are doing by pushing this line is helping to supress the freedom of the Iraqi people, and helping to get hundreds if not thousands more Iraqis killed and tortured.

Shit, you may as well have supported the war to begin with, because the results are the same.

[sangh0]

79. And "The Iraqi people have every right to SELF-determination" is BS too

IF you really cared, you'd be looking for a real solution, and not slogans.

If they can not do it on their own without bloodshed, then there is NO WAY IN HELL you can FORCE them to do it without bloodshed!

Tell that to the Kosovars and the East Timorians

Democracy CAN NOT be imposed. It either develops naturally, or it NEVER develops.

The 1st half is true, but the 2nd is BS. Democracy never develops "naturally". It develops because people push for it. We didn't get democracy "naturally". We got it because we had support from European nations, such as France.

Shit, you may as well have supported the war to begin with, because the results are the same.

And I say the same to you, because the results of your suggestions would lead to even greater deaths.

[Djinn]

88. perfect example

Please explain how Kosovo is a democracy

Please explain how you got the impression that the transfer from Indonesian rule in Timor was bloodshed free

[Devils Advocate NZ]

105. Kosovo is STILL suffering from ethnic cleansing to this day!

And East Timor had NOTHING to do with violence. After all, there was no invasion, nor war to "liberate" the East Timorese.

Democracy never develops "naturally". It develops because people push for it.

I do believe that IS naturally - now tell me, where are the crowds of Iraqis "pushing" for US style democracy? Last I heard 80% of Iraqi's wanted the US to piss off and leave them to it - precisely what I said: "SELF-determiniation".

And I say the same to you, because the results of your suggestions would lead to even greater deaths.

Would it? Prove it! So far at least 15,000 Iraqis have paid the ultimate price for the US' intervention. How many more need to die before you realise that NOTHING IS DIFFERENT whether the US stays or goes EXCEPT in the latter case the Iraqi people determine the outcome, rather than having it forced on them by the US.

[sangh0]

117. You've got to be joking

And East Timor had NOTHING to do with violence

Thousands died. There sure was violence

Would it? Prove it!!

Funny how you question my assertions, and let others go unchallenged. I doubt I can prove anything to someone who ignores the violence that took place in East Timor

[Devils Advocate NZ]

129. When exactly did the peace keepers invade and kill thousands?

I don't remember that...

I DO remember the thousands that were killed BEFORE the peacekeepers got involved.

[kiahzero]

I agree that Iraqi's have a right to self-determination

I, however, think it applies to all Iraqis, not just the ones that have personal armies.

[KoKo]

18. We stay in and tons of people die....n/t

[LoZoccolo]

21. Nowhere near what would happen if we pull out.

I didn't want to be in there at all. But now that we've tore shit up, we have to take some responsibility.

[jobycom]

37. See, my problem is this

If we stay in, we will kill lots of people, and they will kill us. And we will eventually leave, and then the civil war we all expect will happen, or maybe not.

If we pull out now, the civil war will happen sooner, and a lot of the same people will die, but all those people we were going to slaughter won't be slaughtered, at least not by us.

So unless you can prove that there is some way to develop a stable nation in Iraq if we stay another few years while killing fewer people than will die in their civil war, then I think you are wrong. More people will die if we stay in, and we only delay the inevitable, if it is inevitable.

Add to the mix the fact that our credibility is so shot that they won't listen to our advice, and I think our presence there is fatal-- more fatal than our departure.

I think we should pull out, all the way, right away. We should also turn Iraq over to the UN, right away, and let them try to work it out, since the UN will have more respect than us right now. We should give the UN and the governing council of Iraq whatever monetary aid and assistance they ask for, since we destroyed their nation in an effort to steal their wealth (like cutting open the goose to get the golden eggs). There will be horrible death, but we want stop it by staying there, only delay it.

[LoZoccolo]

43. Now this is a sensible post. Yes it's a quagmire.

I really don't see any solution to this that isn't fucked up. We are truly, truly in a mess, and no avenue we take will result in a situation that won't cause damage to us and them. Yes, I expect people to die if we're there. I don't like that one bit. I opposed this war. And I really don't know what to do - I'm simply looking for the least bad avenue. It's that fucked up. I could say "I'm going to do whatever makes me the least directly culpable" but I wouldn't want someone to do that to a situation I could be affected by if it were to have adverse effects.

But I just don't buy it that it would be less bad if we pulled out. We're facing intense scrutiny about what we do there now, and that's good, because we are accountable. I expect things to get somewhat better because of that. Yes, there are some people that will break the accountability. But I don't see that same level of accountability in rival factions during a power-grab.

One thing to think about is we're a huge part of the UN. Letting the UN take over will still involve heavy participation from us. I don't see any other countries willing to just go in and take our place without some backup from us. It would be nice, but has anyone volunteered?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

60. Here is why I think it will be worse if the US stays

Sooner or later, the Iraqi resistance will manage to kill a whole lot of US troops at once. When that day comes, what will the US do? Will it just sit back and take it?

Will it proclaim this is just a pothole in the road to a free and democratic Iraq?? Or will the US do what it always does and respond with devestating and overwhelming violence?

I have no doubt that if the US stays in Iraq, sooner or later their will be a massacre. After all, the US has only been there one year and already the torture and murder of prisoners has started. How long till Iraq has it's first "My Lai"?

Every day the US stays in Iraq, another war crime is committed. It is time to END the war crimes, by ENDING the occupation.

[jobycom]

63. That's a good point, it also increases the likelihood of a home attack

Something very devastating here in the US. THEN how bloodthirsty will Americans get.

No one ever sees that they are the bad guys. Hitler believed France and England had broken Chamberlain's treaty by giving land to the Soviets, and believed he was about to be squeezed. That was his excuse for invading France. Germany believed they were the victims. America will respond the same. Sooner or later... well, you know what we have in our arsenal. So does Israel, Pakistan, and who knows what Balkan states.

We should leave now. We should do what we can to stabilize the country, but we aren't stabilizing anything now. I was against that at first-- I believed we had to stay to try to fix what we had done. But I've spoken to people who just back from Iraq. I've spoken to people on both sides of the argument. I think we have to leave, as soon as we can. There is a lot of danger in our hanging around longer.

[gpandas]

74. kick

[ptsmknhipy]

111. The UN doesn't want it

They got shot at and hauled ass. Its us or nothing.

[KoKo]

59. Nicely said Jobycom. I don't have the patience anymore to

try to explain anymore, here, why getting out it better than staying in. :thumbsup: although I hate to use that emoticom given what's going on in Iraq. Maybe Skinner could remove it...

[jobycom]

65. Two things

One, I can explain it better because I didn't believe it a month ago. Since I've changed my beliefs, I have more patience with those who believe as I used to.

Second-- I missed the thumb thing. I keep hearing those "what it means now" comments, but what is that about?

[KoKo]

80. Thank you for being honest in your change of views...most DU'ers

don't want to admit to that.. I think, just mho, that those who look at new info and revise their views are treasures in History.

I'm a romantic...but I think that. So thanks, again, for sharing. :-)'
s

koko

[jobycom]

87. Either that, or we're just wishy-washy!

:-)

[el_gato]

41. Your position is unsubstantiated Zoccolo

especially given some of the unity we have seen by the Shiite's and Sunni's.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Ha ha ha ha.

For now, yeah. If we got attacked by Martians we'd see some unity between us and like everyone. There have been direct threats of a civil war.

[jobycom]

66. el_gato's got a point

I've spoken with someone who just got back from the region. He believes that what we see as instability is just anger directed at us, that we are the cause of the instability. He swears the Iraqi Governing Council (forgot the exact label) has the potential to do what we can't-- bring some peace. Especially if it is overseen by the UN. It won't happen with us there.

[truthspeaker]

26. Karl Rove thanks you for repeating his lie!

"If we pull out of Iraq there will be a massive civil war! I know this because ... because ... I just do, OK!"

[LoZoccolo]

27. Um, they threatened it.

And they assasinated the leader of the governing council! Where have you been?

[truthspeaker]

29. yes, they assassinated a collaborator

Can you blame them?

And who is "they", exactly?

[LoZoccolo]

33. There have been lots of collaborators...

...who just want things to be orderly, have the electricity back on, get people working again, and get people fed. We abandon them, and they die for that. And that's shit. And cowardly. And irresponsible.

"They" in this context is anyone who would cause violence if we left.

[truthspeaker]

35. you live in an interesting fantasy world

[jobycom]

68. You have to admit that's a real possibility

People who honestly are trying to do the right thing have reached the same conclusion.

And Rove's plan is to stay there indefinitely. That's not what anyone here is espousing.

[Taverner]

96. And you think that won't happen 4 years from now

If we stick around?

Look, we're damned if we do damned if we don't.

This is, by very definition, a quagmire without an exit strategy. That's what we all said before, and it still holds true now.

[rucky]

128. What are you talking about?

What evidence do you have that our occupation is somehow preventing a civil war? It's a myth. Start questioning that assumption - especially given that our continued occupation ASSURES more carnage.

fear & speculation

[Taverner]

94. How about this: US troops leave now

And pay the UN to rebuild?

[burythehatchet]

101. Here's my "Out Now" scenario

The country is temporarily segregated into three regions. You can conclude the borders.

The sets of UN and NATO troops - NO AMERICANS - are established to protect the citizens of the region.

Each of the three armies would be led by one European nation, one Islamic nation, and one Asian nation. What would make sense would be Germany, Egypt, and India.

Diplomatic delegations from various countries of expertise would be established to build the Iraqi infrastructure. For example, the Dutch might be responsible for developing a criminal justice system.

Concurently, UN troops would be put into Gaza and the West Bank to try and maintain peace.

NO ONE in Iraq would be "cut out" of the economy. (except Chalabi, he will need to be hanged)

....there's more, but I want to see if someone sees any potential in this approach.

[blm]

4. The UN and NATO won't go in and help unless US troops are committed

long enough to help stabilize the region. We can't expect them to go in and RELIEVE us...we have to be in there backing THEM up.

[theivoryqueen]

3. I read that - I am also of the opinion that 4 years is long

that seems like he giving both sides a lot of latitude - and GW a bit more rope.

[HFishbine]

5. Small comfort

"Look, you may have some deployments of people for a long period of time in the Middle East depending on what the overall approach to the Middle East is. I'm not going to tell you we won't shift deployments from one place to another, but we're not going to be engaged in an active kind of death zone the way we are today."

[drfemoe]

31. oh that's good news ..

"depending on what the overall approach to the Middle East is"


.. not

[truthspeaker]

7. end of your first term? how about the end of February?

[kiahzero]

23. OK, you master of foreign policy, you

Explain how we pull out of Iraq immediately, and don't create a new haven for terrorists a la Afghanistan.

Explain how we pull out of Iraq immediately, and don't condemn its citizens to either a brutal civil war or a new brutal dictator.

It seems like those who suggest "pull out immediately" don't really care about what happens in Iraq afterwards.

[truthspeaker]

28. we work with existing Iraqi leaders to form a provisional gov't

They can use their own militias to provice security. What they do after that is up to them.

[kiahzero]

38. When "their own militias" aren't up to the job,

and the provisional government is toppled, what then?

When "their own militias" turn into secret police that make what happened in Abu Ghriab look like a picnic, what then?

When "their own militias," in the tradition of the corrupt Iraqi police, turn on the provisional government, what then?

[truthspeaker]

40. the same way we handle it in Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran

We can't fix all the world's problems. Equally importantly, we don't have the right to invade other countries, kill thousands of people, and tell them what kind of government to have.

[kiahzero]

42. Good idea

Let's fuck over the Iraqi people a second time. That's the moral thing to do! Plus, it'll keep us safe, especially with all the wonderful immigrants into Iraq at this time of year.

Your suggestion is to create a new terrorist state, which will certainly be worse than Afghanistan. That's a great idea... why doesn't Kerry embrace it?

:eyes:

[sangh0]

49. Citing Myanmar, North Korea and Iran is a disgusting justification

for an "anti-war" position. Just like the hawks, this poster cares nothing about innocent deaths.

[truthspeaker]

52. I DO care about innocent deaths, but what the hell can US troops do about

them?

Right now we are the #1 cause of innocent deaths in Iraq. How is leaving US troops there going to solve that?

[sangh0]

81. Ask yourself

how pulling those troops are is going to solve it?

I notice that all you can do is to attack those who disagree. You can't explain how a pull out will help the Iraqis, but you don't hesitate to blame others.

The proof of your lack of compassion is your suggestion that we let the Iraqis experience what the Myanmars have gone through. Why do you want the Iraqis to be slaves, the way the people of Burma have been used as slaves?

[kiahzero]

53. That's pretty much my point

"Negative consequences don't matter at all, so long as we have our hands 'clean'."

I've seen the same mindset elsewhere, in less grave contexts.

[sangh0]

82. Myanmar uses slave labor

and truthseeker wants the Iraqis to be slaves like the indiginous Burmans.

What a way to keep your hands clean.

Sickening

[Djinn]

93. so sanghO

when does the US invasion of Burma, North Korea and Saudi begin?

[sangh0]

118. Here's when

The day you give up your fantasies and embrace reality. IOW, nat anytime soon

[ptsmknhipy]

114. terrorist state

let me pick up where you left off. Create the most successfull jihad in history of the extremist muslim. Increase their political clout and recruiting exponentially. Make it open season on American cities. Live with the world opinion that America ...Lost...the Iraq war. Become politically impotent in the middle east.

Face it, we will leave Iraq the same way we left Japan, Germany, and Korea. Running away is not the solution.

[Spazito]

39. That's the fucken bush plan and it's working well, right?

I agree with Kerry but I don't see how any US soldier (and I believe most are good people) will be trusted by any Iraqi after all that has and is happening. I don't have an answer but pulling out and saying "Oops, so sorry, we made a mistake, pardon us" isn't the answer either, imo.

[Solidarity]

36. Here's How

"Explain how we pull out of Iraq immediately"

The same way we sent troops to Iraq! You send ships and planes to pick them up via Kuwait and Baghdad.

Immediately does not mean tomorrow morning. It will take a few weeks to complete the withdrawl and that probably would not begin until February, 2005 if Kerry takes office.

That's 9 months from now! You think more time is needed?

[kiahzero]

48. Oh, you're so clever.

Instead of addressing my question seriously, you took it literally ("How do we physically remove the troops from Iraq").

Perhaps, now that you've given the useless and meaningless answer, you might like to seriously address my question: how do we pull out of Iraq without leading to a situation that is worse than the current one?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

62. How can it be worse?

First of all you describe how it could possibly be worse than it is right now! Iraqis are being raped, tortured and killed on a daily basis.

A civil war MAY develop in Iraq after the US pulls out, but how is that different from what is happening RIGHT NOW? I mean, cities and towns are being bombed from the air, tanks patrol the streets killing anyone who looks "suspicious", people are round up and herded off to secret prisons without their families being notified or receiving legal representation, where they are likely to be tortured and possibly killed.

There is a civil war in Iraq RIGHT NOW! So how would it be any different if what you fear comes to pass?

From my perspective, here is how it would be different: The Iraqi people will be deciding their OWN fate. It will be up to them whether a war develops or whether a dictator takes control. It will be their CHOICE.

Can you honestly tell me you believe that the US or any nation or group of nations, will be able to IMPOSE democracy? Can you seriously tell me you believe the result won't be just another "our bastard"?

[kiahzero]

78. It can be worse on by orders of magnitude

Think Rwanda.

From my perspective, here is how it would be different: The Iraqi people will be deciding their OWN fate. It will be up to them whether a war develops or whether a dictator takes control. It will be their CHOICE.

The Iraqi people with personal armies will decide the fate of the nation. Those who aren't warlords will have no say whatsoever.

Can you honestly tell me you believe that the US or any nation or group of nations, will be able to IMPOSE democracy?

The United States can set up a system where all the Iraqis, not just the rich ones who can manage to get lots of weapons, will get to have input into the new government, stick around long enough to make sure it's relatively stable, and then leave.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

108. Who the hell do you think make up the personal armies?

Besides, such a system didn't do the US too bad, did it?

The United States can set up a system where all the Iraqis, not just the rich ones who can manage to get lots of weapons, will get to have input into the new government, stick around long enough to make sure it's relatively stable, and then leave.

What a pipe dream! The US stick around long enough? What a decade? five decades? How long before the US actually lets the Iraqi people decide for themselves, and how many Iraqis will be killed, maimed, tortured and raped in the meantime?

And after all that time, what stops the "warlords" from taking over when the US finally leaves?

Don't you see that NOTHING CHANGES it can ONLY be delayed at the price of many more lives.

[Djinn]

89. please explain how staying doesn't condemn Iraqi's

to a new dictator? there's is NO WAY in hell the US is going to allow a government that takes back national control of the oil. Theye will never let it happen and that is one of the few things that the majority of all Iraqi's across all ethnicities agree on.

I'm sorry but the US really doesn't have a good record in promoting anything other than their own self interest - hence why Afghanistan became a "terrorist haven" in the first place; US first drew the Soviets into invading Afghanistan (who had FAR more reason to be there than the US currently has in Iraq), funded the insurgency against them (giving rise to a network of hardcore Muslim's - mostly Wahhabists - who now had international ties) and then when the US's one and only goal there (oust the Soviets but more importantly screw them into the ground financially and militarilly) was achieved they couldn't give a toss about Afghanistan and let it slide into a long and costly civil war.

[0007]

119. The Iraqis can handle the situation very nicely

They did it when they kicked the Brits out in 1920.

A brutal civil war? LOL! We'd be pissed if anyone interfered in our civil war, now wouldn't we?

Don't make me laugh.

[gratuitous]

9. Four years IS a long time

But the United States has substantial credibility problems right now in the rest of the world that we're only now beginning to air domestically. A Kerry administration will have a lot of fences to mend with dozens and dozens of allied nations before they will trust us to administer Iraq in a reasonable and humane fashion.

Four years seems a tad optimistic, but perhaps other nations will be more gracious to us than we have any right to expect.

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. Wow. That's new.

Lots of interesting stuff in that article.

"I've heard some people say, well, what's the message? What's he doing? The message is clear, folks: We're going to make America stronger at home by being fiscally responsible, investing in health care and education, becoming energy independent, and we're going to make ourselves stronger in the world by restoring America's respect and influence with a better foreign policy. It's that simple."

AND

Kerry said Bush has damaged relations with allies to the point that only a new president can repair them. The problem is evident in Iraq, said the decorated Vietnam War veteran who promised to avert a quagmire.

"It will not be like Vietnam," Kerry said. "I will get our troops home from Iraq with honor and with the interests of our country properly protected."

How soon? "It will not take long to do what is necessary. I'm not going to give you a specific date, but I'll tell you that I have a plan and I will put that plan in place."

Republican Richard M. Nixon used similar language during the 1968 presidential race, but the war dragged on for years after his election.

[demnan]

12. Well we're still in Bosnia

I don't think that's an unreasonable assessment.

[Minstrel Boy]

13. "Four more years! Four more years!"

Shouldn't that be Bush's rallying cry?

Virtually all combat troops out by end of first term.

Pathetic. Disgraceful. Predictable.

[kentuck]

15. I think they are operating on the premise that Iraq will fall apart....

if we leave? I'm not sure that I accept that premise. I think there is the possibility that our presence will only cause the violence and anarchy to continue. How do we know that some leaders will not step forward if left alone? How do we know they will not be better off without us? I tend to think they will work it out on their own much better than with our help.

[Solidarity]

25. Kerry's "Trickle Out" Theory

Sounds like a "trickle out" theory!

Real inspiring.

I can just see the TV commercial now.

"Vote for me and I'll have most of the GI's home in ...... oh ..... bout 4 years or so."

What a powerful and devastating commercial that will be. Bush must be shaking in his boots.

[KoKo]

83. I agree, Kentuck, in many ways with your "measured, reasoned" repsonse.

How do we know anything, anymore? Our intellgence was lies or, at best, faulty and we know that the Chimp is an "idiot puppet," so our ability to predict rational scenarios is limited by what we know here.

However, our "Elected Officials" have betrayed us or been lazy with the exception of those sterling, clarion calls of Byrd and a few others, but still we are out here in the "DU Wilderness" trying to "parse out" TRUTH from FICTION.

We are definitely at a disadvantage. We just have to be "RESISTANCE" and hope that our blind, blthering somehow hits a target in the future.

And, appreciations for what you do...in your "small bytes" to facilitate this.. :-)'s

[goodhue]

107. I agree completely!

Many folks still buy into false premise that US departure will increase violence. I believe the truth to be quite the opposite.

[bemildred]

17. Bullshit. I heard all this crap forty years ago.

They were lying then and they are lying now. They will
get out when we make them get out, and not before.

[greatauntoftriplets]

61. I am having that kind of flashback as well.

Makes me think of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Never bought that BS then and I was too damn young to vote until 1972 -- when McGovern was my candidate.

[bemildred]

69. Lot's of deja vu these days.

This lying crap will end when we throw all these lying swine
out of office and replace them with some people with a bit
of integrity and a spirit of public service instead of self
service. November is a good place to start on that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Only 4 years more of bloodshed? How "liberal" of him.

Does that mean that in 8 years we'll be seeing the last of them on top of the embassy waiting for the last helicopter out?

[drfemoe]

24. "combat troops"

What do you call the troops who will be stationed at the four bases .. "peace troops"?

And one can assume the largest embassy and cia base in the WORLD (in Baghdad) will be fully staffed with "civilians".

[truth2power]

67. Yep. I was scrolling down.

Picked up on that modifier right away. Kerry didn't say we'd be out of Iraq, just that the combat troops would be out. We'll still own the oil and every other resourse we can get our handson.

Just like the american presence in so may other countries.

[democracyindanger]

75. No, you call them

"support troops." Logistics, liasions, etc.

Yawn.

[Paragon]

30. I thought we were leaving June 30th...?

:silly:

[ElementaryPenguin]

44. Methinks Kerry wants out immediatley - but politically can't say that now

For fear the Repukes can paint him with a "soft on terra'" label! Americans are focusing more and more on Bushler's disasterous, pointless war - and support for it - and the Evil one are going to continue to plummet! Of course we want Kerry to commit to that now - but we don't want him to lose the election because he did it prematurely - before the sheeple had really seen the light (which they do seem to finally be seeing!)!

[Solidarity]

50. See The Light!

Perhaps Kerry should help people "see the light" by acting like a leader!

[Tellurian]

70. Yes, exactly...and thats why I don't play into the mindgames with some of

posters who are here to play symantics!

Kerry no more wants to see our troops there than we do.
What Kerry wants to do is regroup and leave Iraq with some
dignity and a viable plan in place.

[greatauntoftriplets]

71. "Peace with honor"?

I've heard that one before.... Where?

Oh yes, a little place in SE Asia that is now a sweatshop for US manufacturers like Nike.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[greatauntoftriplets]

73. My "buddy"?

That was uncalled for.

[Tellurian]

76. If you're going to bash Kerry. What do you expect? nt

[Djinn]

95. yeah, greatauntoftriplets

there is no free speech - Kerrybots only please - Tellurian please do tell how your aproach to political dicussion differs from the Bush can do no wrong crowd?

[ptsmknhipy]

115. SE Asia

But wait, for 35 years I've been told I LOST that war.
I keep thinking if they would have caved they might look an awful lot like Hong Kong by now.

Went back to that place 3 years ago and I'll be damned if I can see what they fought so hard for.

[kayell]

51. Remind me again how different our party is from the repukes...

I don't know why, but sometimes it just seems to slip my mind.

And this from a candidate who DAMN well should know what this will lead to.

[Tinoire]

54. "by the end of his first term"? He can have my vote then in that case.

Nixon too had a "plan".

[Andy_Stephenson]

57. Yes he did...

and we saw the results of that plan.

[Jacobin]

85. Ah, yes. And it was a "secret plan"

I remember that alllllll too well.

What a clusterfuck this country is in.

[Andy_Stephenson]

113. Clusterfuck is an

understatement.

[bigtree]

55. This reflects his desire for NATO to assume responsibility for security

for an elected authority, under the supervision of the U.N.

Although under that scenario, the U.S. will not be able to avoid assuming most of that NATO force, there will be an opportunity with for regional forces to assume key responsibility in areas where U.S. forces now dominate.

That is, if, we get to that point. There's so much being done by Bush that threatens to make things worse, if that's possible, and I can't help my suspicion that Bush is bent on widening this conflict to involve Syria or Iran in open battle so that we could retaliate against them. :tinfoilhat:

And, then there's the Balkans factor. Similar arrangement there with NATO, and things aren't so settled, despite the removal of Milosevic. Where is Radovan?

Still, not much new to be gleamed from that isolated statement, reported in an article that focuses mostly on subjects unrelated to Iraq


Me Book

[ACK]

56. This is the start of an exit strategy

Right now expressing the idea of cut and run in the middle of a compaign where the opponent is trying to make you look weak on defense is akin to political suicide.

What is the alternative? You open the door for yourself to get America the hell out by talking up a trickle out or phased departure.

This gives Kerry the possibility of moving faster when in office without looking like a flip-flopper especially if the NATO/UN phase in idea does not pan out.

_

[robertpaulsen]

64. This link doesn't work for me.

It takes me to an article at the site that talks about Kerry's stand on education and appointing Supreme Court justices. Nothing about a promise to take all US troops out of Iraq during his first term. What a shame, I'd really like to read it!

[Classical_Liberal]

77. That's what Nixon said

.

[Jacobin]

84. And this statement is based on what?

And to think he is a vietnam veteran.

How the ages have made us forget.

An example of what the "mighty" will do for power, prestige and their "place" in history.

Sounds like a Light at the End of the Tunnel statement to me.

Makes me utterly sick.

[turiya]

86. "virtually"

what the heck does that mean?

[mike_c]

90. lame PNAC enabler....

It makes me sick to see democrats falling for this crap. The PNAC wins if either Bush or Kerry is elected. Meet the new boss....

[Jackpine Radical]

91. OK--Here's how to get out:

1) Elect John Kerry in November

2) Apologize profoundly and sincerely to the world at large, and particularly the people of Iraq, for what we have permitted our government to do to them.

3) Humbly ask the help of the UN and the Islamic nations of the world in putting things aright. Let an international group headed by Muslim diplomats create a step-by-step plan.

4) Adhere to this plan and finance its implementation, whether or not we privately agree with it. I mean FINANCE it. Whether it is $50 billion or $500 billion, it is cheap at the price.

5) To the extent possible, make individual reparations to the individuals, or the survivors of the individuals, we have injured. In addition to thousands of Iraqis, THIS INCLUDES OUR OWN VETERANS!!!

[Djinn]

100. Americans - vote for Jackpine Radical for President!

[Matilda]

103. Lot of good points you've made there. But ---

I don't think there will be U.N. or Arab co-operation in restoring
order UNLESS the U.S. agrees to restore ownership and exploitation
of oil rights to Iraq. AND cancels all contracts for restoration
currently being undertaken by U.S. companies, which are almost
certainly (especially in the cases of Bechtel and Halliburton)
ripping everyone off and not delivering very much. Those are the
kind of issues which are also concerning Iraqis, and why they object
so strongly to the presence of U.S. and coalition troops. They're
not stupid, they know what this war is about as much as we do.

The U.N. has already told the U.S. it won't go in unless the
Administration is prepared to give up their cash cows, and Bush
isn't going to go down that road, nor I think will Kerry. The
corporations wouldn't allow it. And they call the shots.

And as well, the U.S. is going to have to forget about controlling
the government of Iraq - even if it does mean they get a government
they don't like, and that doesn't particularly like them.

Then, and only then, can the U.S. retire with some honour, and if
the Iraqis continue fighting, it will be amongst themselves.

But it isn't going to happen, any more than they will butt out of Haiti, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.

[Jackpine Radical]

110. Yes, you're right.

We need to forswear all interest in the natural resources of the occupied country. I certainly had that notion in mind, but through an oversight didn't write it in my list.

[Darranar]

92. "By the end of his first term"?

And how many will be slaughtered in the meantime?

I doubt he intends to keep the promise, anyway.

[Tellurian]

98. Theres no proof provided Kerry ever said, "by the end of my first term."

Unless i missed a link somewhere...

[Beaker]

97. We are in DEEP fucking shit folks...

my gut tells me that J.F.Kerry is NOT going to prevail in November.

with all the utter crap and bullshit and complete incompetence that has gone on under this mis-administration the past 3+ years, and the best showing our guy can muster in the polls is a statistical dead heat?

and promising to take 4 years to get our troops out of iraq sure doesn't help the cause.

someone please wake me up when i can stop being embarrassed about being an american...and a democrat...and a liberal.

[Tellurian]

99. Beaker, heres a brown paper bag...now breathe...breathe...breathe...

[Beaker]

102. i'm not panicky...just a little frustrated.

and i used to be disgusted...

now i'm just amused.

not that there's anything funny about a second term for the retarded puppet-in-chief.

[Tellurian]

104. Think of it this way...

Clinton proved to the world (within 8 yrs.) there could be Peace and Prosperity throughout the land. Think how close he came to a Peaceful accord between Israel and Palestine. What he accomplished through diplomacy is something unimaginable to a fellow needing a platform (to win an election) swaggertized in a facade of religion championing an imaginary cause..a Crusade to eliminate evil because God told him so. Bush has created an illusion as cover to do business as usual. His entire private agenda revolves around making money for himself, his family and friends and to hell with the rest of the people in the US, who's beliefs are not Christian Based Fundamentalism.

Kerry has distinct possibilities. He works well with others across the aisle. He isn't too proud or insecure to accept new ideas because the ideas weren't his own. His background is that of an attorney, he is well versed in the law. His wife is a very smart, cultured, intelligent person. I like her very much.

Have a little faith and give the guy a chance. He's only just begun. There has never been a candidate running for the presidency that has had to face such insurmountable obstacles backed by such vicious, intense, (Christian) opposition in the history of the world.

The raw material is there...the only thing I see lacking is an occasional smile, and for warmth, a clever quip once in a while to relax everyone in the room..

[Larkspur]

122. Kerry doesn't deserve a break or my faith in him

He'll have to earn them.

He campaigned on his experience in the senate made him the most fit to be Prez. Kerry won't have time to have a "Honeymoon" period after his Inaugeration. The proverbial shit is hitting the fan with mountains more coming quickly. Kerry will have to start working to fix problems BEFORE his Inaugeration, assuming he wins in November.

[ptsmknhipy]

116. Gut feeling

Know what ya mean Beaker. What bothers me is in the last one the polls had Gore winning easily. I didn't think Bush had a chance. They were way off, and no you can't steal that many votes. They were out of touch by a huge degree, and I think they are again. California is a good barometer. Got a real bad feeling on this one.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

109. Sorry John..I'm a fan and that's not good enough

4 years is long enough to escalate this mess. You need to be a bit more proactive.

[Forkboy]

112. Gee,what a guy!

[Tellurian]

120. In case you haven't ckd the link doesn't match the statement...

so thers no way to tell if the statement is correct..

[WilliamPitt]

123. Holy shit!

That whole article has changed. Yesterday, it was about Scalia and anti-choice judges. They added all this new material about GEAR-UP and cut the Iraq stuff completely.

Damn. I give you my word, that sentence above was copied and pasted from the link above as it appeared yesterday.

On edit: I googled the sentence in question and found yesterday's version of the above article, but on a different paper:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001933930_kerrynu20.html

Three paragraphs of that:

Kerry said he didn't see at the time "such a level of ideology and partisanship" he now sees in Scalia.

Kerry's comments on judicial nominations drew a concerned response from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, with President Gloria Feldt saying, "I'd like to hear him use language that is stronger."

If elected, Kerry promised that virtually all U.S. combat troops will be out of Iraq — away from "the death zone" — by the end of his first term.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

124. I'd like to read what Kerry actually said.

The only quote is 'the death zone'.

I'm highly suspicious of any reporter characterizing such an important policy position as 'a promise' without actually providing the words of the candidate.

[Larkspur]

121. Is that via caskets, Kerry?

American credibility is zilch in Iraq now and Kerry doesn't have the charisma, credibility, or time to change that.

I use to believe that we had to stay in Iraq to make sure Al Queda doesn't take it over, but I now believe that the longer we stay in Iraq strengthens Al Queda and other Muslim extremists.

[troublemaker]

125. Make up your minds, folks

Is Kerry an opportunistic politician or a principled war-monger?

If the public really wants the troops out Kerry will withdraw them. But a smart politician doesn't taunt the populace with their own hypocrisy just for the hell of it.

Every word spoken in an election is about today, even if it's ostensibly about four years from now.

[Tellurian]

126. Hmm.. Only two choices? I live in a democracy. I see him as reclaiming

<<Is Kerry an opportunistic politician or a principled war-monger?>>

everything we've lost since the ascension of Bush to the throne.

[duvinnie]

127. so Kerry will keep them there

longer than Bush?
and that's our guy? sheesh..how many more soldiers and others will suffer
from this madness?