Anybody else believe Kerry will pull our troops out of Iraq NOW?

[spooked]

I just watched Going Upriver last night...

It was fantastic. Kerry's antiwar conviction were based on the feeling that it was the wrong war at the wrong time, and he's said the same about Iraq.

The Vietnam Vets chanting "Bring Our Brothers Home" was heart-wrenching, and I can't help but believe that Kerry will bring our brothers home from Iraq, even if it means admitting defeat.

After everything he has stood for, how can he not stand up and say "That was the last U.S. soldier to die in Iraq!"

[ikojo]

1. No, in reality Kerry will probably continue many

of the same things as Bush. He may make sure the troops have the gear but they aren't coming home anytime soon. Even if more countries step up to help the US if Kerry is elected, that will take time.

[MacDo]

4. I agree

as wrong as this war was/is. We can not leave now. It will become a pre 911 Afghanistan.

[mike_c]

31. there are still all those worthy PNAC objectives to achieve....

Like a permanent U.S. force presence in the Middle East, and the final solution to the "Palestinian problem."

[Birthmark]

2. Nope.

I wish to hell we could. But it's *very* important that we leave on our own terms in our own time. I resent the hell out of the situation that that imbecile in the WH got us into. But we're stuck for now.

[RapidCreek]

74. It's thinking like yours that Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice

Powell and Perle knew they could depend on when they started this shit.

Yep, they counted on folks with your mindset...it'll be making them lot's of cash when they go back into the private sector.....and they'll be crying all the way to the bank.

RC

[Birthmark]

96. Yes.

I'm a terrible person who prays nightly for as much war and death as we can possibly inflict. :eyes:

[bowens43]

3. No.

[union_maid]

5. Unfortunately, it's different

Vietnam was a civil war with two actual governments, neither of which represented a real threat to global security. Pulling out of Vietnam did result in a bloodbath as predicted (but of course little was done to prevent it ahead of time) but then that was it. The war ended and Vietnam was one country and continued not to be a global threat.

What's in Iraq right now is a mess of OUR creation. We didn't mistakenly wander into someone else's argument. We set the stage, removed the government and didn't replace it with anything viable. I want our kids home as soon as possible, but I don't think that Kerry can pull them right out and let Iraq become the nation state that Al Qaida never had before.

[spooked]

6. Kerry is going to be one torn man

because Iraq doesn't want our "help" anymore. What a damn mess * has gotten us into.

[ikojo]

7. Unfortunately, given the extremely short memory and attention

span of most Americans and all of the media, IF John Kerry is elected on Tuesday, I can see the war on Iraq being branded as Kerry's War as if HE was the one who decided to invade a sovereign nation. I think the same thing happened with Nixon. Viet Nam turned into Nixon's War after Johnson upped the ante so to speak. At least that is my admittedly limited historical understanding of that war.

[mike_c]

20. if Kerry doesn't have the moral courage to end the nightmare...

...it will be his war. One Jan. 20 he will be given the authority to end it or continue it. What he does that day will forever determine his legacy with regard to Iraq. Tacit approval is just as damning as enthusiastic participation-- the dead will be just as dead, the Iraqi nation just as shattered, and whomever is in the oval office will be just as responsible. The occupation will be just as illegal.

Imagine someone walking into your home, shooting and killing a few members of your family in an act of cold-blooded-- and unprovoked-- aggression, then leaving. On the way out he hands the gun to a passing stranger, who-- rather than using his newly acquired power to sieze the criminal-- enters your house himself and kills a few more of your family just to prove that the other guy's actions weren't wholly wrong. That's the moral dilemma Kerry will face when Bush hands him the gun in January.

[Buck Rabbit]

67. Vietnam was also a mess of our creation.

And we left it. The result was the people who originally freed Vietnam from a colonial occupation took over anyhow. We only managed to delay the process by a decade at the cost of millions of Vietnamese lives.

As long as Americans stay the killing will continue. Americans will kill Iraqis, Iraqis will kill Iraqis and Americans. When we eventually leave the Iraqis will work out who controls their country.

[xchrom]

8. i never did -- not an option really.

that being said -- i don't think that in the long run foreign occupying troops are going to solve iraq's problems.
it may be a natural conclusion that iraq dissolves into 2 or 3 autonomous states.
the west has introduced a huge dose of chaos into the region -- and i'm guessing that even the experts are scratching their heads right now as to iraqs future.
kerry or any smart president will see as their job how best to minimise the negative effects on the u.s. -- there's my two cents.

[rot0r_head]

9. No, and the situation is one PR shit sandwich

John Kerry will just have to steel himself and take a bite. Pulling out all military personnel right after assuming office would be a monumental mistake. That's why he's not going to do it. Expect the right to hold a quivering finger over the IMPEACH button for Kerry's presidency. They'll mash it with a fist if he were to do this.

Kerry isn't a brainless asshat like whoever's supposed to be running this country now. He knows we're too far submerged into the goopy mess to turn around and get out. I think the only way to achieve any kind of victory is in close conjunction with new diplomatic measures and a REAL Coalition.

[mike_c]

24. any president in that position should face impeachment...

...head on rather than continue the crimes of the previous administration. That's moral courage, and our times call for courage, not political expediency.

on edit: Let's be honest-- this is far more than a matter of public relations and appearance. The U.S. has perpetrated an illegal war of aggression-- a crime against humantity as defined by the Nuremberg protocols that we ourselves set forth-- and continuance of the occupation by the next administration will be participation in a criminal enterprise, not just "bad PR."

[spooked]

71. EXACTLY!! This War is a CRIME!! And Kerry is NOT the criminal type!

It will be very interesting to see what Kerry does.

There is NO WAY, given Kerry's Idealism and anti-war history that he is going to continue with more of the same!

[russiamommy]

10. No, he can't

Iraq has become a magnet and a breeding ground for terrorists. He can't abandon it and have an anarchy controlled by lunatics. He was handed this mess and is going to have to complete the job.

[mike_c]

25. Iraq has become a breeding ground for patriotic resistance...

...to foreign occupation. Since when is that "terrorism?"

There have been acts of terrorism, e.g. arbitrary and publicized executions of prisoners by the insurgency, and the murder of over 100,000 civilians by the coalition forces (stop and consider the magnitude of THAT crime for a moment!). But the overwhelming majority of attacks by the Iraqi insurgency have been legitimate attacks against appropriate military targets or against occupation collaborators. That's not terrorism. That's partisan guerilla warfare, and the Iraqis are conducting it against a foreign aggressor.

edited to correct the effects of typing too fast....

[getoffmytrain]

35. Hey Mike..

Have you done a tour or two in the current war in Iraq? Just curious... because you appear to have such a good handle on the situation on the ground there... surely you've seen 'the elephant' there, right?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[UpsideDownFlag]

51. how does pointing out the criminal nature of the war = fighting kerry?

furthermore, do you agree or disagree that the PNAC, who has wet dreams every time they think of iraq, is a huge threat?

[mike_c]

38. what do you think?

A) I consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq one of the most outrageous crimes committed by Americans during my liftime-- far worse, IMO, than Vietnam.

B) I'm 50.

I presume your question is in regard to my comments that American marines, soldiers, and mercenaries in Iraq are foreign occupiers and therefore legitimate military targets of the resistance, and that the fighting is partisan resistance rather than "terrorism." Is that presumption correct? Would you characterize the situation differently?

[getoffmytrain]

41. No... my question

was based on reading your posts regarding this subject and you make such definitive statements on the state of the insurgency in Iraq that i figure you must have done a few tours over there and had a first hand experience...

Since you said you haven't... have you had the opportunity to speak with anyone that has spent some time dealing with the insurgency first hand.. you know, someone that was 'in country' for a while?


Yes... you are right, we are foreign and we did invade Iraq and we are now occupying parts of the country.

[mike_c]

42. sorry for misconstruing your intent....

No, my statements are my own opinions, based primarily upon published reports, some (imperfect!) knowledge of history, and studies of American foreign policy during the last century or so. I've talked to a couple of former students who were unlucky enough to have joined the National Guard before the invasion and who have since been sent to Iraq, but I doubt that they are representative of the general troop population (they're both very liberal and despise their situation).

I've been an avowed and proud liberal all my adult life, but was essentially apolitical-- certainly not an activist-- prior to 2000. This invasion and occupation of Iraq has shocked me deeply, it stands out even within the broader context of rather shameful U.S. foreign policy behaviors since the beginning of the cold war.

[getoffmytrain]

43. oh...

here's what I think about the resistance... in my experience, you have your partisan fighters like the Mahdi Army, though many of them are actually fighting because they're paid to do so.. mercenaries of a sort if you will. If it weren't for the pay, a number of them would drop their guns and go home. These guys predominately only target military targets though from time-to-time they are involved in kidnapping. Also, they definitely use the civilian population to shield themselves from attack.

Another group you have are Sunni Iraqis that kind of gather along tribal affiliation. Again, these guys are into kidnapping and using civilians as shields. (Most guerrilla groups do use kidnapping for various reasons) These guys are terrified they're going to be persecuted under a Shia led government and they want some kind of autonomy.

Next... there definitely exists a contingent of foreign fighters. These guys are heavily into kidnapping, suicide bombings, attacks against Iraqi civilians to garner hatred for the occupation, etc. These guys aren't in the streets much blasting an AK around the corner of a building.. that's not their style, they spend more of their time blowing kids to bits and pieces as they wait in line for candy and stuff like that.

Anyway... that's a quick rundown, there are a few more 'factions' so to speak... but I won't bore you with them.

ON EDIT: Martyrdom via suicide attacks is totally foreign to the Iraqi culture. Virtually all of the suicide attacks are perpetrated by foreigners.

[mike_c]

47. my understanding is that the "contingent of foreign fighters..."

...are the dominant force behind the limited amount of real "terrorism" occuring as part of the resistance, e.g. the public mistreatment of prisoners for the sole purpose of inspiring fear among civilians, particularly aid workers and civilian support personnel. I think the latter are legitimate military targets, but they should be accorded dignity and protection in custody.

Most of the kidnappings are not directly related to the insurgency-- the majority are indicative of the general loss of social order accompanying the occupation, e.g hostages held for ransom or killed to settle old tribal scores. Again, I think taking a foreign mercenary-- a "contractor" if you will-- or a civilian support person, e.g. a supply truck driver, is militarily justifiable, but that subsequent mistreatment of prisoners is wrong, and when done publicly with the intent to shock and provoke fear is "terrorism." But then, so is the bombing of civilian neighborhoods in Falluja, Samarra, and etc., and far more innocents have been killed by "our" foreign fighers than by those ostensibly supporting the Iraqi resistance.

The matter of using the civilian population as "shields" is a feature of any guerilla resistance-- partisan resistance occurs within the context of an occupied population and draws upon that population for support and recruits. We tend to view it as somehow dishonorable, but I think that's because we often misunderstand the nature of the conflict. In Iraq, it's not a matter of a beligerent aggressor using innocent civilians as human shields, but rather the resistance fighters are themselves mostly drawn from the civilian population and they return to it between actions. It is their element.

Finally, I hope I didn't give you the impression that your responses bored me. Not at all!

[getoffmytrain]

53. more.

Correct, the foreign fighters are primarily the ones responsible for the terrorism. however, on a daily basis, there are widespread acts of terror being committed by Iraqis against other Iraqis, be it for supporting the coalition or a personal vendetta they believe will go unpunished when they exact their revenge, etc.

The kidnappings that make world news are all directly related to the insurgency. However, criminal gangs (comprised of Iraqis) are kidnapping other Iraqis for ransom and sometimes, as you said, to settle old scores. (this is very common, we hear little about it)

It's common to see men (young teens too!) take shots from crowds or to run back into crowds after they fire a few shots. I can assure you, there are no American soldiers that are wanting to shoot civilians. The rules of engagement vary in different zones throughout the Iraq, however... again... rest assured that it is not permissible to target non-combatants. However... American troops will engage when fired upon and if the insurgency uses civilians to guard them self from a counter attack from the coalition forces, they are putting the non-combatants in grave danger. Again, when shot at... one most certainly wants to terminate the individuals doing the attacking. If one is to use tactics that involve engaging and then retreating to a civilian element as a form of protection, the blame for civilian deaths lie with the insurgents that employ those tactics. I for one, to believe this is a very dishonorable way to fight... however, politically, it is effective as, obviously, in this war, the civilian deaths are largely blamed on the coalition. I do not believe the insurgency cares much for the civilian population at large and views their losses as a result of their tactics as 'the cost of doing business'. Further... the totally inept combat skills of the insurgency kills a lot of civilians. The insurgents blindly fire mortars and shoot indiscriminately and appear to have absolutely zero concern for any civilians they may kill. TONS of civilians are killed by errant mortar rounds fired by the insurgency Most of the insurgents do not even possess basic soldiering skills because well... most are not or have not been soldiers. I'll say it again, THE INSURGENCY CANNOT FIGHT THEIR WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG!

To sum up what I am saying:

The insurgency employs tactics that lead to large amounts of civilian casualties, whether by using them as a shield, or bringing them into the crossfire without concern.

The insurgency has less training than the Boy Scouts.

The insurgency has an element that will commit atrocious acts of terrorism to achieve their political objectives.

Iraq is a very complicated situation.

[mike_c]

58. I agree with you on most counts...

...but I think we need to make clear who created the situation in which these events are occurring. We did, by mounting an illegal war of aggression and by attempting to subjegate a foreign population by military occupation.

Also, I think we need to be mindful that dropping 500 pound munitions on civilian neighborhoods in Falluja, Samarra, Sadr City, and so on kills far more innocents than badly aimed insurgent mortar rounds have killed. I don't mean to excuse the latter by any means, but rather to put it into perspective.

[getoffmytrain]

61. Civilians have died

at the hands of both sides, I won't dispute that.

The United States Army operates in a way that protects its soldiers first and civilians second. (for the most part that is, some of the 'rules of engangement' in various zones scare the hell out of US soldiers)

War is a bad thing... and there is no such thing as a clean war. One fundamental truth to war is that non-combatants die.

[mike_c]

52. "Martyrdom via suicide attacks is totally foreign..."

This is a good point and one worth discussing. I'd like to hear from some Iraqi Shi'a about this.

My impression is that while suicide matyrdom might not normally be a response within secular Iraqi culture, it is venerated within religious Islamic culture, especially in defense of the faith against infidel invaders. So while it might not have been relevant in the context of Iraqi secularism, we have created the context that makes it an honorable response to the current situation among the devout.

Iraq was a secular nation, but it's important to recognize that there were nonetheless strong undercurrents of religious fundamentalism within that society, particularly among the Shi'a, but let's not discount the depth of devotion that also characterized Sunni society, despite its framework of tribal loyalties.

I think it's a mistake to assume that all such suicide martyrdom is somehow the work of foreigners (or even that a significant fraction of it is). It's clear from published interviews with Mahdi militiamen and Sunni fighters that many do view their deaths as martyrdom in the struggle against infidel invaders whose primary motives-- in their view-- include the subjegation of Islam.

[getoffmytrain]

59. my two cents.

It's obvious, based on engagements around Najaf in May and June that the Mahdi fighters were intentionally getting themselves killed. They were assaulting armor with rifles, not firing from concealed positions and greatly exposing themselves while moving (this is probably just bad soldiering and not a desire to die) I know for a fact there are Iraqi fighters seeking 'martyrdom' when engaging coalition forces... however... I think the incidences of Iraqis nationals carrying out premeditated suicide car bombings, etc. are few and far between at best.

[meganmonkey]

98. What does a 'complete job' look like in Iraq?

Perhaps if we stop f*cking up Iraq & Iraqis, and change our policy toward Palestine, a lot less of the terrorosts would be terrorists. As for the internal politics of Iraq - the main reason there are so many issues between factions is that Iraq's borders were created through colonialism and don't represent any cohesiveness among the different cultures/religions of the people living there. I don't see how we can force any sort of non-military-dictatorship to work there. That's why we installed a military dictatorship there in the first place 20-some years ago.

I'm not saying I know what we _should_ do, of course. I just think it's more complicated than that.

[Orangepeel]

11. No, but he probably won't send them to Syria and Iran, too

He's said he won't pull out the troops right away, which I think is probably the right decision.

I hate that they're there, but now I think we are stuck trying to help the country stabilize. We pretty much destroyed it for no good reason. We can't just walk away and leave it with no government and no infrastructure.

[AG78]

15. Although

he does talk tough about Tehran. Which is basically an impossible situation, especially if China is on Iran's side with an oil deal. Russia also has a foot in there somewhere. And as Putin pulls Russia back to an authoritarian government, we won't like that because of geo-strategic reasons.

Either way, fun future. Plenty of tensions. In my professional opinion, don't use up all the anxiety before Tuesday. We have years of problems coming up. Rest up now.

[OETKB]

12. It's not over 'til its over

I would ask my fellow DUers, let's vote for Kerry, but then we have to take to the streets to stop this unlawful war.

[spooked]

14. That's right! Wouldn't it be a crying shame

if the soldiers in Iraq were saying:

"Damn, the whole world has seen Fahrenheit 9/11.
Why in God's name are the American people not protesting, and trying to bring us home? Why did 8 of my brothers need to get blown to pieces yesterday?! America, where are you?!"

[hippywife]

16. Already prepared to do just that

our local peace group has been protesting this war and will continue no matter who is elected Tuesday. We're in Oklahoma and it has been surprising how many people honk in support as they drive by our street protests. I have a sneaking suspicion that support may be more anti-Bush than anti-war. The converse may be said of our detractors since many of they yell "Go Bush" at us. Time will tell and we shall see what happens when power changes hands this week.

[NashVegas]

13. He Can't

You can't end a war until you negotiate its end. You can't negotiate an end without having someone to negotiate with. And they can't have someone to negotiate for them if they don't have a confirmed leader.

[mike_c]

27. yes he can....

First, it's not a "war" in the sense that you're using the term. It's an act of illegal agression followed by an occupation that is facing growing guerilla resistance.

The initial act of aggression is over. We can't take it back. The occupation is another matter. Kerry can and should end it IMMEDIATELY.

[Ardee]

29. mike gets it right,almost.

The course of action in Iraq should be, in my limited awareness, to open up this mess to international efforts. Rather than all the troops occupying that nation being from christian nations they should be from a UN controlled coalition. Until all moslems understand that this is not an effort to "take over" their oil and diminish their religion.

Once a truly fair and representative election is completed and a valid government is formed we can all leave. Even if that government is an Islamic fundamentalist one (thanks Georgie)......then on to Israel.....

[vinnievin777]

17. No

He will start pulling them out after six mos.

Vinnie Vin
http://www.vinnievin.com

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. No. He's primarily a politician and will avoid risks.

If he's elected he will still have to play politics with the "war". He's not about to risk being seen as "cutting and running".

We'll get of Iraq when enough body bags come home and when all the patriotic Americans have to start paying for it.

Too bad about all the "collateral damage" that's necessary for politicians to preserve their jobs.

[Ronnie]

19. No.

But I do think that he and the people he chooses will be more creative in how to get out of it as soon as possible.

[DuaneBidoux]

21. NO - and it would be immoral to do so.

Literally thousands of innocents would instantly be murdered as the country dissolves into civil war and chaos and retribution. As Powell warned Shrub: You Break it You Own it.

I don't have an answer: but we have a moral responsibility as decent Americans to not walk away from the shit pile we have created for these poor people.

[Selwynn]

23. You assume that our continued presense makes things better....

..and that is an awfully big assumption.

[mike_c]

26. continuing someone else's crime makes one a criminal too....

If the invasion and occupation Iraq was immoral-- and it was certainly an illegal war of aggression so I think it's hard to argue its morality-- then continuing the occupation is just as immoral. If creating a puppet government with virtually no popular support is wrong-- and it's certainly undemocratic, especially when it's dominated by former foreign intelligence service goons and informers-- then continuing to prop up that government is equally immoral. If murdering 100,000 civilians is a crime against humanity, then continuing the killing-- and failing to apprehend the murderers when it is in your power to do so-- is complicity, and just as immoral as the initial crime.

[immoderate]

34. the "thousands of innocents" argument was used in Vietnam

"There will be a blood bath if we pull out," was the reasoning.

So we killed 3.5 million Asians, lost 58,00 of our own, and THEN they had the blood bath.

:shrug:

--IMM

[DuaneBidoux]

62. Well the question was simple: should we pull out now...

I said no it would be immoral. I do believe this is an important question, and it sure as hell isn't an easy one. I could be convinced either way. We have to listen to the Iraqis (ALL of them) on this one. We have to hear what the world has to say, and Kerry has to lead should (God willing) he be the man who steps into this pile of shit.

You will get NO argument from me that we should not be there in the first place.

[camero]

70. When you find yourself in a hole

the first thing you have to do is to stop digging. Leaving the troops in Iraq only makes the hole bigger.

[Selwynn]

22. Not at all.

But he will not completely bungle their deployment, keep them safer, and work towards getting them home sooner than the other guy.

[msgadget]

28. Nope

We really can't just walk away after tearing down Iraq . Kerry's gonna catch much hell for the mess he inherits because the other side is suddenly going to go switch tunes and point out what a quagmire it is.

I think what'd help is if he can help streamline the process by which Iraqis secure contracts for rebuilding.

[greekspeak]

30. No...but I think he might be able to reunite the world behind America

Once Shrub's nationbuilding, oilmongering, mine mine mine Iraq policy goes the way of the dodo, and Kerry embraces world leaders instead of driving them away, I hope things improve. Iraq needs to be stablized then left to introspection on how it will exist as a nation.

[mike_c]

32. "how can you tell the last man to die in Iraq...

...that he died so I don't have to look bad politically?"

I take the position that an immediate and unconditional end to the occupation of Iraq-- and let's be honest, this was never a "war," but rather an act of unprovoked aggression and an illegal foreign occupation-- is not a "defeat" because the "war" is unwinnable. Withdrawing is no more than recognizing that continued aggression is simply not rational except within a PNAC context of permanent U.S. military domination of the Middle East. Is that the world we want? Is that what we want our president to do?

We're kicking Bush out of office for this crime, among others. Why are so many willing to accept it from Kerry, or any other occupant of the oval office for that matter? The day Kerry takes the oath of office he shoulders responsibility for EVERY subsequent death in Iraq. How's he going to explain to the family of the last soldier to die that it just wasn't politically expedient to stop committing Bush's crimes just yet?

[sangh0]

39. Yes, "let's be honest" - You just said Kerry is PNAC

Care to offer any evidence for that?

[UpsideDownFlag]

49. he called kerry PNAC? really?

"Withdrawing is no more than recognizing that continued aggression is simply not rational except within a PNAC context of permanent U.S. military domination of the Middle East. Is that the world we want? Is that what we want our president to do?"

seems to me, all he said about PNAC is nicely pasted above.

[mike_c]

54. thanks, Jibjab-- I don't respond to provocations...

...from that poster any longer. I know who it is because he/she is the only DU'er on my ignore list that hasn't been tombstoned.

[UpsideDownFlag]

56. its interesting that you responded to my question for him, but he didn't.

nt

[sangh0]

75. You ignored the relvant mike_c quote

It's in the subject line of

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2564551#2565235

mike_c implies that Kerry wants to pursue PNAC objectives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. He did? Where?

As usual, you avoid the question of the original poster and make accusations that have nothing to do with anything pertaining to it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

60. maybe he'll at least respond to us. nt

[sangh0]

76. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2564551#2565235

[UpsideDownFlag]

78. uh...can you detect sarcasm? jeez.

"there are still all those worthy PNAC objectives to achieve...."

of course he is being sarcastic.

[m berst]

89. obviously sarcasm...

And taken out of context. In any case he didn't say that Kerry is PNAC.

[UpsideDownFlag]

95. no, you see, that doesn't matter. he 'implied' it. (according to *some*)

and apparently, thought crime is now a prosecutable offense.

[mike_c]

40. ahhh, I see the sole remaining DU'er on my ignore list...

...has made an appearance. It was only a matter of time, I suppose.

[sangh0]

77. I see you try to avoid the question, and responsiblity for your mistake

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2564551#2565235

You imply that Kerry wants to pursue PNAC objectives without giving any factual support to the idea, much as you consider the threat to Minneapolis to be real without providing any facts to support it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

79. no. he implies that the PNAC is behind the entire war.

whereas YOU are implying that he is a freeper. which is more offensive?

[mike_c]

86. bwahahaha-- I'm a freeper's worst nightmare....

As liberal as the night is long and not the least bit shy about displaying it.

Sorry, I read your reply (all I see is Ignored for the actual post you replied to) and had to laugh. Do me a favor and alert if he made a personal attack-- I won't take him off ignore to check.

xoxo
Mike C.

[sangh0]

102. Here's some more of mike_c's Kerry "support"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=111106#111113

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=110800#110817

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=378#382

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=7332#7333

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=7332#7333

[sadiesworld]

33. I don't think he will pull out immediately...

but here are a few things he could do upon taking office:

Turn decision-making over to the UN
Pull out the US contractors and put Iraqis back to work
Stop construction of the military bases

Well, I can dream.

[Sarrek420]

37. We should work on leaving ASAP - We don't belong there

I think when Iraq has elections, they should include a ballot initiative if whether or not they want the U.S. to stay, and with choices for how long.

Then we should honor it.

[spooked]

72. That's a great idea!

Let them vote to see if they want to keep us there.

[Robbie67]

44. No he won't

whether he should or not

[Sinnerman]

45. I agree with Kerry .... Bottom Line...

Kerry once Elected will remain Neutral for about 60 Days or the end of March then he will start bring troops home about 10,000 a month or so and all troops will be out over 1 years time.

The Problem that I am gravely worried about is that once Kerry is now Kerry-Elect. Bush has 3 months to unleash the cracken and to escalate the war on Iraq and based on results. Kerry may have to concede He may have a Mess he wasn't prepared for

John will do just fine as a commander & cheif

[dave502d]

46. He will get them some help.

[smbolisnch]

48. No

Kerry will do what he can to get them the help they need and bring them home faster, but there is no way to just pull out now. We are in a horrible mess. :mad:

[UpsideDownFlag]

50. he wont withdrawel, but hopefully we'll get our allies to go in with us

[PatriotGames]

55. There is no way he will pull out immediately. That is

a political mess waiting to happen if he does. There is a lot of work to be done in Iraq. We can't just leave it and wash our hands of it. Bush has made a mess and Kerry will have to clean it up.

[mike_c]

64. and it's hard work, too....

Forgive my sarcasm, but it takes far greater political courage to admit that your country is on the wrong course and to right it than to simply stand behind the crimes committed by the previous administration-- especially if you disagree with those previous policies. Frankly, my fear is that there are strong elements within the Democratic Party that share the primary objectives underlying the invasion and occupation of Iraq-- the essential objectives outlined by the PNAC-- control of the region's resources and permanent military domination of the Middle East. Perpetual war for perpetual power and boundless profits. :tinfoilhat:

My comments in this regard are NOT meant as an attack on the Democratic Party or its candidate for president, but rather as an attack on a foreign policy direction that I regard as disastrously wrongheaded and immoral! "Staying the course" in Iraq will inevitably continue that foreign policy, no matter who occupies the WH.

on edit: I want to make my statement clearly and unambiguously: if the present policy of militarily occupying Iraq and controlling it through a puppet government installed by the U.S. continues, the PNAC wins, no matter who is President of the United States. Any permanent U.S. military force in the Middle East serves the interests of the fascists at the expense of democracy.

[Dangerman]

63. Look, I don't give a damn...

If Iraq goes into a bloodbath. I want our troops home ASAP once Kerry is in the White House. We illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign country for no good reason (we removed a dictator just for oil and nothing else) and we have to pay the price. If we continue to stay in Iraq, more people will be slaughtered. Sorry, Kerry, but we want our troops home now!

[getoffmytrain]

65. If you're basing the desire to pull out

on the belief that less people will die if we leave immediately, you're wrong. Iraq will spiral into widespread factional fighting that will last decades and far more people will die as a result.

The fact of the matter is, if Kerry wins, he isn't bringing any troops home anytime soon.

[mike_c]

68. "Iraq will spiral into widespread factional fighting..."

Realistically, there is only one way that this might not happen regardless, and that is through the rise of an Iraqi leader that can unite the disparate factions of Iraqi society. Remember that Iraq as a national entity was artificial in the first place, and held together in large measure by dictatorships whose interests were better served by keeping the nation intact.

I do not believe that it is possible for such a leader to arise from the chaos in Iraq, and that unfortunately the best hope for a political solution is another dictatorship that, beginning from the present situation, would have to be far more brutal than Saddam Hussein was. This is one possible legacy of our invasion.

In any event, the rise of such any such leadership, no matter what form it takes, would entail the deaths of MANY MANY American soldiers, because a united Iraqi resistance under a single charasmatic command would be much more deadly than the current partisan fighters.

Absent that unlikely leadership, the factional warfare you describe is inevitable whether we end the occupation today or in a few years. That is the only other possible legacy of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" that I can see.

I think we should end the occupation and work with the U.N. to assist the other ME nations in containing the damage as much as possible. I'm not certain that can be done, but I think its our only hope for pulling something even remotely honorable from this mess.

[getoffmytrain]

80. What's clear is

that when the lines of the nations throughout the ME and Southwest Asia were drawn by primarily the British during the 20th century, they paid virtually no mind to the ethnic, tribal and religious issues that existed and as a result, there has been perpetual infighting in these nations since their very existence.

The fastest way to end the infighting in Iraq is to divide the nation into three separate countries. A Shia one in the south, A Sunni one in the west and a Kurd one in the north (granted... getting Turkey to go along with a 'Kurdistan' would not be easy). Personally, I believe this is inevitable anyway...though, it may be done via war instead of a controlled effort to create the three nations.

This very idea is supported by a significant number of Iraqis as generally speaking, their loyalty is to their ethnic tribe over their country. In my experience, there does not seem to exist an overwhelming sense of nationalism in Iraq.

The infighting that exists in Iraq know is child's play compared to what it would be if coalition forces immediately left the nation. Even with us there, it's going on and with us gone, it would be a severe humanitarian crisis with untold amounts of death.

It's time to look at Iraq realistically, which means that when the various ethnic groups mix or feel out of control, they fight. This is not something a bunch of 'blue helmets' from the UN can fix. It's a naive and misguided approach to think the various 'groups' in Iraq are going to live in peace with one another. They need to each have their own nation, feel like they are in charge of their own destiny and not feel threatened by tribal/religious/ethnic rivalries that are thousands of years old.

[LiberalFighter]

66. He doesn't have to admit defeat

He needs to establish good relations with the Iraqi leadership.
He needs to move out of the current embassy building and establish it somewhere else.
He needs to keep companies like Halliburton out of Iraq that take are crooked and make sure that any companies or individuals doing business in Iraq are properly supervised. Maybe provide a ombudsman program to settle grievances and maintain good relations.
He needs to provide access to resources mainly education and information.
He needs to have an open dialoge with the Iraqi leaders and the people so that we are seen as friends and not enemies.

[camero]

69. No, unfortunately

There's too much oil to be had and the elites won't let him. When asked how he would bring troops home, he should say what he said after Vietnam, "In ships".

[0007]

73. Kerry gotta do the right thing! Bring the troops home!!

 Vote as if your life depended on it, because it does.

Call 866 687-8683
If Poll Workers refuse you to vote for any reason
If there is a late opening or early closing of a polling place.
If your polling place runs out of ballots or has an incorrect ballot
If you experience poll worker insensitivity or discrimination in the voting process

The civil rights community have set up a toll-free Election Day hotline. This line is
staffed now and, in addition to logging your complaint, the civil rights organizations have law
students and attorneys who can provide assistance on Election Day.

the hotline number is
866 687-8683
202 457-0473 fax

When you call the hotline, be prepared to give your name, telephone number, and note as many
details as possible, including the names of the people who are involved.

[faithnotgreed]

81. i dont know when of course but kerry has just said at a rally that we need

to bring the troops home....

i can only imagine that is based at least partially on his repeated calls for immediate legitimate training of iraqi forces plus bringing in other countries

this is a huge mess and we cant expect this debacle to end anytime soon because its a complicated disaster. kerry is awesome and i have every faith in him but we cant put this expectation on his shoulders when this administration has made this a tragedy up and down

and i dont even want to think about the vile hard right within the govt who will make everything harder for kerry and our country no matter what

[nodehopper]

82. no, he is not. he has said as much.

Dean might have. Kerry won't. Kerry is a Democratic Hawk.

[Robbie67]

84. what happened to his "6 months" plan?

I thought I heard something like that he'll get the troops out in 6 months.

[nodehopper]

85. that was before his "we must stay the course" plan

[LittleClarkie]

87. Damn it, give the guy five minutes to catch his breath!

I don't know about you, but I'm electing an honest man into the White House. A man who knows a thing or two about terrorism. And a man who also feels passionately about having been attacked in 9/11.

When he says he wants to go after the terrorists, he's not politicizing the issue. He means it. But he's also smart enough to know that you don't wage a conventional war on terrorism. He would have finished the job in Afghanistan. Iraq might have been part of a subsequent plan, in that we might have sent covert operatives in there to investigate that area as well as many others. He would have gone after terrorist money. He would have fought the drug trade coming out of Afghanistan. He would have done the things that needed doing, even if they were not flashy, and even if much of it was going on behind the scenes.

He would not have invaded Iraq. But now Bush has left us a fubar that MUST be cleaned up. That is the tough but right answer. What would you say to the Iraqi people? "Sorry about the mess. Bye"?

He will at the very least need to help stabilize the country. He will have to show them that he doesn't plan a massive presence in their country the way Bush does. Just by virtue of him not being Bush, it will be a touch better. He will have to give the Iraqi people a reason to trust him. It will not be easy.

He will NOT be Nixon. He. will. do. the. right. thing.

He may not do all the things all the different people in the Democrat Party feel are important. He can't herd the cats. He will do the best he can for the most people he can.

Please, give him the time. Trust him, if only for a little while. Let him have a honeymoon. Don't let your mistrust of Bush rob Kerry of the time he needs to do what should be done. Don't throw medals at him on his inauguration day.

Please.

[Fescue4u]

93. Theres NO time for a honeymoon

..Let him have a honeymoon...

Men will be dying while he's on the honeymoon.

Its impertive that he fix this disaster immediately.

[nodehopper]

101. sorry, I have no illusions about John Kerry

He is a hawk and he is an imperialist. I am voting for him because neolliberalism is in my mind better than neocons and PNAC and because he is better on domestic issues, like abortion, labor and the environment. But I have no doubt that he will continue screwing people abroad as much as Clinton did. I am voting for Anyone But Bush b/c I am afraid of crazy fundies, but I am not going to see John Kerry as Salvation and REturn to Normal. There was no normal, Bush's polities did not create some big rupture with the behavior of the American Empire, he just went about it with unprecedented hubris and everybody noticed because he imported various horrors previously reserved for shenanigans in Chile or wherever onto domestic turf.

I am an activist and my work is cut out for me whether Bush or Kerry win. I am not insane enough like some of my peers to haughtily say that there is no difference between the two so I am voting for Nader. I understand the difference. But I am also not about to be deluded that Kerry is going to do the right thing by Iraq.

[Larkspur]

83. No, Kerry won't pull our troops out of oil rich Iraq

Kerry and the DLC favor PNAC as much as Bush and Cheney do. Kerry may try PNAC with a multinational frontend but Kerry's brand of solving the Iraq situation is just as imperialistic as Bush's. Kerry has never said that he would deal with the local Iraqi leaders and that is the key to solving the mess in Iraq. He just wants Europe to supply him with troops and treasure, but Europe has already said that they won't give troops even if Kerry is elected president.

In the end, if Kerry continues PNAC, US troops will be pushed out of Iraq, just like we were in Vietnam. Iraq will end up with an Islamic state and it is a matter of "when" and "how much," not "if."

[Selatius]

88. Kerry cannot politically end the war quickly

If Kerry said we should leave immediately as according to the wishes of the majority of Iraqis, at least according to the polls in Iraq, Kerry will be destroyed by the Republican propaganda machine and by a complicit news media that lost its ability to examine claims in a critical manner.

If we withdraw immediately, we see the argument that no, we should stay longer because leaving will cause chaos. However, we do not know the future. We cannot tell if staying or leaving will cause more damage. So far, I see we've killed 100,000 Iraqis. At least that's the number I've seen on this board.

I honestly don't think we will see an impressive groundswell of support from nations even if Kerry wins. They all see how bloody this war has been, and I doubt the French or German populations would sit well with the idea of their governments sending troops into a guerrilla war. Didn't the Germans say they wouldn't send troops even if Kerry won? Do you guys think the Russians will help? The Spanish?

I say we split Iraq up into three separate nations. If the three biggest groups in Iraq refuse to live together, then we should not spend money and lives trying to beat them into accepting something they're hard-pressed to accept to begin with. Divide the country up into three pieces, set a date for local elections, a date for provincial elections, and a final date for national elections in the three districts. That way you build a government from the ground-up where the people decide, not the top down like Ayad Allawi.

Regardless if this happens or not, my guess is Kerry is going to have to take years trying to disentangle the US from this mess Bush created, and blood is going to continue to flow during that time. Kerry is a politician now. He has to deal with other factors that a soldier is free from. For Kerry in Vietnam, calling it as it is was easy, but Kerry has to choose his words carefully now and act carefully, deliberately or risk being destroyed by the war Bush started and by the Republican machine.

[Kellanved]

94. yes, German troops for Iraq are unlikely

There is a draft in Germany, thus deployments abroad are extremely unpopular. Money, medical support, and more troops for other anti-terror missions were hinted to be possible (the actual phrase mentioned was "ten times as many troops").

[Fescue4u]

90. My understanding is that he will send MORE troops

to clean up the mess.

In one of the early debates Kerry talked about expanding how many divisions we have and strengthing our military.

[Selatius]

91. He wants to expand the US military by 2 divisions

Or roughly 40,000 more soldiers. Whether they will all end up inside Iraq is a different question, but it's one that begs to be asked.

[Fescue4u]

92. They'll go where they are needed

Iraq is where we are getting our buts kicked.

My question though, how the heck will we get another 40,000 to volunteer?

As it is now we have to require them to stay after their duty over by overt means.

[Kanary]

97. It's time to face the fact that Kerry of 2004 is NOT Kerry of '71.

We've been bombarded with so much of the repeats of Kerry's past, that so many have swallowed the illusion that the past is now the present.

It ISN"T.

Kanary

[m berst]

99. Viet Nam revisited

I see so many of the arguments that I heard in the 60's and 70's justifying the war in Viet Nam on this thread.

- The bloodbath argument - "We can't stop fighting the war because that would result in a lot of people being killed."

- Those primitive natives can't govern themselves - "You don't know what 'they' are like. If we just leave there will be chaos."

- Insider knowledge arguments - "Unless you have been on the ground and seen what it is really like, you don't know what you are saying."

- When something doesn't work, keep trying it arguments - "We made a mess there so we have to stay and clean it up."

- Fine tune the methods and ignore the root causes - "If we had only slibbered the wizits earlier and put in more hadeks we wouldn't have had such a problem there."

- Blind faith arguments - "Kerry is a good man, so even though I don't know what he will do I trust him and that is all I need to know."

- Arguments that discredit and dismiss the insurgents - "They are under-financed and disorganized and fragmented. There is this faction and that faction and then the other."

If the invasion was a crime based on lies - and I believe that to be the case, and so did a growing number of people a year ago - then disucssions about how to do it better, or how to "be realistic" about it or who can do it better, or when and how to stop it all seem a little obscene and inhumane to me. It is as though a rapist were calmly discussing what to do with his kidnapped victim.

The Iraqis say "leave now" and they are the ultimate authority on the subject.

[meganmonkey]

100. you can't lose a war that couldn't be won in the first place

OP said we should pull out "even if it means admitting defeat".
I agree that we should pull out ASAP, but truly there is no 'defeat'. How can we win? What do we mean when we say we have to 'stabilize' Iraq before we can leave? I don't think Iraq can ever be 'stabilized' by an outside force, whether it's * or Kerry as commander-in-chief.
Iraq has no inherent cohesiveness as a nation. It's borders were drawn by colonialism, and the 'factions' within Iraq are primarily cultures with no other connection to one another except this arbitrary nation-state they live in. The only way to stabilize such a population is to install a military dictatorship, which we did 20-some years ago in Saddam Hussein. Oh, the twisted turns of history. Is installing another military dictator 'winning'? No.
Ultimately, I think Iraq will have to splinter apart a la the former Soviet Republics - that whole region is like that. It's crazy shit that our military can't fix.
And wasn't meant to fix. That wasn't BushCo's goal going in. They want this war to go on and on. So if we don't pull out ASAP, we are just letting their agenda continue - the corporate-military-oil-PNAC agenda. We have to get out. I hope Kerry can do that. I doubt he can, though.