Given recent events in Iraq... how do you feel about DKs solution?

I heard a lot of criticism regarding Kucinich's plan to pull out and send the UN in. A lot of people felt we should stay years as Kerry et al suggested, and that DK was nuts.

I thought it may be a better idea to stay in to stabilize, but it is clear to me now that the situation will likely get worse the longer we stay in. I am thinking early Vietnam here.

The situation is this - Bush fu**ed us, the Iraqis, and any other partys involved the moment the first US soldier stepped foot on Iraqi soil.

If we stay in a hell of a lot of Iraqis are going to die. If we leave a hell of a lot of Iraqis are going to die.

I think there is no way around it. This will go down as one of the worst military blunders of history.

It seems to me DK was right. We should pull out. All hell will break loose, but you know if we stay in the same thing is going to happen. At least if we pull out the Iraqis will form some kind of government.

Will it be worse than Saddams? Quite possibly. But there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Bush assured this from day one.

Only a delusional die hard republican is naive enough to believe that an American created government will last after US forces leave and everything will be roses afterwards. I give it 5 minutes from the time US soldiers leave to full scale civil war. Why delay the inevitable and cost MORE Iraqi and allied lives?

I'm not even sure it would be a good idea to bring in the UN. You don't bring democracy at the point of a gun. Sorry, it just doesn't work. History has shown us what happens in these types of situations, and Iraq will be no different.

I know it sounds cold, but we all knew from the moment this damn thing was proposed what would happen if we went in. It's time to face the facts. No one can make this idiot endeavor work. I don't care who you have in the white house. It's just not going to happen.

There's only one way to fix this - and that's never to have let Bush go in to begin with. Unfortunately we can't change the past.

If we had listened to him more people and kids would be a live and everyone wouldn't hate us.

Staying in Iraq only compounds the problem. If shrub really believes that iraq can support democracy on its own then why are we still there? (rhetorical question) We got rid of Saddam - the Iraqis could have managed that w/o our help if we had let them. The oil companies are telling us that we can have alternative energy when they get around to givng it to us. In the meantime there're going to screw us over the old-fashioned way. I say fuck them. Buy a Honda Prius, or take public transit. Put up solar panels. We can take control of our own destiny now. Lasso them out of their SUVs and stick them in a hummer with a bunch of baptist missionaries in Iraq. See what kind of gas milege they get.

Thanks for a thoughtful post with some great (albeit sad) humor.

Your vision is 20/20

Kanary

what our government does.

Me, I'm of the mind that the Republicans broke it, now we have to fix it. That's what Democrats do. Fix things that Republicans break.

Kerry, when elected, should go to Congress and say we will pull back our troops once the UN takes over political control. US troops will be replaced with UN troops. The US will underwrite the costs of rebuilding the infrastructure that we've destroyed...includuing their oil wells. If Iraqi's can't get their political act together, then the UN should eventually prepare for the balkanization of Iraq.

The UN is far too ineffective to stabilize Iraq.

You're kidding, right? Is it irresponsible to quit pouring water on an electrical fire?

Better at forcing a permanent military presence there that the Iraqis don't want?

The US goal is to have a permanent military presence there. No way in hell will a democratic Iraq accept that. I posted the following a month ago, and it already looks like things are getting out of hand even without Sistani weighing in.

KERRY AND THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO EXPLICITLY DISAVOW THE GOAL OF A PERMANENT LARGE-SCALE MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

This is completely separate from the question of how to get Iraq stable enough to remove outside forces. It ought to be plain to anyone by now that removal of WMDs, and even removal of Saddam, was never the administration goal. They tell the truth among themselves, though they rarely disseminate it in the teevee prolefeed put out for popular consumption.

The American goal in Iraq happens to be a large permanent military presence in Iraq. It absolutely cannot be achieved, other than by locking down the population with methods that would make Saddam Hussein look like Mother Teresa. What will the Democratic Party platform have to say about this?

The goal, direct from the horses’ mouths--

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17923

Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East.”

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Houston, we have a problem. This is what the most influential leader of 60% of the Iraqi population (the 60% that has been relatively quiet about the occupation so far, by the way) thinks about that. It is pretty clear that the ‘coaling station’ goal is absolutely unacceptable to him and the people he speaks for.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5757.htm

Iraqi Shiite Leader Seyyid Ali Al-Sistani yesterday warned that he would call for an intifada (uprising) if American soldiers stayed in Iraq after the handover of power on June 30, 2004. He also insisted that there should be a significant role for the Shiite in the future administration of the country, as they make up the majority of the population.

Sistani spoke to the German magazine Der Spiegel and said: "The U.S. presence in Iraq should not be prolonged. The Iraqi public knows how to act. If the U.S. presence is drawn out longer than necessary, I will call for an intifada." The necessary posters reportedly have already been printed and are awaiting distribution to every corner of the country.

Even if someone can negotiate with Sistani to postpone this, it is clear that the occupation cannot stand in the long run. What are the plans if the situation blows up before the election, if any? If it comes to a head in the first year of a Kerry administration, then what? If unauditable voting machines put Bush in again, what will the Democratic leadership do? What will happen to our troops over there if the situation blows sky-high?

All we are doing there is killing people and children. How is that helping?

Maybe you're right and everyone will live happily every after once we disengage and come home. But if a full blown civil war occurs because of the power vacuum we have created, is that something you want to have Kerry tagged with? I don't.

I also think Kucinich has stated that the UN should be engaged in the political transformation of Iraq...so I don't think that what I stated earlier is off the mark.

My gut reaction would be to, yes, pull out completely and let the factions fight each other. But you are correct. A full blown civil war with a lot of killing and misery will be the fault of this country - regardless of who sits in the White House.

Instead of the U.N, I would love to have peace keeping troops comprised of its neighbors only. Cousins, if you like, who would not appear as Westerners descending on them. Troops who understand the language, who can sympathize with their life.

Dreaming, I know. Sigh..

"Thousands must die, or thousands will die"

Perfect summation.

Kanary

I'd rather tag Kerry with that than the death of my son. How about you?

I'd rather tag our military as defenders of OUR country, not killers of the citizens of another. How about you?

Iraq is NOT my country...it is the Iraqis country. If Iraqis want to murder each other then I guess that's their call.

RC

Don't fool your self it thinking we can.

Anyone short of god him self sitting in the white house couldn't "fix it".

This is the same kind of logic that got us in this mess to begin with.

So, bush thought he could "fix it". You think you can "fix it" too? I wonder if the Iraqis want you to fix it anymore than they want bush to fix it?

But we can't walk away and just say "sorry, we didn't mean it". This was done in our name and we need to accept the responsibility to fix it. Kerry has to transfer this police action over to the UN and we need to pay for the infrastructure damage that 35 years of US policy has helped to create. I think my definition of fixing things is rather different from Dimson and the neocons who made this happen.

Do you think an american solider will look any different to the Iraqis with kerry in the white house?

Let's put you in place of an iraqi resistance member. You just heard kerry is now president of the united states.

You either:

1. Say "Oh joy! Kerry is now president. Suddenly that american tank on my street doesn't look so bad to me. and those civilians the americans have killed thus far? well hell, all is forgiven!"

or

2. "Oh kerry is now president of the united states? I could give a fu**. Time to go try out my new RPG on that tank"

We *have* to leave. We can NOT fix this. Tell me, if you thought it was REALLY possible to go in to iraq and "fix it" why did you oppose this war to begin with? (as I assume you did) If you REALLY believe that is possible, shouldn't you be all for it? And considering it is now possible to bring democracy by occupying, disposing of the current gov, and building another - well, we have a LOT of nation building to do.

It doesn't matter if your definition of "fixing things" is better if you can't bring it about. Anyone who thinks we can falls in to the same category as those who believed Iraqis would be showering us with flowers.

The BEST thing we can do to apologize is to have charges brought against the criminals in the white house, leave, and do everything we can to help from OUTSIDE. (i.e. send food, med supplys, etc. and try to get UN peace keepers in place preferably as many from middle eastern nations as possible)

ended...and I was never a supporter of this action to begin with.
I agree that the Iraqi's always had the option of deposing of SH via their own civil war of democracy...if that had been their desire. It should not have been our decision to decide this. And, of course, it was never about "Saddam is evil" or nation-building...it was a war for oil, bases, and lining the pockets of Republican business owners.

But I think we are setting up the people of Iraq for more anarchy, death, and destruction unless we get the UN in and let them deal with developing an Iraqi-based political solution. Walking away from a train wreck in progress, created by our hand, won't win us any friends there. Long after they forget Bush, they'll remember America as the source of their misery.

Dennis is one of the few that opposed this war and he is still my candidate although I know I am forced to vote for Kerry and possibly a VP candidate that approved of the this war and this slaughter.

There is no way around it--Kerry voted for the war. And now, he is strapped because he did not follow his conscience and vote against it like Kucinich, who apparently has his integrity still intact. Kerry was playing the politics of the thing. Ten thousand died not only because of the evil Bush, but because a majority of our supposed representatives played the politics of the thing. I admire Dennis for what he did and I admire another man of integrity, Senator Robert Byrd. The rest of them are playing politics and it makes a little bit of a stench.

It is Kerry's stumbling block. All he can do is set out what mistakes "Bush is making now in his handling of Iraq AFTER the war.

We should NOT have invaded in the first place. If millions could see the lies that were so obvious coming out of the lying mouths of Bush and Powell, then there is NO reason why anyone with more access to facts and the inner workings of Washington could NOT see it.


Our system is broken and for this I cannot forgive Kerry or any that did vote for this slaughter and are now coming up will all sorts of ways we can "fix" it.

Bleh

The man knows history, he knows diplomacy, and he knows *people*. He saw clearly what the score was, and was undoubtedly crying inside because he knew there was so little understanding of the situation.

I was brought up to understand that you clean up the messes you make. You don't expect maid service to come in behind you and clean it all up. So, I also thought it was our responsibility to make it right. But, when I listened to Dennis, I understood that my childhood teaching just didn't apply in this instance. Those willing to hear him learned something, and got the point.

It's *very* sad that he is being proven right, and I'm sure he, himself, would have preferred a sunnier outcome.

Sometimes it really hurts to have been proven right.

Now, it's not going to be an easy matter to convince Kerry or the rest of the DLC, until it gets *much* worse.

Kanary, sick at heart

must FORCE the *cartel, that has stolen practically EVERYTHING of value from them, to bring their kids home. DK is right.

It is way past time to cut and run. Get out now.

We've squandered blood and treasure enough. Far more than enough.

This hole (or perhaps I should say grave?) is deep enough. Let's quit digging.

...leadership, IMO.

I just don't understand how many times people have to say that. The only place to get over 100,000 troops is from US. That is and always has been the problem with Dennis' "plan". It isn't a plan at all.

We have to turn over governance and reconstruction to the UN, yes. But the military and security operation on the ground would be US troops, no matter what. We can bring in a NATO umbrella in order to get some troops from other countries and take the face of Americanism off the occupation, but there is no way we would be able to pull all our troops out.

They would have a new Commander, not the Chimp-in-chief. The UN won't go in unless command is turned over to them, which is what is needed. Most Iraqis I'm sure would understand that it's not the American soldier at fault but the chain of command he must follow.

We never, and I mean never, turn over control of our troops to anybody. The UN will go in if we turn over governance and reconstruction control. NATO will go in if we operate the same way we have in Kosovo and Bosnia, which is under an umbrella where we retain control of our troops. That's the way it's done.

will be the death of many thousands more iraqis (and perhaps american soldiers). Good job.

I find it amusing we expect other nations to turn over troops to the UN, but we are exempt. Foolish.

that is all Kerry or anyone who voted for this invasion can do

It is all that is left for them.

Either they approved of this or they did not. Fixing it now, after the slaughter has occureed and continues to occur, is merely window dressing for a candidate that wants to win.

Kerry voted for the war. There was NO mention of any UN at all in the entire vote.

Period--there is no sense in defending him to those of us who know the truth because we will vote for him and we are forced to vote for him. He knows this. It is a moot point now.

After his vote to approve and to give Bush a blank check, he has to look like a sensible and stable, hero and try to fix it. It was wrong and here we have another man who cannot admit to a mistake. :eyes:

You cannot fix the slaughter of thousands of human beings because they are dead already and they are dead because the US of America invaded with the support of a majority of people in our congress who seem to have forgotten that it is congress who declares war and not a stupid, ignoramus who stole and election' The Iraqi people are burying their children in their gardens. They were murdered in the Shock and Awe--and were murdered in their beds as theyu slept--children, babies, pregnant women old men for crying out loud.

We KNEW this. WE protested. It was done by our country and it was WRONG.

It is also WRONG to lend credence and support to Ariel Sharon and his band of merry killers.

What is the matter with them all?

If you're enforcing UN resolutions, who the hell are you going to exercise "diplomatic means" through except the UN???

"(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

And I must say, I'm not at all impressed with your protests or anybody else's. People protested the Afghanistan war. People protested the Iraq sanctions. People protested the 1998 bombing. People protested the 1991 war. A certain percentage of people just flat out love to protest. If a semi full of free food were given to them, they'd protest that it was grown with pesticides. Some people confuse protests with active problem solving. They aren't remotely the same thing.

or not. Common sense prevails and in this case millions all over the world protested and we do, in spite of your disdain toward protestors, or the "fringe", did and do have a voice. It turns out we were right.


I do not have this slaughter on my conscience because I did all I could do to stop it as a common citizen.

I am ashamed that my country performed this slaughter with the full consent of the majority of those in congress who are supposedly vested with the sole, but by now, outdated, authority to declare war.

They who did not stop it, were playing politics.

There was and is good reason for that in our Constitution. It has been ignored for so long after WW 2 that it is moot. Congress in this case, simply rolled over and gave a man who was not elected, a blank check to do what he would to the Iraqi people. It is the biggest shame of it all. And Kerry was a part of that.

We will be forced to vote for him. I am not enthralled by him. I will vote for him because I do not have much of a choice. HE is better than Bush and Cheney and that does not say much, because he apparently thinks it was just fine and dandy to invade Iraq and may think the same if he does take office of invading Iran or any other.

How do we know? He voted for this slaughter.

You apparently, did not think youhad a voice. You must have approved of this slaughter.

I hope you do sleep well at night.

Sorry, protesting isn't a solution. Maybe it helps you sleep at night, but it didn't do anything for those Saddam was slaughtering while we were "containing" him.

the Iraqis can look forward to a leader who will quite possibly be worse.

Anyway you look at it they are screwed. Best thing would have been to let the Iraqis get tired of it, internally rebel, and hope they chose their new form of government (for themselves) wisely.

Then you would have been concocting some sort of scenario where we let that happen on purpose too, Democrat or Republican. Some people just like to hate the US for everything and that is true.

Well, I suppose you may be correct that "Some people just like to hate the US for everything and that is true." But I don't think you'll find many of those people around here.

Then again, some people just like to believe that everything the US does is pure and good and that is true. Wouldn't you say?

It's a long (albeit convenient and often taken) jump from admitting that the US has made some enormous mistakes around the world, the latest adventure being one of the biggest of those, and hating "the US for everything." Do you see the difference at all?

How many people had Saddam Hussein gassed in the last 15 years? Do you know? Do you have any reason to believe that he was about to start up again (especially since his supplier had long since stopped doing business with him, except for a few choice oil deals involving one of the current leaders of that supplier).

"Gassed his people" is a really convenient inflammatory phrase, but it has no bearing on the current mess.

We as a nation are obsessed with control.

It's so difficult for us to realize that we can't control everything. That's the wisdom of DK... he understands that at a deep level.

Yes, the Iraqi people know they are screwed no matter what, so they have nothing left to lose. Put people in the position where they have nothing left to lose, and you've really set off a time bomb.

Oh crap.

Kanary

and now, that the evil deed has been done, with the consent of the congress and Kerry, everyone is challenging those who did not want this, to do somehting about it.

Well hell- it is a little late and two cents short.

It is to the point where all are now rushing to find a solution because Bush went in with the full consent of the congress who gave his a blank check

whoop de do

We all know now what the cure is, right?

Let Iraq have Kuwait? That's a solution.

By many reliable accounts Saddam thought he had the nod from Bush the first time. Saddam was our man in Baghdad for years - even during the gassing period.

1. We could have not gone in (Iragis get rid of Saddam with our support)
2. We could have gone in, gotten rid of Saddam and any WMD???? and left with kudos
3. We can stay, slaughter half the population and get what Exxon wants

Can you spot the cheneybush option?

Iraq was fixin' to invade Kuwait again?

Last I heard, this was a discussion about the current situation in Iraq. You are, of course, pretending that the previous poster's "shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place" refers to GulfWarDaddy.

I respectfully submit that you are being disinegenuous.

Sorry, protesting isn't a solution.

It's certainly the first step towards a solution, but when the pResident responds by saying how nice America is because all views can make themselves heard it's obvious that protest isn't working. Simply put, the pResident chose to ignore the thousands of Americans and the millions worldwide who protested. He did that because he can... because we let him.

I remember reading that protesters in Seattle were criticized because they blocked traffic and people couldn't get to work on time.

Well, tough!

The protests were fine for a start, but when we saw that we were being dismissed it was time to "inconvenience" the people who were dismissing our concerns. I'm talking about non-violent civil disobedience.

Yes, a few hundred individuals would pay and it would be hard. No way of telling which ones they might be. I guess most of us thought it was more important to get back home get on with our routine lives.

I'm totally among the chicken-hearted. I really don't want to visit Cuba at Guantanamo. Still, I wonder. Someone has to take a stand, and they can't arrest thousands of us. I got on with my life after the protests but thousands of Iraqis didn't have that choice, and I really didn't care deeply enough to want to make absolutely certain that someone would give them that choice. Those are the hard facts.

I'm not happy with that. There were lots of bystanders in Nazi Germany also. I wonder how they lived with that.

Now, people are talking about voting for Kerry although he isn't who they'd really prefer. I wonder how we will live with that.

Are we really free?

the numbers participating were too overwhelming to just make a few arrests. I'm afraid your next step will have to be civil disobedience in the form of sit-ins and other disruptive but non-violent tactics that interfere with business as usual. They have to be large too.

A small group will be arrested and charged as law-breakers. When a large segment of the population shows up that includes all kinds of Americans across the board, then it becomes impossible to criminalize the the dissenters. Then it has to be seen as a revolution.

What about those who protested when we went to war over Kuwait? And those who protested the sanctions? And those who protested the fly-overs and bombings? And those who pointed the finger when we didn't back the Iraqi uprising after the first war and let them all die? And those who point the finger over Rwanda?

And what about those who protested the wire tapping and new laws the FBI wanted after OKC? And those who now point the finger because the FBI didn't do enough to stop 9/11?

Protesting every single thing this country does is not taking real responsibility to make change. And those who pat themselves on the back because they "protested" while lamblasting those who actually have to put up real solutions are sad substitutes for real civic activism.

I'm fed up with hearing "I knew" and "I protested" as an answer to Saddam Hussein. These people make short-term "statements" without having to take the responsiblity of solving long-term problems.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein was right. Lying about WMD, circumventing the UN, ignoring the world community and manipulating the press and the people in order to start a war was wrong. George Bush did that and ONLY George Bush. But doing absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein would have been just as immoral.

Since when does a self-serving resolution by an aggressor constitute evidence of much of anything? The Fierce Warrior Chieftain and his minions had decided they wanted to invade Iraq. Part of their PR program was to proclaim that they were enforcing the will of the UN (that useless debating society).

As I recall, the UN had the opportunity to endorse the US position. As I recall the Fierce Warrior Chieftain proclaimed that he was demanding an up or down vote on it, regardless of the outcome. As I recall, that vote never occurred.

So your point in posting this is what?

As I understand it (and I stand ready for firm, but gentle correction), you intend this to stand for the proposition that, for Pete's sake, the US was merely doing the bidding of the UN. I'm afraid, if that is your argument, it seems hard to square it with the facts.

UN has NO troops

The UN has member nations that do have troops. Don't you think that the Germans, the French, the Russians, and the Chinese have troops? Even the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and the Indians have troops. They also have medical personnel and relief organizations. With a common goal, there would be no problem for them to work together.

The US needs to do what it can do easily... pay the cost of reconstruction and reparations. For once in our history, maybe we can stop arming nations to fight one another and start paying to create peace. Yeah, it would probably take one helluva bite out of our economy if we couldn't sell our weapons and instruments of torture to the rest of the world, but surely we can find something else to do with all the creativity and ingenuity that's in the American workers.

There just aren't enough troops without US troops to handle the security in Iraq. That's just the way it is.

India, after all, has only 1.1 million people in its army. That could, conceivably be a place to start. They have (amazing!) experience with UN peacekeeping missions.

The problems with getting together a UN force of non-Americans are mainly two: (1) cost and (2) willingness.

The cost part wouldn't be all that hard to take care of. Instead of spending $87 billion dollars on equal parts military spending and graft, the US could simply take that money and turn in over to the UN. That'd pay for a substantial UN peacekeeping force -- maybe as big as, or bigger than, the current US occupation force.

As to willingness, it would probably be easier to interest countries in participation if the US presence was not there, thus changing the identification of the military presence to peacekeeping, rather than invaders transformed into occupiers.

As to your assertion elsewhere that US troops could not be placed under UN command because we never ever do that: There's a first time for everything, and this might be a pretty good place to start. It is, after all, just another example of American exceptionalism. Maybe it's time to start practicing some of the humility the Fierce Warrior Chieftain was so hot about back when he was the Humble Uniting Candidate.

We definitely need to physically get out of there ASAP. We also have an obligation to help the Iraqis and the UN financially to reconstruct what we destroyed.

That being done we need to charge the Bush administration and the PNAC with war crimes and bring them to trial. Letting them go free with no consequences will not change the danger the world is in in the foreseeable future. They must be held accountable for their crimes.

One thing that I find so curious, and which to me smacks of the often unconcious racist underpinnings of this whole sordid affair is the American certitude that ALL-HELL-WILL-BREAK-LOOSE if the Iraqis are left to their own devices. It's an assumption of superiority and infantalization of a people with systems MUCH OLDER THAN YOU and yours. I have to ask, "What's it to you?" (DJ, got any Robbie Neville in that bin)? :shrug:

all met in Damascus to set up new governments in the ME after defeating the Turks. The British didn't think they could do anything and were ready to sit back and wait for chaos to rise before stepping in. The shieks to their surprise had hammered out treaties and a working government in three days. The British were left with their mouths wide open.

One that was artificially created after WW1...with an eye on the oil, no doubt. Since SH held absolute power for 30 years, what forces of stability will fill the void? Is it in the Iraqi's best interests to have a fundie Taliban style of government take over?
Would they, alone, be able to stop the religious radicalization of their country?

I sure would like a real polling, conducted by the UN, to get the Iraqi's opinion on what they want and use that as a basis to determine the right course of action.

What does it matter? Why are folks a half a world away who were NEVER threatened by the goings-on there suddenly so "concerned" about the "Iraqis" best interests? Where was that concern when a half-million children died under sanctions? Madelaine proclamed it an "acceptable loss."

What about the "religious radicalization" of your OWN COUNTRY? Iran was proceeding quite swimmingly until the U.S. stuck its gin-blossomed, infected bugger-filled nose in it. Iraq WAS a secular society under SH. WHY do you assume that the Iraqis can't figger it out on their OWN terms? Who died and made the "white man" KING of IRAQ?

Polling? I'm quite certain ANY honest poll would conclude: GET THESE VIOLENT, RACIST, RAPING, PILLAGING AMERICAN CRUSADERS AND THE *CORPORATE INTERESTS THEY RODE IN ON OUTTA HERE NOW.

of the "Great White father" who in his benign wisdom sent Indians to the reservations to 'help' them.

yesterday, while DK was here.

Some things just never seem to go away.

They just change form, and resurrect their ugly heads.

Off With Their Heads!

Kanary

Is it in the Iraqi's best interests to have a fundie Taliban style of government take over?
Would they, alone, be able to stop the religious radicalization of their country?

My first thought, reading your comments, was wondering if we can stop the religious radicalization of this country?

I really don't know, though, what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people. I suspect their interests would be best served by more or less dividing the country and giving the various factions a regional sphere of influence. There seems to be a sort of tribalism at work and I don't think it's in anyone's best interests to force the "melting pot" idea on any of the Iraqi people.

Of course it would be a lot easier for the US to deal with one central government that would be capitalist-oriented and just let us have their oil on terms that we are familiar with and we understand already, but what is easier for the US is not what is best for Iraqis. THAT is the problem.

I think the US is rightfully resented for assuming that we know what is best for Iraq. In fact, we may, but until the Iraqi people are convinced of the wisdom of our plans for them, they are going to fight tooth and nail against us. We HAVE to have the patience and humility to let people decide things for themselves, even if they sometimes make mistakes. And who knows? Maybe what they want for themselves will turn out better than anything we could have proposed for them. Just imagine. We might even learn from them!

hands of it, and let whatever happens, happen", threads.

But somehow, I know that is just too damn easy. We've done a lot of damage to that country in 25 years. We've directly or indirectly contributed to the deaths of millions. Now, we've pretty well destroyed their culture and infrastructure. Let me be clear that I am not interested in the least in continuing this charade of "Republicanization". I'm all for disengaging immediately.....but I think we are making a big longterm mistake if we take a walk on Iraq without facing the responsibility of our actions there over the past 25 years.

Our last act in Iraq should be to face up to our cummulative misdeeds and make reparations that reflect some portion of the cost that we have inflicted on them. Just my opinion, though.

Our last act in Iraq should be to face up to our cummulative misdeeds and make reparations that reflect some portion of the cost that we have inflicted on them.

Dennis' 10 Step Plan includes paying reparations and making a commitment to support the United Nations, among other things.

I like his plan because it touches all the important bases, i.e. admitting what we did or failed to do that was wrong, making amends in whatever way possible for the wrong that was done, and most important of all IMO, take the steps necessary to make sure that similar kinds of things won't and can't happen again.

I agree with you, I think, that we should not just cut and run and wash our hands of the whole mess. There are things that we can do from afar, though.

The one thing I don't see the US doing is admitting that what it did in Iraq was wrong. The US has never admitted that it was wrong. Until we do, or someone else makes us face up to it, I'm afraid these kinds of things... forcing our will on other nations... will keep happening over and over.

Do you know that in the entire history of this country there hasn't been one full year that we haven't been in some sort of military action against other countries and peoples... from the Revolutionary War and the wars against the American Indians right up to the present messes?

too bad the ABB kool-aid was so popular. :-(

many of us were right about the war, and right about DK.
First we were called unAmerican. Then with DK we were called fringe lefties, dreamers. Being right didn't change much, and didn't prevent thousands of needless deaths. We've been burned. Being right really sucks!

Sux is what it does.

I've been around this corner a few too many times, and am now officially completely discouraged.

Being discouraged is allowed.

Seen too much, experienced too much.

Hurt too much.

Being "fringed" sux.

Kanary

yup :-(

It seems to me DK was right. We should pull out. All hell will break loose, but you know if we stay in the same thing is going to happen. At least if we pull out the Iraqis will form some kind of government.

I think Dennis' plan is for American troops to leave as UN forces come in.


I'm not even sure it would be a good idea to bring in the UN. You don't bring democracy at the point of a gun. Sorry, it just doesn't work. History has shown us what happens in these types of situations, and Iraq will be no different.

First of all, I think that all the different factions in Iraq would respect and trust the UN. None trusts or respects the US.

Secondly, the US has no intention of bringing democracy to Iraq. Do you really think that if the Iraqi people voted against the wishes of the US administration, that vote would be allowed to stand? We've all seen what happened here in the US when the Republicans knew they couldn't win an election fair and square. How much easier would it be to "tweak" the results in a small, third-world country where US appointed administrators would be in charge of the proceedings?

Really, though, it's all moot at this point. The American pResident has thumbed his nose at the UN. A new administration might help, but Americans as a people have never given much support to UN goals. We seem to think that the UN is a good idea for the rest of the world, but that we are better than the rest of the world. Why should the UN pull our chestnuts out of the fire now when we have never been good world citizens and apparently have no plans to change?

nt

- Sending the UN in and pulling out is impossible. It's outright stupidity to pretend the UN does not equal the US. We are the strength of that failure of a international organization.

- If we pull out we submit all those who are not members of whatever version of Islam wins power to a horrible fate. With the US there at least there is a chance, small as it may be that a real constitution that grants rights may be writen and a goverment that represents more then just the rules of Islam may be fashioned. I admit the odds are small but without troops violence will spill out in a power struggle and the outcome no matter who wins will be no better then Saddam.

than what they are going through now. I mean come on. Frankly I think the Arab League has more authority to deal with this than even the UN.

DK is right, we should pull out now.

But, a fantasy nevertheless.

Kanary

I agree with DK...

also (although no amount of money can really make up for the killing) i think that we need to pay restitution to the people of Iraq...

We have no credibility in Iraq nor in the world. We can't make one damn thing better there by staying. It's pure misplaced ego to think that invaders who have murdered tens of thousands of innocent people could ever be welcomed there.
I DO think they need to try, with Iraq's permission, to bring in the UN to assist with peacekeeping and basic repairs until the Iraqis get their police force back in order. Then they need to go as well, I would think. The US, however, needs to pay for ALL expenses since we did all the damage.

to get UN nations to send troops in to Iraq?

It's a good place to start.

Kanary

that's why I asked... because he doesn't explain that part.

I don't understand how he is going to convince member nations to send their troops into Iraq. I doubt that just asking nicely is going to do the trick.

The reason the UN wants nothing to do with it at this point is because the US is *still* demanding to be in control.

Once the US hands over control, stops the "sweetheart deals" with Haliburton et al, and returns the resources of Iraq to the Iraquis, other countries will be willing to be involved. NO COUNTRY will be involved until and unless those conditions are met.

He has explained this..... many times.

Months ago the UN was willing to take part, but the deal included US handing over control. Bushwa, of course, refused.

It has to do with a bit of humility on the part of the US, which I know DK would have no problem in expressing. I think a lot of US citizens are feeling quite contrite about the whole thing. Not guilty, if we've done whatever we could to end the mess, but ... contrite. That's what is going to turn the tide with the UN, and the rest of the world.

Kanary

where are the troops rotating in going to come from? Why would any country be willing to send it's armies into our mess? Where are they going to even GET 150k troops?

There aren't many historical examples of nation's acting purely out of altruistic motives - I can't see any reason for it to happen here.

Getting the UN in, at least to help in setting up a new government, getting Halliburton out, returning Iraqi resources to Iraqis, these are all commendable goals - but I don't see how DK can possibly deliver on getting US troops home.

How many more will die while we sit back and say "We can't leave"?

Thousands must die, otherwise, thousands will die.

Kanary

... that Dennis manifested. He said stuff because it was right, which was (ahem) not exactly by the book.

stood right next to me yesterday, and I still have that peace inside of me as a result.

I know it will eventually be blown away again by thoughtless and careless and even ugly people, but it's so pleasant to have it for now.

Dennis was very clear yesterday that all we can do is to believe that people always have the capacity to change, and therefore hold out what possibility to them, but that it's *their* choice whether they will take that opportunity or not. I *GOT* that he is at peace, because he is able to hold that out to people, but doesn't take the responsibility on himself for changing another. A quality we talk glibly about, but very rarely achieve.

It's hard to put it into words that don't come out sappy. :)

I'm just grateful to have been able to be there, and to feel that energy of Peace.

It's no wonder he was chosen for the Ghandi Peace Award.

There's a distinct resemblance. :)

Kanary

The US is not going to bring about any form of stable government while we are occupying Iraq. The people of Iraq will always be convinced that whatever government operates under the auspices of the US is corrupted and worthless, and hence will overthrow it at the first opportunity. Thus, our "liberation and stablization" mission over there is pointless, and ultimately fruitless. All we will accomplish by our prolonged occupation is simply to dig ourselves into a deadly quagmire ala Vietnam, with the end result being no different than 'Nam. We'll eventually be forced out, leaving chaos and death in our wake.

Instead, we should go on bended knee to the UN, begging for forgiveness and asking them to bring in peacekeeping troops composed primarily of ME nationalities and Muslims. Thus will a sense of trust be fostered with the Iraqis. In addition the US should pay for everything. Every house we've destroyed, every highway we've turned to rubble, every single life the US has taken, the US should have to pay reparations for.

In addition, I think that we should turn over Bush, Cheney and the rest of the evil empire to the tender mercies of the ICC. Having such a prosecution take place would restore a lot of our credibility with the rest of the world. And we should also take a strong line with Israel and force them to the peace table with the Palestinians. The time has come for religious extremists to be removed from the heights of power, both here in the US and abroad. Otherwise the world we know now is going to be wracked with thinly disguised religious wars for decades.

Kerry should follow the path of peace, but sadly it looks like he is going to fall into the trap of prosecuting an illegal war, just so he doesn't appear the wimp. Kerry is already promising an additional 40,000 troops, with the prospect of more troops, perhaps draftees, on the horizon. Will Kerry be this generations LBJ? Sad to say, but it could well come to pass. There are too many corporate money men with vested interests in war controlling the Kerry purse strings. Will Kerry have the guts to consign his presidency to being one term, and do the right thing? Or will he follow the wishes of his corporate masters and continue the quagmire in Iraq, all for the sake of obscene profits? I fear that the latter option is the one Kerry will take. He just doesn't strike me as the man to stand up to the MI complex, especially when the give him obscene amounts of money.

But hey, I hope I'm proven wrong.

and gather the other nations around us. That was today. DK has said this all along and wasn't shy about it.

If Kerry ends up following DK's plan, will Kerry fans even remember where it came from? Kerry strikes me as a follower who plays things safe....

As a DK supporter I'll be pleased if Kerry follows DK's plan. It's the least he could do after assigning more power to Bush at such a critical juncture.