Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CAMPAIGN CONFIDENTIAL: Defunct Dean

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:57 AM
Original message
CAMPAIGN CONFIDENTIAL: Defunct Dean
Hawkish pro-Israel Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief that Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has vaulted in front of former Vermont governor Howard Dean in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Dean's opposition to the Iraq war and his ambiguous statements about Israel antagonized many in this crowd, especially members of the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse Aipac.

"The idea that the Democratic Party was ready to elect someone anti-war was hard to swallow," said one pro-Israel Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "There's definitely a sense of relief."

cut

http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.02.06/news6b.campaigncon.html

An encouraging article about Kerry. It is good to see Dean go down with leftists such as little Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. At least you are willing to admit that Kerry...
...like Lieberman (woops, where'd he go), is pro-Iraq war. I appreciate your willingness to admit that you support Bush's policy of pre-emptive warfare based on lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Of course he was for the war
It's one of many reasons he's kicked Dean's ass across these United States. Democrats, on the whole, supported the war just like Kerry did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Well said
Support for the war among Democrats as a whole is greater then some here believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noon_Blue_Apples Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You speak in past tense

Do most Democrats, in your opinion, still support the war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Most did when Kerry voted on it
As for now, one recent poll suggests that while Republicans overwhelmingly support the decision to go to war, currently the decision is supported by about 40% of Democrats (no word on what percentage opposed versus having another opinion/no opinion). Notably, about 67% of independents still support the decision to go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noon_Blue_Apples Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I understand that

"Most did when Kerry voted on it"

And I (not american) would not hold it against him. But to speak of 'pro-war candidates' - to characterize Kerry as such now would be a real stretch.

Don't you agree?

B


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I do not agree
Kerry is running for the nomination, which means that he needs to lean a bit to the left of his position, which was most definitely pro-war. He was dealing with attacks from his left. Once he is the nominee and is running in the general election, he will move right again and perhaps a bit right of his actual position, since his attacks will be coming from the right. Kerry has tried hard to fudge his war stance so that he can make the transition when the time comes without contradicting himself too badly. He has apparently succeeded quite well in this regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noon_Blue_Apples Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. How do you know his 'true' position

"which was most definitely pro-war."

because it is what you believe?

You state he is a chameleon that will say whatever is politically prudent. The trick is all partisans then believe he is on 'their' side.

Somehow you are immune to this tactics?

B
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Just look at how he voted
It's really not all that complicated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noon_Blue_Apples Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. right, it was 'prudent' at the time

how do you know his true position?

again, how do you know his belly dance did not work on you?

Was it tossing his war ribbons?

B
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Motivations
or whatever may have been going through his head at the time is of little consequence. In the end, it's actions that count. Dis he vote for the IWR? Yes he did. And in case you're under an erroneous impression, I've never said that I am a Kerry supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Noon_Blue_Apples Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Kerry is all about being president - all he is about

The vote was a step in that direction.....Noboby but Kerry knows his true position.

Of course you are not a Kerry supporter...just trying to find some rationalization of your position.

Kerry does not provide that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. How dare you
Threatening to oppose the Democratic nominee and slandering a great American like Joe Lieberman. Please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Let me present the facts.....
Kerry is not yet the nominee...and by the grace of God he will not be....Secondly, Joe Lieberman is as far right that any democrat other than Zell Miller can lean and still qualify under the definition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Your comparison with Zell Miller
is not supported by any facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Your remarks are troubling
Your first paragraph seems to imply you are blaming Israel for starting the war in Iraq. Do you actually mean what it implies?

Your second paragraph is more troubling. Israel deserves suicide bombers? Do you also include Great Britain as deserving of suicide bombers too? I wouldn't label that a "progressive" thought.

Whether you choose to support Lieberman or not is your decision. Being a resident of California he doesn't represent you anyway. If being on television or in the headlines is your criteria, then Janet Jackson or Brittany Spears might be better suited for your support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. "little Kucinich"
Honestly, how vomitously patronising. Still, glad Kerry has given you somewhere to jump ship to now your candidate has been forced to drop out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Kucinich annoys like a flea
He pales in comparison to Joe Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drewb Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to Dennis as
"Little Kucinich"...

He is a democrat, certainly one that leans farther to the left than some people like, but a democrat none the less...

He is also running for President of the United States, the most powerful, most prestigious office in the world...

Let's give him, and all the other candidates, some degree of respect please.

:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Begging your pardon
I see great disrespect for Joe Lieberman at this site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drewb Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Not from me Mr. Herschel.
I respect Mr. Lieberman as well. I don't often agree with him, but I refuse to call him names.

:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. Well, Lieberman's out.
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 05:48 PM by Darranar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. In reality, so are Kucinich and Sharpton
It's all about ego and agenda for them now, if it was ever about anything else. Lieberman was a realistically viable candidate for a little while. Neither Sharpton nor Kucinich nor Mosely-Braun ever were. It'll be interesting to see if either Dennis or Al get to speak at the convention. I predict that they will not but I could be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. I think you may be wrong
Sharpton is more than capable of holding his supporters "hostage" if he doesn't get a platform to speak. More than likely he will be offered something NOT in prime time.

Kucinich probably will get something. Maybe as a nominater for the parties candidate (assuming a non-brokered convention)in a show of party solidarity. This is not the time to diss Dennis' supporters. They may be few in numbers but they are very vocal.

I think he has earned a modicum of respect lately and it would serve no purpose to not show some at the convention. Remember the sole purpose of this election is to get rid of *bush. It will not be done if various elements of the party are estranged.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. I agree
Also, the longer these candidates stay in, the more press will be given to the Democrats. What should NOT happen is a run away victory so that the primary becomes a non-event to the media.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. The problem with giving Sharpton
and, to a much lesser degree, Kucinich (and even Dean) a prominent platform at the convention is that they can do for the Democrats what Pat Buchanan did for Bush I in 1992. Namely, blow the election. I am convinced that had Pat not given the speech from hell (alienating moderates at a record pace), Bush may well have beaten Clinton in what was a very, very close election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Here's where you are 100% correct
Sharpton has the potential to pull a "Buchanon". He is the main problem. He has in the past been the Democrat's worst nightmare. Just return to the latest mayoralty race in NYC. His non-support of Mark Green cost him the race. NYC demographics of approximately 80% Democrats would have never lost a race to Bloomberg even with Giuliani wrapped around his shoulders had Sharpton given Green his support. The Giuliani support counts more in the rest of the country than it does in NYC. So don't expect a "prominent" platform for Sharpton but do expect something.

Dean is the big unknown. Assuming he doesn't achieve the nomination, how he performs when and if he becomes a non-factor will go a long way to determining his role at the convention. Claims real or not of a third party candidacy will be the deciding factor. A third party candidacy will guarantee victory for *bush and people will never forgive him for that. Why he even allows the rumors to linger is a mystery to me. Even as a campaign tactic that will come back to bite him big time. He comes off at least in my eyes as a spoiled child in that regard.

Kucinich has the most to lose personally if he pulls a "Buchanon". From a relatively unknown member of the House, he has at least gotten the name recognition he never had before. Aside from a small core of hardcore supporters, most people couldn't pronounce or spell his name. When he finally withdraws from the race and he will, he has gained more for himself than any other candidate. His star is rising and whether it's as Governor or Senator he won't be going back as Dennis "Who" after this campaign. Why would he want to jeopardize that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. I don' t think Sharpton will
Though he like other candidates does have the ability. Sharpton has run before and has moved on as the primary finished up. Truthfully I was thinking more about the fourway between Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Dean. This interplay is excellent for Dems everywhere. I do not see the divisiveness here which would alienate their supporters when 3 of them end up loosing the primary.

Note: Outside of Kerry and perhaps Dean, the rising star analogy you gave Kucinich also applies to Edwards and Clark should they not win the nomination. I do NOT see any of them giving a sour grapes kind of speech.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. You haven't spent enough time with NYC politics.
Sharpton is about Sharpton. He has turned his "civil rights' agenda into his own personal cottage industry. He has cozied up to more than just this nut in Florida. When Sharpton "moves on" you can bet there are $$$$ on that path. He is a Democrat like *bush is a compassionate conservative.

Sharpton NEVER "moves on" in the way that others move on. He knew damn well that not endorsing Mark Green was going to give Bloomberg the Mayor's position. Giuliani won mainly because of the way Dinkin's handled the Crown Heights affair and the Korean grocery store boycott. Dinkins is a nice person on a social level but was totally overwhelmed by the office he held. Dinkins was the Manhattan county clerk before becoming its Mayor. The main function of that office is to issue marriage licenses. Dinkins also had too many low lifes as advisers surrounding him. Dinkins was the protege of Percy Sutton who in turn was the protege of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Not too many positive traits in that gene pool.

A Democrat should win in NYC just by getting up in the morning unless you are totally out to lunch as was Ruth Messinger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Maybe so
Sharpton is about Sharpton. He has turned his "civil rights' agenda into his own personal cottage industry. He has cozied up to more than just this nut in Florida. When Sharpton "moves on" you can bet there are $$$$ on that path. He is a Democrat like *bush is a compassionate conservative.

I don't disagree with you that he is in it for his own agenda. His last trip here proves it. For a fundraiser were he only raised $50K, he and his whole entourage stayed at one of the most expensive hotels for several days - the bill came very close to the 50K mark.

What I do disagree with is that I think he won't ruin it because it would not be to his advantage in the long run.

A Democrat should win in NYC just by getting up in the morning unless you are totally out to lunch as was Ruth Messinger.

Again you are right about me not being close to NYC politics, but this has always been my understanding of the city as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Learn more about the good Reverend here
The Flip-Flops of Al Sharpton

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088225

Trust me, if he found an advantage he will take it faster than a hooker grabbing a ten dollar bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Indeed
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 07:24 PM by Herschel
Quite sad. We can hope the Democratic party does not turn from moderation toward being overly liberal. This would be disastrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. What constitutes being "overly liberal"?
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 07:30 PM by Darranar
Being against disasterous wars for questionable purposes?

Being for gay rights and gay marriage?

Being for a reasonable health care system similar to that of Canada?

Being against corporate welfare?

Being against high and wasteful military spending?

Being against Bush's tax cuts for the rich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. The war in Iraq was just
Investment in defense and homeland security are vital at this time. This is not the forum to discuss the other issues. I will leave it at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I didn't know...
that slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians and losing hundreds of US troops to destroy a nation's nonexistent WMDs was just.

Also, the US has created another terrorist haven, and have increased the power of the same organizations we were told Saddam was harboring (another lie).

Not to mention the fact that billions of dollars that could be better used in other places are being flushed into this quagmire, much of it incidentally going to Halliburton and other US firms with ties to the Bush Administration.

And, in entering this quagmire, the US has taken away money, resources, and manpower that could be better used stablizing Afghanistan and destroying the remnants of Al Qaeda there.

So, how exactly was the war just?

Corporate welfare disguised as "defense funding" is not beneficial to our national security, and that wasted money could be better spent improving the social programs currently far from sufficient in the task of actually helping our nation's poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. The war liberated Iraqis
and eliminated a threat to America and her allies. The world is safer now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. How exactly was it a threat?
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 08:06 PM by Darranar
And how exactly is a chaotic nation now filled with terrorists as a result of the invasion not a threat to America and her allies?

How exactly did refusing to finish the job in Afghanistan by allocating the necessary resources to Iraq instead improve the security of the world?

As for liberation...

From HRW, on deaths of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad during the Occupation:

Based on interviews with witnesses and family members, Human Rights Watch confirmed the deaths of twenty Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in legally questionable circumstances between May 1 and September 30. Eighteen of these deaths are documented in this report. In addition, Human Rights Watch collected data on civilian deaths by U.S. forces from the Iraqi police, human rights organizations, Western media and U.S military statements on the topic. In total, Human Rights Watch estimates the U.S. military killed ninety-four civilians in questionable circumstances. Human Rights Watch did not verify each of these individual cases but, taken as a whole, they reveal a pattern of alleged illegal deaths that merit investigation.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/1.htm#_Toc54183720

Human Rights Watch on the use of cluster munitions in Iraq:

The United States and United Kingdom are failing to provide adequate data on their cluster munition strikes in Iraq, and this lack of information is endangering Iraqi civilians, Human Rights Watch charged today.

The U.S. Department of Defense has acknowledged using nearly 1,500 air-dropped cluster bombs, but has not revealed any information about ground-launched cluster munitions, which may have been much more numerous. The U.K. Ministry of Defense has admitted to using more than 2,000 cluster munitions, but like the Pentagon, it has not provided detailed information that deminers need to clear “dud” submunitions, which pose hazards to civilians.

“The United States and United Kingdom need to come clean on what they’ve done with these weapons,” said Reuben Brigety, researcher with the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. “They are not doing all they can to protect civilians from the deadly after-effects of their cluster attacks.”

Submunitions from artillery projectiles and multiple launch rockets, as well as aircraft cluster bombs, may have produced tens of thousands of hazardous duds in numerous locations in Iraq, including urban areas, Brigety said. He urged the United States and United Kingdom to provide adequate warnings to civilians, including realistic images of dud submunitions, and assist in all ways possible with the clearance of cluster munition duds.


http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us-uk042903.htm

According to a report in yesterday’s Newsday, a Central Command spokeswoman has anonymously confirmed that U.S. forces have hit urban areas of Baghdad with cluster munitions, stating that they were aimed at Iraqi artillery and missile systems located inside the city.
“U.S. commanders should never use cluster munitions in populated areas,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “These are wholly inappropriate weapons when civilians are around. The reported use of cluster munitions in Baghdad is a serious charge and the Pentagon must respond publicly to it.”

Newsday’s reporter provided Human Rights Watch with a photograph he had taken inside a building in what he described as a clearly residential neighborhood well inside Baghdad. Human Rights Watch identified an unexploded cluster submunition in the photograph from either a ground-based Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) or an artillery projectile. The damage to the surrounding walls and floor were also consistent with a cluster munition strike. Human Rights Watch has previously reported that, according to The Pentagon’s own data, these particular submunitions have an especially high failure rate.
********************************************
Human Rights Watch believes that the use of cluster munitions in populated areas may violate the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law. Despite the utility of cluster munitions in achieving certain military objectives, the wide dispersal pattern of their submunitions makes it very difficult to avoid civilians if they are in the area. Moreover, because of their high failure rate, cluster munitions leave large numbers of hazardous, explosive duds to terrorize civilians even after the attack is over.

The U.S. Army and Marine Corps may be taking less care to avoid civilian casualties with surface-delivered cluster munitions than the U.S. Air Force with air-delivered cluster munitions, Human Rights Watch said.
**********************************
It seemed that after Yugoslavia, U.S. commanders learned that cluster munitions cannot be safely used in populated areas,” said Roth. “The use of cluster munitions inside Baghdad represents a disturbing step backwards – with deadly consequences.”

It is not yet known if there were civilian casualties at the time of the strike, but Newsday reported on several deaths and injuries to children and others who encountered the explosive duds left by the cluster munitions which failed to detonate on initial impact as designed. The duds function as de facto antipersonnel landmines


http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraqclusterbombs.htm

Amnesty International on civilian deaths:

Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the mounting toll of civilian casualties in Iraq and the reported use of cluster bombs by US forces in heavily populated areas. Despite repeated assurances from US and UK authorities that they would do everything possible to protect the Iraqi people, since 20 March hundreds of civilians have reportedly been killed. Some have been victims of cluster bombs; some have died in attacks in disputed circumstances. The attacks in the vicinity of civilian targets continue and are likely to escalate as fighting moves into Baghdad.
***********************
The attack at al-Hilla's hospital on 1 April was an example of indiscriminate killing of civilians and a grave violation of international humanitarian law," Amnesty International emphasized.
***********************
"The devastating consequences of using cluster bombs in civilian areas are utterly predictable. If, as accounts suggest, US forces dropped cluster bombs in residential areas of al-Hilla, even if they were directed at military targets, this would be a grave breach of international humanitarian law," Amnesty International said. "An independent and thorough investigation must be held and those found responsible for any violations of the laws of war should be brought to justice. The US and UK authorities should order an immediate halt to the further use of cluster bombs. "

Iraqi civilians have also been placed at greater risk of being killed or injured by US and UK forces as a result of tactics used by the Iraqi military that violate international humanitarian law, such as perfidious attacks. Amnesty International is also concerned about reports that Iraq has been locating military forces and weaponry in close proximity to civilians in order to shield them from attack


http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140752003?open&of=ENG-390

This might be of interest as well:

http://www.medact.org/tbx/docs/Coll%20Dam%202.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Noon_Blue_Apples Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Army of One

the DU pro-war, pro neo-con doctrine liberals

ya, sure

"The idea that the Democratic Party was ready to elect someone anti-war was hard to swallow," said one pro-Israel Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity." - most cowards tend to want to be anonymous.

B

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. Dean is not a "leftist"...
he is a dishonest centrist with an interest in fooling the Left into supporting him. He supported the Iraq war until it was politically convienient for him not to.

"Little" Kucinich is by far the best candidate in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Based on the recent voting public,
not many Democrats agree with your position concerning Kucinich.

As they say in show biz - This show will not be opening on Broadway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Not many Democrats agree with plenty of my positions.
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 05:03 PM by Darranar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GabysPoppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I would agree with that assessment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC