No deadline for Iraq pull out

[question everything]

We should not set up dates. First, we broke it and we need to fix it. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, there were no "insurgents" there was no chaos before we intervened.

Yes, of course, I am glad that Hussein is gone but we should have transferred most of the "occupying" jobs to neighboring Arab states who speak the same language, share a similar culture and religion. We should have done it after six months, when every one was still talking about reconstruction and rebuilding.

But, of course we would not let anyone else share in the spoils of war (read oil).

So now we need to set milestones but they should not be in dates but taks.

For example, Iraqis (or soldiers from Arab neighbors - if they' dare) should man those checkpoints from which the two soldiers were abducted and killed.

We need to retreat into a role of advisers, not patrol the streets. If there are not enough Iraqi soldiers, then set rotating curfews.

But just to setting a date of July 1, 2007, or May 15, 2008 is meaningless, smells of politics and if the Democrats will follow this proposal, we can say goodbye to the White House in 2008 and perhaps to even capturing a house in 7 months.

[mike_c]

1. the war against Iraq is a crime against humanity....

We should not set future dates for withdrawal. Only immediate and unconditional withdrawal will stop the crime being committed in our names, under our authority, and ultimately, our responsibility. If our elected representatives won't stop it, they should be replaced.

The war against Iraq is a criminal enterprise, a war of aggression and a crime against humanity.

No argument in favor of any continuation justifies delaying withdrawal, IMO. And war crimes prosecutions for those responsible.

[sandnsea]

2. Milestones were proposed last year

Oh no, couldn't have benchmarks and milestones. That didn't give the Iraqis enough flexibility. So we didn't force Bush to connect troop withdrawal to elections or the seating of officials or any other benchmark. So guess what, no troops have come home despite promises that they would. They won't even put in writing that there won't be permanent bases. They won't do anything without being held to a date. We're another year in even with the July 08 date, that's another 500 troops dead, another 5000 troops wounded, another 50,000 Iraqis dead. Why?

[Sadie5]

3. Years from now we will hear

how he *s played us for fools.

[welshTerrier2]

4. ohhhh, a pottery barner, eh ...

i thought we'd heard the last of the old pottery barn theory ... you know "we broke it; we have to fix it" ...

the problem, my friend, is that by remaining in Iraq the US is "breaking more of it" ... if you want my support for getting out now and providing extensive humanitarian and infrastructure aid, you've got it!!

if you're selling more military occupation as a way to fulfill our obligation to the Iraqi people, forget it ... US occupation in Iraq will never let their wounds heal ...

"Out now" is the only path ... we need to separate a proper recognition of our obligation to repair Iraq from the military occupation that continues to destroy it ... and understand this: bush wants the US military in Iraq to help Big Oil establish its infrastructure there ... it has NOTHING to do with delivering democracy and it certainly has nothing to do with the humanitarian responsibilities you cited ...

[LittleClarkie]

5. It's bugging the stuffings out of me that there are two amendments

The Levins/Reed has no timetable and no deadline. It was supposed to be the "consensus" amendment that the Dems in the Senate came up with as an answer to Kerry's proposal. Only they're annoyed with his "stubbornness" now because he won't back down on the deadline. The best they could do was getting him to back up to July 2007. But they wanted him to drop it altogether. And now the rightwingers taunting him for changing that date, when he didn't even want to.

According to RawStory, even Feingold was willing to drop the date in the interest of "consensus" but Kerry wouldn't budge. The Dems think he's setting a date because he's thinking of 2008, and that setting a date will muck up their chances in 2006.

"How?" I ask.

So that's why there are two. And there are already plans to bring up the Levin/Reed first, and bury Kerry/Feingold into the evening business. Thanks alot, wimps.

Not showing decisiveness is what will muck things up in 2006, not voting on timid little amendments that mean nearly nothing.

I know that Kerry/Feingold doesn't go far enough for your tastes either, but it is still the preferable of the two, no?

[question everything]

6. How did he arrive at this date?

I can see that some do not want any timetable but just a complete withdrawal now. I disagree with this but can understand this.

But setting a date, based on what? And what should the troops be doing until then? I am no military strategist but I think that setting specific goals on limiting our involvement - and if the Pentagon want to keep it a secret, to share it with specific Senate and House members of both parties - fine.

But just to set a date - is it arbitrary? What is supposed to happen by then?

[LittleClarkie]

7. Because the Iraqi's only seem to respond to dates and deadlines

and to leave it open-ended makes for a meaningless amendment.

Setting a date give time for training but makes it clear we expect the Iraqi government to step up and defend itself.

Leaving it open is like a vote for quagmire.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "preferable of the two, no?"

this is a Hobson's choice ...

i no longer trust anything Kerry says ... i took his April proposal as a promise ...

any proposal that provides more time for victory, as Kerry's does, is absurd ... Kerry knows all too well there is no hope left in Iraq ... his proposal is little more than intra-party game playing ...

is it better than the other crap being offered? the answer is that it's a very bad proposal ... comparisons are not warranted here ...

[LittleClarkie]

10. But the proposal you'd want isn't being offered. Now what do you do?

What is the course of action that will produce results?

Personally, I'm heartened that he's being stubborn as hell, and that maverick Feingold is with him.

[welshTerrier2]

11. what do i do?

i criticize those with bad proposals ... i work with local anti-war groups ... i support proposals from the Democratic Progressive Caucus in the House to stop the war ...

and, i vote only for candidates who represent my views on this critical issue ...

first, we had May 22 ... then, after an absurd assessment about the effectiveness of the Iraqi government, we're stuck with 12/31 ... now, after the latest round of calendar roulette, we're offered "leadership" all the way out to 7/1/2007 ... and when the Dems tell him to get lost, and they will, what will Kerry offer next: 12/31/2007 (the Korb plan????) ... or maybe the Dems won't go along with that either ... they might want the issue to persist into the 2008 presidential elections ... will Kerry "lead us to unity" by pushing for 12/31/2008???

and what if a republican gets in and wants to continue the occupation????? maybe, to find common ground, Kerry will push for 12/31/2010 ... of course, if he runs for president, he'll be out of office given that scenario ... maybe someone like Congressman McGovern will make a run for Senate ... his dates are a wee bit less flexible ...

some may feel good because Kerry is "standing up to the party establishment" ... what he's not doing is standing up for the truth in Iraq ... he knows we've failed in Iraq and yet he proposes this happy-talk amendment ... it's truly sad ... i supported him as best i could based on his April proposal; it's obvious my trust was misplaced ... i won't make that mistake again ...

[IndianaGreen]

8. You are going to quote Colin Powell's "we broke it"?

What Staying the Course Means

Let me now admit to having second thoughts on this matter. I no longer am convinced that the U.S. adventure in Iraq is lost. There is no guarantee that the Bush administration cannot succeed in its goals there. The only certain thing is that success -- what the president calls "victory in Iraq" -- will come at the expense of thousands more American deaths, tens of thousands more Iraqi deaths, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Indeed, this war would have to be sustained not only by this administration, but by the next one and probably the one after that as well. For over three years, the United States has supported a massive military presence on the ground in Iraq, while taking steady casualties. It may be no less capable of doing so for the next two-and-a-half years, until the end of Bush's second term -- and during the next administration's reign, too, whether the president is named John McCain or Hillary Clinton. At least theoretically, a force of more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers could wage a brutal war of attrition against the resistance in Iraq for years to come. Last week, in a leak to the New York Times, the White House announced its intention to leave at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years to come. Last week, too, the son of the president of Iraq (a Kurd) revealed that representatives of the Kurdish region are in negotiations with the United States to create a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq's north.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0619-23.htm

[Skittles]

12. once again, do you not understand this???

THERE IS NO FIXING IT

[Monkeyman]

13. Something everyone here should know

DOD is sending Troops with PTSD back to Iraq on meds like Prozac. I am a vet from Nam this med will slow down your reaction time and get you killed or wounded.Bush and his non serving Congress and Senate say they care for the troops and us veterans. Bush's budget for the VA is based on phony numbers GAO reports prove that. Bush is a coward that sends men and women into combat without taken care of them there or at home.

[welshTerrier2]

14. why do so many military families continue to back the GOP?

welcome to DU, Monkeyman !!!

you'll find overwhelming support for veterans on DU ...

thanks for the insights on PTSD and Prozac ... how crazy is that?????

[Clarkie1]

15. Agreed, and I like your username (words to live by). nt