Dean- Keep troops in Iraq for at least 2 years.

Dr. Dean's opposes a quick withdraw.

Dean Hammers Bush On War, Immigration
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120300821.html



Remember, its all about politics. The most important thing is achieving the biggest market share. After all, Democrats are better managers of wars of aggression than Republicans. Under Dems, corporations will compete fairly for the wealth of Iraq, and it will not just go to a few cronies. Dems will treat all big donors fairly and equitably.

Iraqi lives? Ending imperialism and colonialism? What's that got to do with it?

Democracy? Yeah, great marketing tool. However, real democracy for most of the planet must be prevented at all costs. The most important thing is other nation's develop in ways that are best for the ruling elite.

This is real change?

whether it is 6 mons or 2 years. It just needs to be clear withdrawal.

This whole thing reminds me of the Nixon plan to end the Vietnam war.

I don't think Murtha's plan is perfect either, but he does say immediate redeployment, which might mean that immediately the US halt all missions against Iraqi resistance.

The 18 month difference is a very long time... means the difference of hundreds more US dead, thousands more Iraqi dead.

For calculating politicians like Dean, that don't mean shit.

Israel.

If the US just pulls out now, the insurgents will roll into Israel, despite her nuclear weapons and really do some damage.

It is too bad that the neocons asked for this because they live here in America not in Israel but now the Israelis are in danger of insurgency.

There are some bigger fish to fry though. Israel gave up the Gaza strip too easily. They have to be expecting to get control of something else.

and we will be able to patch up the country and leave ASAP.

Right now the republicans are mismanaging the war so badly that we're actually moving backwards.

:crazy:

It's going to get harder and harder to just keep our heads, what with all the schmidt hitting the fan.

If we can, if we can, we can take these thugs. Chin up.

The thought is to move troops for deployment from Afghanistan (Baaaaad idea) or see if we can pay off Kuwait or Qatar for rapid deployment. Or to base troops on carriers in the Persian Gulf (like we used to) who could deploy quickly.

There's absolutely no need to stay in Iraq other than to maintain the exploitation and plundering. There is no "democracy" there will be no "democracy" or WMD or "rape rooms" (unless we operate them)...so what is there? I mean other than oil and war profiteering.

Dr. Dean, like others, are tepid and parsing in what they're saying. The bottom line is we need to get our troops out of that mess and the quicker the better. My hopes would be we could somehow make a deal with the Arab league...spend some of the billions we were going to spend already...instead of giving it to Haliburton...virtually buy our asses out of this mess. Otherwise, be prepared for visions of Saigon 1975 times 10.

the Iranians have understood it. That's why they refuse to negotiate. They ordered an anti-missile system in Russia and wait for the collapse of the Roman empire in Iraq.

Unless there is of course a good bargain to do...

I saw yesterday on French TV a report made by a foreign team in Ramadi. It was obvious that the US didn't control the situation : the armed insurgents were freely filmed taunting the US on the streets and civilians freely expressed their resentment of the US occupation...

maybe it's true that freedom as come to Iraq...

:sarcasm:

Wait for it...

Even if they are wrong. Hillary too.

Don

Listening to our politicians and talking heads you'd think Murtha said Bring the troops home now.

HE SAID REDEPLOY.

and hope we take the bait.

Fuck them.

As long as we're fighting each other, when the answer is right in our faces, they win and the longer this goes on.

Still, it is a first step. We should end all missions against Iraqis immediately... today.

Clean up and deactivate the bases, and get out of this criminal war.

It's not a business, it's a crime.

The shock of it all! Diplomacy? JEEBUS - how the heck can the McMilitary Industry make money off that!

:eyes:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

My plan calls: 

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. 
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. 

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Two years is NOT a go.

Dr. Dean is dealing in the shark tank. Let's keep him in the loop of real people in their real lives.

And, let's not let the whore media tar him. They'd love that, wouldn't they?

:kick:

but, many stop short of calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal, fearing 'handing the GOP a political weapon'.

I want to know just what he and others who favor gradual withdrawal want the soldiers to do there in the intervening time? Their 'mission' is murky and dangerous now. The soldiers are a speck in a populations of millions, the majority of which want them out now. What do they expect a stripped down force to accomplish? There is not an atmosphere that is safe enough for a smaller force to remain safe. This is not a pullout from a friendly nation. It will be the routing of the infidels. The unreality of what these politicians expect from our soldiers is stunning. There is no role for them to play there. They should exit now. Otherwise, we need to be told just what they are expected to do in the interim. And, I don't want to hear about guarding the new government against insurgents. Not with a reduced force. A prolonged drawdown is a political gamble that is an unnecessary risk to the lives of the remaining soldiers.

But, he does hammer him good, as have other Democrats.

80% of Iraqis want us to withdraw.

Wealthy Arab sheiks are now demanding our withdrawal. The announcement by Sheik Mohammad yesterday made big headlines in Arab papers, but no one here paid any attention.

Israelies no longer have a majority supporting the right-wing Likud party. Sharon has left it and is now forming a new more moderate party.

We still have the audacity to think we we can do whatever we want?

Here is the Korb plan he has talked about, Korb and Murtha have talked as well. I don't think he really said that.

Here is part of the transcript from Jay Leno the other night where Dean spoke of this:

"I think is is about redeployment out of Iraq, getting the National Guard home.

Here is part of what he said on Leno the other night. I think his quotes are being misrepresented in this thread.

"Dean: Everybody gets to march to their own drummer in this party. What we need to do is have a real plan for strategic redeployment. We need not to have 150,000 troops that are being attacked every single day in Iraq. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the fact is we’ve made a big mess over there. We’ve created more of a danger than there was in the first place, and probably one of the results is that we did something that Iran couldn’t do, we helped them win their objectives in the Iran-Iraq war. So, we’re in a lot of trouble in Iraq, and John Murtha’s right, we ought not to be hurting more Americans, and having more American wounded kids come home.

Leno: So what would your plan be?

Dean: I think withdrawing immediately is not the right thing to do, but there is a plan that was authored oddly enough by a guy who worked in the Reagan defense department by the name of Lawrence Korb. Where we would withdraw the National Guard troops over 2006, and even Joe Lieberman voted for 2006 being the year of transition there. We would withdraw the Guard troops, move 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, where they are needed, keep a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq, because we are going to have to deal with the terrorist threat that Bush created by going in there in the first place. And then the rest come home over the period of 2006 after this election. That gives us a redeployment opportunity, it doesn’t show weakness, and it does show the ability to continue to deal with the problems in Iraq without having our guys be the targets."

From the article:

. . . in his speech he (Dean) blended strong criticism of the president for going to war under false pretenses with a more measured endorsement of a plan promoted by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which would redeploy about 80,000 U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006 and the remainder by the end of 2007.


Here are descriptions of the Center's 'plan':

- A steady redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq will strengthen our country’s ability to fight the violent extremists around the world who pose the greatest danger to the American people. Our plan calls for smaller and more nimble units working closely with Iraqi forces in 2006 and 2007, and will put the United States in a better position to attack terrorist enemies in Iraq. With troops remaining in the region, the United States will be able to strike at terrorist enemy camps. With more forces meeting the terrorist threats in Afghanistan, Asia, and Africa, the United States will be implementing a threat-based strategy that integrates all components of American power.


- We cannot stick our heads in the sand and wish away the threat presented by terrorist extremists. Though Iraq was not a central front in the fight against violent extremists before President Bush invaded, his actions have made it so. A hasty drawdown will have a destabilizing effect on Iraq and the region as a whole – instability that we cannot afford. President Bush has left us with bad options, but we must work to keep our promise to the Iraqi people while demonstrating that we are not going to be there permanently.

We need to continue during the next two years to help Iraq move toward democracy, assist with reconstruction, and combat the insurgency. This work can be completed in the next two years if – as Strategic Redeployment argues – the United States uses all components of American power – military, diplomatic, and economic – smartly. As the generals in the field say, we cannot beat this threat militarily alone.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=837357&content_id={E52D7C8F-0D1B-4423-BB4B-901A430299FB}¬oc=1


I think this posture invites more militarism and more interventionist military meddling. It's also naive to expect a force reduced by half to perform these military tasks that the politicians envision safely or effectively.

is a liberal think tank?

Very militarized policy.

I posted what he said, and I don't see how the media interprets it that way.

"Dean: Everybody gets to march to their own drummer in this party. What we need to do is have a real plan for strategic redeployment. We need not to have 150,000 troops that are being attacked every single day in Iraq. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the fact is we’ve made a big mess over there. We’ve created more of a danger than there was in the first place, and probably one of the results is that we did something that Iran couldn’t do, we helped them win their objectives in the Iran-Iraq war. So, we’re in a lot of trouble in Iraq, and John Murtha’s right, we ought not to be hurting more Americans, and having more American wounded kids come home.

Leno: So what would your plan be?

Dean: I think withdrawing immediately is not the right thing to do, but there is a plan that was authored oddly enough by a guy who worked in the Reagan defense department by the name of Lawrence Korb. Where we would withdraw the National Guard troops over 2006, and even Joe Lieberman voted for 2006 being the year of transition there. We would withdraw the Guard troops, move 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, where they are needed, keep a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq, because we are going to have to deal with the terrorist threat that Bush created by going in there in the first place. And then the rest come home over the period of 2006 after this election. That gives us a redeployment opportunity, it doesn’t show weakness, and it does show the ability to continue to deal with the problems in Iraq without having our guys be the targets."

This makes no logical or moral or humanitarian sense.

Let those in Washington who have never seen a day of war go over and live in Iraq like they are asking these kids to do.

Where are lines to be drawn and this is one of those lines. These kids need to come home.

I know it make sense for defense contractors and companies like Halliburton for the kids to continue to be targets, along with using other Iraqi children as target practice.

Tell us Democratic 'leadership' in Washington safely tucked away from the shrapnel those kids are facing. Tell us WHY those kids are losing their futures for you? Who are you to be asking this of them?

If this is about the oil and the imperialism, then Dems don't be shy, just say it.

Please. Just come clean and tell us that there is no difference in parties and that its all just bells and whistles and great store front scenery but there's no difference.

And the vote, and electronic voting, why is this avoided like the bubonic plague? The two most important issues facing the future of our governmental direction and where is our leadership?

NOTHING else will fall into place until we address these two issues.

Bring them home now!
Stuff those "exit strategies" up your imperialistic asses... Kerry, Dean, Hillary & all the others...

Let people decide their own way of life, free of military occupation, including Iraq, Haiti, Palestine, Colombia... US foreign policy is a nightmare for the most of the planet.
That must change. For myself, the "market brand" in Congress is secondary. We need a new foriegn policy. Not better managed crimes.

Free the people!

Remember, these same media whores sold us the war in the first place.

Wouldn't it be nice for the opposition if we got all riled up about a sentence Howard said?


Talk to him directly. Do not allow yourself to be manipulated second hand.

one that people could gather around? Damn my memory, what was his name?

If that is the plan Dean is talking about here, then this has already been reported. I didn't read that plan very closely. I probably should have. But I would suspect that Dean is just repeating what he said about a week or two ago.

No surprises really.

in twisting Murtha's concept. Let's face it, the RWing and their Corp. Media are good at twisting the truth and brainwashing the ignorant of Amerika's millions. The US will be in Iraq for as long as the Dems in Congress keep funding the Occupation. I am guessing that around 60K troops will be pulled out before the '06 Elections, 100K will stay on the outskirts of the Sunni Triangle and the air force will kill many non-combatents. There will never be a full withdrawl of US Forces from Iraq.


"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)



Bush Regime Iraq Successes (Phase 1)

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits.

5. The Military Industrial Complex is a booming Industry.

Here is a quote from Dean on the issue from Morning Sedition.

"Oddly enough, the plan to get out, that I think we can get Democrats to coalesce around is a plan written by a Republican. By Lawrence Korb, who's a former Undersecretary of Defense.

Maron: We know him--he was on our show.

Dean: He's a very bright guy, and he's written a very interesting piece which I think is the key to how you get out of Iraq without endangering our troops or maximizing the terrorists' ability to cause mayhem over there. And I know Jack talked to him before he came out with his redeployment strategy. We need to redeploy our troops, the Guardsmen need to come home, there need to be a group sent to Kuwait to be on hand for the terrorist attacks, and there needs to be a group sent to Afghanistan so we can do the job there which the government wants us to do, and then we'll leave a few troops in Iraq over 2006 in order to stabilize the situation there which the President's made a huge mess of. So, I think that's a reasonable plan--I think Democrats ought to coalesce around. I think we can do that. It's gradual. The Republicans have practically signed onto it in the Senate. They know their Commander in Chief has got us into a big problem here. And you start to see them peeling away. You saw the Senate pass a resolution that 2006 should be the year of transition . Well, that was a step in the right direction for the Republicans to take.