"Get out of Iraq Now!" is neither a strategy nor a plan for success.

Dems need to offer constructive criticism of Bush's policy and approach, and NEVER, EVER let him off the hook for leading us into an unnecessary war based on lies. That said, we must NOT reinforce our image as the party of pessimism and negativity. We need to offer a better approach, not just righteous anger. If we don't, the Republicans will use it against us in the future, especially if Iraq achieve even a small measure of success with their infant "democracy."

Going into 06', this is extermely important. Looking ahead to 08', it is likely that our strongest candidates will be the ones who the Republicans cannot label as "cut and runners" or "pessimists," yet offer a stong and credible denunciation of neo-con policies from a position of strength, not defensive weakness.

also describe those who are afraid to tell the truth in fear of being labeled "cut and runners" or "pessimists"?

Yes, I believe those who are afraid to speak truth to power are speaking from position of weakness and lack of integrity.

Absolutely.

America MUST get out of Iraq now. Iraq is a train wreck in progress. The sooner we get out, the sooner it will finish its trajectory to disaster and the sooner it can begin to recover. Just like Vietnam. If we stay 10 years, the outcome will be no different, but a lot more people will die and a lot more money will be spent. Iraq is a solid gold meat grinder, and nothing more. The longer we stay, the worse it will be.

on edit: and what part of the war against Iraq has ANYTHING to do with defense?

... that we've been forced into a situation where there we can't have "success," without defining it in a way that is far less "successful" than what we were originally promised.

First, we need to determine what "success" will look like, then we can reasonably begin to formulate a plan on how to get there. As far as I can tell, there are no real, concrete goals. If we had a series of goals like:

- Electricity/water for the entire country
- Functional Infrastructure
- Functional hospitals
- A functioning system of trade
- Running schools
- A functional police/fire force

Then maybe, we could reach those goals. But, the fuzzy goal of "democracy" with the fuzzy plan of "staying the course" will only lead to more of the same. Now that we're there, we need to set some real goals and acheive them. This will never happen with this administration.

I mean, even if you think they were entirely truthful, you still would have to admit that they've been entirely WRONG about every single prediction they've made, and that this is proof of, at least, incompetence.

So, my plan for victory is:
1. Set reasonable, ACHEIVABLE goals
2. Get rid of the people who have proven themselves to be inept (or worse)

striking other countries may be a strategy, but not a decent one. I bet most people that were attracted to this war thought it was going to be like the past gulf war, the only difference would be toppling Saddam. They were not versed in the neocon plan of global hegemony. Myself, I'm never attracted to war and view it as a last option for crisis situations.

It could be argued that Murtha, Kerry, Feingold and Kolb are all pretty much doing what you way in the way of coming up with a plan, as opposed to just shouting "out now"!

I've seen Dems cough up plans all over the damn place on a variety of issues, but we are still called the party without a plan and without ideas.

And thus we shall remain as long as the other side has control of the media.

we can't base our actions on fear of that either.

If Democrats are not calling for withdrawl they will lie anyway.

attack?

Wonder who is going to bail him out.
Looks like the GOP and some Demo Senators and Congressmans
Who is going to fund the bail out
Why the American people of course
BUt wait
Chimp is insisting it is not a dry well
DRILL DRILL DRILL Oil there
OK is it a bail out or is it a drilling operation to make the damn hole deeper
Hopefully it wont get too deep that even a bailout cant get out of it.

:rofl: :crazy: :woohoo: Pretty sad scenarios. The few clear thinkers get shouted at.
The lunatics winning the day. Not only Chimp in bubbles lots of people in bubbles in US.
Cant stand to see reflection in mirror of true suituation.
Keep on drilling hole is nice and deep. Soon reach center of Earth :rofl:

He has consistently failed at everything he has ever done himself. Excellent point about the bubbles too.

If this regime has one iota of "success" in Iraq...whether it's real success or orchestrated....they'll use that to defeat any candidate of ours who they can say in retrospect didn't want to "stay the course". Like you say, we can and should go after Bush for lying to get us into the war, but we have to avoid looking like quitters to get us out of it....just in case he has what appears to be a smidgeon of success.

Excellent post. Level headed, and sensible strategy. Recommended!

He's a hawk and he's in contact with military leaders. He said immediate redeployment for a reason.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency"

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

The best thing for us to do is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Now.

Maybe YOU would like the job of explaining to the parents, spouses, and children of the next two thousand to die over there, exactly why their loved one had to die because staying there was "a good strategy and a plan for success."

So what the fuck do you define as "success?" Another 53,000 names to put on a new Wall?

You're using people's lives to bolster a political aim. Shame, shame on you. That kind of thinking is no better than bush's.

Redstone

and unconditionally.

They do want at least some degree of "success" there, and they deserve that.

Unfortunately Bush's policies have made it extremely difficult to achieve anything positive over there. Let's hope that begins to change.

Playing politics with people's lives is every bit as despicable and evil for US to do as it is for THEM to do.

You'd throw away more American (and Iraqi) lives, not for moral reasons, but just because it's politically expedient?

Nice fucking priorities.

I don't think I want to talk to you anymore.

Redstone

with the lives of innocent, peaceful Iraqis.

But since you don't want to talk to me, I won't elaborate for you.

the reason we are where we are is because we allow the 'debate' of fallacies. If you remove the lies from the 'debate'...what you have is illegalities up the ying-yang. The error is repeating lies for strategic positioning.

The '14 Enduring Bases' vs. Bush's Withdrawal Plan


If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

take a real good look at this map and then go to Judicial Watch's Iraq Oilfields map #1

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

Bush is lying again ... this time about withdrawing from Iraq even after the Iraqis are 'trained', isn't he Clarki1 ?

And THAT is exactly what we need to be criticising!

All of that and more no one hardly ever mentions the moral dimension of our actions. Who the hell gave us the right to impose- and yes I said impose- any form of government on any other sovereign nation? All of the rationalizing about the definition of this that and the other starts to sound to my ears very like the moral relativism the conservatives are said to despise and just dressed up versions of the end justifies the means.Since the good christians of this christian nation don't seem to be inclined to invoke the needless deaths of literally uncounted numbers of innocent iraqis I say we stick up for them. I'm an agnostic and would be a full on atheist if it weren't for my desire to be consistent in demanding empirical evidence for the positions I take on things.And that said I think of- was it Jefferson's statement that he trembles for his country when he considers that the deity is just?Out now.

We mustn't have our politicians doing something so "negative" as calling for an end to the illegal war! We can't afford to stop the occupation and killing because the repugs might say bad things about us.

It's all about PR isn't it? Lives are secondary.

We need to chart a better course so there is less killing!

"Out of Iraq now!" is not a strategy to achieve that, and it makes us look like we have no ideas about how to help improve the situation in Iraq so our troops have not died completely in vain, despite the false premises on which the invasion was based.

You know why our soldiers are getting killed? You know why we're killing Iraqis?

Because we're in Iraq.

Killing happens here in America everyday, and there will always be killing in Iraq.

I do believe that a precipitous and untimely withdrawl by U.S. forces at this time would give the advantage those who wish to bring the the government 10 million Iraqis just voted for down by force.

I don't believe that's in our best interest, the best interests of the Iraqi people, or the best interests of the world.

It's important we leave Iraq as soon as it is possible without giving the insurgents the upper-hand. We need to use our influence there to help create conditions that weaken the political position of the insurgents. We can't achieve any success in Iraq by military means alone, but if the new government wants us to stay a little while longer to help, we should. Likewise if he new government asks us to leave immediately, we must.

It's a complex situation because the insurgents use our presence their to promote their cause, yet leaving completely and too soon may put the insurgents in a position to start a full-scale civil war most Iraqis do not want. That's why staying indefinitely (with such things as permanent bases) and leaving immediately both miss the mark.

More of them dead will bring no greater purpose or accomplishment to those already dead.

The point of withdrawl is that the United States is damaging itself by continuing this venture. The sooner it ceases to do so, the better it will be for our country. Whether what is good for my country is good or bad for Iraq does not concern me in the slightest, and it does not concern the great mass of our country's people any more than it does me. The people do not want their taxes spent there, they do not want their attention focused there, they do not want our soldiers killed there. They were promised a quick and cheap victory, and seeing they are not going to get one, they want to move on to something else, and forget the thing as quickly as possible.

Iraq is already in civil war, and our departure will only allow the factions to get on with the business and settle it more rapidly. None of the outcomes of this will be good, either for the people of Iraq or for our country, but they were unavoidable from the moment the invasion commenced. No purpose is served by delay, particularly not at the cost our our country's treasure and lives. Best to take the nasty medicine quick with a gulp and get it over with and out of the way.

"You can't get there from here."

I am serious. I want to know what course you would chart.

Btw, nothing, not a goddamn thing will change the fact that our troops did, indeed, die in vain for an illegal, pre-emptive invasion and to stuff the neocons' wallets w/war profiteering.

One last point. I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing..... what will the repukes think about us?

I feel very sorry for those that can not stand up to their beliefs due to fear of what someone might say about them. It sounds to me like you are too fearful of speaking truth to power.


Bring our troops home NOW!

compared to the clusterfuck there now.

just my h.o.

dp

We can begin to get out of Iraq when we can annihilate the al Qaida leaders like the Jordanian Zarqawi. Cut off the leadership and you weaken the support. Hey Clarkie 1 - I was for the man, too. Think he could have won the election

The highest number of foreign jihadists I've seen concerning the insurgency is 7%. Other estimates had it at 4%. Don't allow yourself to be swallowed up in the propaganda.

The Shi'ite militias will make short work of the Wahhabist imports, without the obstacle of U.S. occupation in their way. It will not be pretty, but it will be damned quick....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

It's just like he said, "Kill me and a thousand Osamas will rise." Same with Zarqawi. Nobody is going to change those people except themselves.

.... the same things that have failed in the past and are costling lives and dollars with no hope of success isn't a strategy either.

And don't let any Republican dumbass tell you it is.

George Bush is playing double or nothing with our troops. He's hoping to salvage his credibility on the backs of others, the same thing he's done all his life. He's coming up nothing, but it's no skin off his ass.

not.

He's dead on and its why the OPs clarion of alarm and need to save face is BS.

Thanks for thid post.

That's the Democratic plan for success. Not that simplistic of course, but that's the gist. Wish everybody would get on board.

so which dems support that or the permanent base approach therefore leaving a dangerous policy alone to continue?

Sovereign Iraq. That's what Murtha supports. That's what almost all Democrats support, except Joementum, and maybe Hillary, can't figure her out. This is in direct opposition to permanent bases. Rally around what everybody agrees on and get the withdrawal started. That's the key to getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible. If we start arguing amongst ourselves about peripheries and date certains, the Republicans will just let the war will go on and on.

what we mean, the dems will be used politically by the rightwing and the media.

Phased withdrawal, start bringing the troops home. Sovereign Iraq. No permanent bases.

Who knows how many Vietnamese lives, was five years long, and in the end, we had to leave abruptly anyway, and the whole mess was followed by a short, sharp civil war.

Sorry, I cannot get on board for that one again.

It doesn't matter what we do, how long we stay there, it will wind up the same because any government we set up, any solution we implement is going to be considered illegit and illegal by the Iraqi people simply due to the fact it was done under the auspices of an occupying force. This is a truism of any war of empire and the aftermath, India after Britain departed, Britain after Rome departed, people will set up a government of their own construct. Yes, it is nasty and violent, and generally not what one would consider a success. But it will still happen.

So the logical thing to do is to leave, now. All our presence does is exacerbate the situation, fomenting more violence and death. Hell, we're sitting on the powder keg of a civil war in Iraq now, and it is going to get real interesting after the election results are known. Pay Iraq for the damage we've done, give them all the humanitarian aid that they need, but in order to save lives, both theirs and ours, we have to pack up and leave.

There is no success in a war such as this, there can only be a cessation of death, and really, that is the best we can work towards. Thus, the time to leave is now.

See #36. We either start getting behind substantive withdrawal that 95% of Dems in Congress support, or let the Republicans drag this thing out forever.

And bringing them home NOW! I've seen the damage that "phased withdrawl" can do, I've seen how it becomes a feel good political football that allows politicians to pretend to appease their anti-war base while thousands continue to die. I'm not going to sign up for that again. Holding the threat of the Republicans prolonging the war is no threat, because under "phased withdrawl" politicians will continue to draw out the war also.

Sorry, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. . . There is only one morally correct option here, pack the troops up and bring them home NOW. Anything else, including phased withdrawl, will only continue the madness that this war has become.

Some people really need to face reality. The only withdrawal plan out there is phased withdrawal. Let's start bringing the troops home and ending this war.

So that we don't continue to make the same mistakes time and again.

Due to our so called leaders playing political football with the issue, we probably won't have even seen a withdrawl plan pass reach any kind of consensus until after the elections next year. In addition, it doesn't matter what we think, what plans our so called leaders put out there, nothing is going to happen until Bush decides he'll let it happen. And from what he is saying, his plan is going to be open ended, with no time table. Kind of like the phased withdrawl that Nixon instituted in '68.

In addition, Kucinich, while I admire the man and would love to see him in the White House, is not going to gain any traction with his plan in a party that is controlled by the DLC. And all of the plans that I've heard issue from their members are talking about years long phased withdrawl, and depending on the kind of political flak they receive, it could take many years.

You imply that I'm not facing reality, sorry, but I have to disagree. See, I've learned my lessons from history, and am fully cognizant of what "phased withdrawl" truly means, which is doing just enough downsizing of troops to appease the public, while still playing political football with the war. Meanwhile more of our soldiers and more innocent Iraqis will continue to die.

Thus, rather than buying into these lame ass plans one more time like the historically ignorant fools that we are, let us prove that we have learned our lessons of the past, and bring the troops home now. Anything else is simply going to spill more blood on both sides.

Seriously, if it's all hopeless because of the DLC and Bush doing whatever he wants and worthless Dem leaders, then why bother saying anything at all. If all you've got is throwing rocks at anybody who is trying to force change, then you're not helping. So just sit down and shut up and quit gumming up the works for those who are making progress.

Look friend, I'm sorry if you don't like what I'm saying that's fine. But saying that I'm contributing nothing and that I should shut up is beyond the pale. Quite frankly what in the hell have you been doing about this war? I've been out in the streets week in, week out, donating time and money to stop this illegal immoral war. If it hadn't been for people like myself and other anti-war protesters screaming out NOW, we wouldn't even see the Dems mentioning this.

I'm not throwing rocks at anybody who is trying to make a real change in what is going on, but these pacifists come lately in the Democratic party are posing and playing political games. Go read your goddamn history books, and realize that this is the same sort of shit that the Dems pulled with Vietnam, phased withdrawl and all. The only one who was willing to do the right thing and pull the troops out immediately was JFK, and he got shot over it, possibly at the behest of a fellow Dem.

Again, read your history and learn. This whole deal about "phased withdrawl" is simply bullshit to appease the people, play political games with the war, and yet still allow the war to continue for years. Your naivete concerning this is vast and foolish. Which is why I'm suggesting that you go read your history and learn. We've seen this before, and it wasn't pretty the first time, and it won't be any prettier this time. It may be painful, you may not like it, but that is the truth of the matter right there. I'm willing to bet lots of money on my predictions, are you willing to back up yours.

The only thing that has forced the Democrats to move on this issue is US, the anti-war Dems who are out on the street screaming for the US to leave, NOW. That is the only reason that we've gotten this far. Now is not the time to cave on the issue and negotiate a compromise that will take years to implement and cost both sides hundreds and thousands of lives. I'm not willing to settle for that, I don't want that kind of blood on my soul. That you're willing to do so says a lot about you friend, probably more than you wish. Perhaps you should reconsider your position on throwing away the lives of these people.

There is no room for compromise on this one, and we cannot allow that to happen. We saw with Vietnam what "phased withdrawl" meant, and how many lives were sacrificed because of it. Are you truly willing to throw all of those people into the meat grinder so casually over some political game? How very sad. The time to leave is now, period. No negotiation, no relenting until that happens. What kind of values you must poscess that you are able to so casually play political games with peoples' lives. How very nauseating.

Never claimed to be that.

You're the one who said any plan to get out doesn't matter because Bush isn't going to change anyway. You're the one who says there no matter what people like Kucinich say, the DLC is going to subvert his efforts. You're the one spouting all the negativity. I'm just suggesting that if it's all so pointless, then get out of the way of the people who don't feel that way.

And news flash, the events on the ground in Iraq changed the debate on the war, not the anti-war people. If things were going better over there, the anti-war people would have no voice at all. The people who have been calling for a clear strategy for stability and withdrawal are the ones who are being heard, our voice has finally broken through the warmongering and out now chatter to force a change. So if you don't want to join those who believe we can end the war with a quick and systematic turnover, which is actually what is supported by the majority of Americans, then at least get out of our way.

Construtive, always getting in the way. I mean really now, look at that Sheehan woman, what good did she do saying "out now"

Oh, yeah, she and the millions more like her around the country finally woke up the fucking Democratic party from their Bushass kissing slumber and re-injected some spine into a party that was in desperate need of it.

Don't fucking tell me that it is the Democratic leaders, johnny come latelys that they are, propelled the anti-war movement into the public spot light. The goddamn Democratic party was wetting its goddamn pants every time Bushco said boo until Sheehan and us anti war folks came along and showed them what real opposition looked like. And don't sit there and tell me that it was events on the ground in Iraq that changed the public perception of the war, because it wasn't, the events on the ground in Iraq have always sucked, it just took us anti-war folks hard work to bring them to the public's attention.

And like I said about Kucinich, I love the guy, he has been one of the few Dems to show any consistent spine on the war all along. But did the DLC and the Democratic leadership ever listen to him? Hell no, he was and still is dismissed as a flake by these people. You know that as well as I do, just look what happened in the last presidential primaries.

And quite frankly friend, what you call negativity is really better known as the truth. You don't believe me, then go do what I've been suggesting all along, go read, and learn from your history. "Phased withdrawl" is simply another strategy for prolonging the bloodshed. This has been proven time and again. If you want the troops home, if you want the war to stop, then the ONLY solution is to pack them up and bring them home now. Anything other than that will only result in more loss of life, and blood on our hands. Read your history friend, and then try to prove me wrong. Name one goddamn "phased withdrawl" solution that actually worked.

And that you actually believe that such a plan will result in a "quick and systematic turnover" only goes to show how deep your historical and political ignorance on this matter goes.

That's Kucinich's target date. That is phased withdrawal. If the DLC listened to him, we'd have an even longer withdrawal plan than some that are on the table now. That's my entire point. The Democratic leadership doesn't listen to some of these people because they don't make any sense. I am so sick and tired of Dennis Kucinich, and people like him, saying one thing and having an entirely different proposal in the fine print. I'm even more sick of people, like you, who either don't know what the fine print says, or worse, know it and ignore it. And then turn around and blame everybody else for not supporting your position when the truth is that other positions are actually better in real world action. Now there's some truth for you to chew on.

Anti-war people have been anti-war for 3 years now. I have no problem with that at all, I have no problem with anybody being genuinely and consistently against war, or against just the Iraq war. Most have had the same position on Iraq, no matter what was going on there, and that's fine, good, great. It is an illegal and immoral war and no matter what happens in Iraq, that shouldn't be forgotten or dismissed. BUT, the American people turned against this war because of the events on the ground and lack of any foreseeable end. They want the best possible outcome with the quickest withdrawal possible, every poll indicates that. The number of immediate withdrawal people is still in the 35-40% range. The only reason that number has grown has been events on the ground too. If you want to believe that all of America has suddenly decided that destroying a country and then leaving it destroyed is ok, that's your right. It doesn't make it true.

"other positions are actually better in real world action" And just exactly what would those positions be? You don't like Kucinich's position, you don't like the "out now" position, all you keep going on about is "phased withdrawl", yet it has been shown to you time and again that historically and in reality phased withdrawl is just another excuse to keep this war going on and on and on. Are you really willing to say that a "phased withdrawl" plan that would keep us in Iraq, killing and dying for another five years is better than getting out now? All I can say to that is just damn!

There can be no success in Iraq while we're still there. And political infrastructure that we set up is going to be considered as illegit and illegal by the Iraqi people and will be torn down as soon as we leave, whenever that is. Our continued presence only brings further death and destruction to the country and its people. How can anything even remotely considered success be brought out of such misery? The US is barely keeping a lid on a simmering civil war over there right now, do you honestly think that genie will stay in the bottle once we leave, whenever that is?

What is proposed with phased withdrawl is the prolonging of death and destruction, both of Iraq, its people, and our soldiers. Every day we prolong the war means more money poured into a rathole, lining the pockets of Bushco's friends and patrons. Every day we prolong the war means more people dead, both ours and theirs. If you are so concerned about the well being of Iraq and its people, then how in the hell can you say that prolonging the death and suffering of its people is a good thing? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Rather we should do the logical and moral thing, pull our troops out NOW. Pay the Iraqis both in reparations money and humanitarian aid. Yes, there will be civil war over there, but that is going to happen no matter when we leave. Best to get it done and over with as quick as possible, in order that the killing can stop. The sooner we start, the sooner peace reigns in Iraq. Yes, it is probably going to mean the return of a dictator to Iraq, or even a theocracy aligned with Iran, but again, that will happen no matter when we leave, for anything we set up is going to be considered illegal and illegit by the Iraqi people, and will be torn down once we are gone. This happened in Vietnam and it will happen in Iraq. And what the result is, well no, it probably won't be pretty, nor anything that anybody can consider a success in any sense of the word. But the killing will stop, and Iraq will be left in peace and can begin the process of rebuilding. And that is the best we can hope for, and what we should be working towards, ending the death and destruction. Deluding ourselves that we can somehow snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat is just a pipe dream, and is no way connected with the reality of the situation.

Is that what you're saying?

Murtha's plan is better than Kucinich's, that's one. No Democrat is supporting staying in Iraq for 5 years, except maybe Lieberman. Face it, you're willing to sacrifice early withdrawal in order to continue your own ant-Democrat agenda, and using "out now" as a vehicle.

You don't care about getting out of Iraq or saving lives, you care about your view being praised as the "right all along" view.

Despite the best intentions of those who have tried the "phased withdrawl" strategy in the past, the withdrawl timetable will be played with like a football, moved up and down the timeline due to political considerations, and our time in Iraq will be stretched to years, not months. Even Kucinich's plan, whose withdrawl date is so close to our elections in '06, will be stretched and strained completely out of shape, all so that people can make perceived political gains from doing so. If you can show me one time that a "phased withdrawl" hasn't come to this pass, then I will be willing to back such a plan. But I've yet to see such a success in our history, and thus cannot put any faith in such a plan now.

And I find it amusing that you consider "out now" to be an anti-Democratic agenda. See, even you are playing political football with the war, right here on this board. If you're doing so with such low level stakes, think of what our political "leaders" will do when their stakes are all the much higher.

You know nothing about me nor my agenda. My only agenda is to bring an end to the death and destruction that is going on as soon as possible. And consistent with that agenda, out now is the only sensible and logical thing to do. Anything else is simply a political shell game designed to continue the death, destruction and the profits of a few for as long as possible. How fucked up is that? And how sad that you are buying into it.

You're saying our choices are Bush's permanent occupation, or "out now", and that's it. Is that right?

Anything else is a continuation of the war, a continuation of the death and destruction.

So, do you have a successful example of "phased withdrawl"?

Since your only choice is out now, you're guaranteeing permanent occupation. That's the way it works in the real world. When you give somebody a false choice, you guarantee that the alternative that is in practice continues. Out now is a false choice because literally nobody is advocating it.

I really hate to bring up Germany and Japan, but those were phased withdrawals and they worked. The Balkans are at least peaceful. Mozambique was relatively successful. The point is that getting out requires a starting place, some troops somewhere have to be pulled out. It's not going to happen overnight or even in a week. You'd end up leaving some troops as sitting ducks with no backup if you did it that quickly. You'd risk leaving massive amounts of armament behind. So it has to be systematic, any way you cut it. So wherever you start, it's only logical that you would bring whatever Iraqi troops or law enforcement in to the area. No matter what you call it, this is how it's going to be done in the end. So why not just support reality?

If a majority of the people get behind "out now" then enough political pressure is brought to bear and we will indeed get out now. You yourself said that 35-40 percent of the people are now in favor of "out now", and that is up from virutally zero less than six months ago. Hey, if you and other people got behind "out now" then we could bring a world of pressure to bear. Why not give it a try if you're so concerned about the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqis?

And I hate to break it to you, but WWII wasn't a war of empire on the part of the US, unlike war such as Vietnam, Iraq, etc. And if you honestly think that the Balkans are peaceful now, you haven't been paying attention, but that really isn't your fault, our media is shit in this regard. Go find somebody who is recently immigrated from Bosnia etc. Ask them how peaceful things are.

And if you look at any withdrawl that we've done, be it WWII, Vietnam, etc. we have always left a ton of armament around. That comes with the territory of any withdrawl. As is leaving the last few to exit the country vunerable. That point of vuneribility is going to come no matter what strategy we take, it is inherent to the process of leaving.

But I suppose that we'll get to see how this plays out. And sad to say, it will probably come down to a phased withdrawl, which will be a decision based on pure political expediancy. So I tell you what, let's come back here in a year, when the war is still dragging on, and the death and destruction is still being rained down, and then you can still try to convince me how wrong I am for still wanting the troops out now.

Stopping the death and destruction by letting the Iraqi people SEE that we're leaving. They're fighting the occupation, right? If we begin pulling out and turning over regions of the country, there won't be any occupation to fight. Then we can turn over more and more regions, as quickly as circumstances on the ground permit. That has been what many Democrats have supported for 2 years now. That position got drowned out and distorted by the anti-war "out now" noise. It finally has some traction, a real opportunity to end this war, and I'm not going to let it pass me by. I am not willing to do nothing and watch the whole thing go to hell, just to prove I was right all along. If you are, then I guess that's your choice.

You know telling someone to just shut up like that casts you in shades of arrogance and elitism and well a little bit hypocritical. Is that what you want? Do you honestly think that everyone needs to do as you say or shut up?

You will not win votes that way, you will not get out of Iraq that way.

... and seriously if you disagree with Cindy why have that as your sig? Not asking you to take it off, just wondering if you'd tell her to shut up as well, since her position is very similar.

I supported her when she was all about holding Bush accountable. I supported her when she said she knew we couldn't just pull out all at once, that "out now" is just a catalyst to get people to recognize we needed a plan to end the war. Exactly the same as what Kucinich and Woolsey and others have said. But since she hasn't chosen to clarify her position now, I have lost alot of enthusiasm for her. The sig line is there more because I liked the point it made, how the media dissects some sentence of hers and ignores the gargantuan lies of the Administration.

As to the shut up part, this isn't the first time I've ran across somebody at DU who argues against every policy on the table to create change and then follows it up with all the same old DLC, Bush is in charge anyway, bla bla bla bullshit. It's like being offered ten different choices for dinner, turning them all down, and then going off on a rant about corn syrup, GM food, and it all causes cancer anyway. At some point you have to say the obvious; eat, or sit down, shut up and starve.

Phased Withdrawal and Soverign Iraq. Join those who are ready to eat, or sit down and shut up.

at all.

My guess is that as long as we keep trying to look for some sort of success or roadmap or timetable we'll stay there.

peace activists be damned, eh.

That every time Democrats and the left dissolve into a spitting match amongst themselves, we'll set back any strategy or momentum to end the war. That's what has happened so far.

without dates and numbers. Even Republicans are talking about a draw down in numbers next year. So democrats fail to really distinguish themselves by simply referring to phased withdrawal. Much better to rally around complete withdrawal now. Obviously the implementation with take a period of time, probably six months. But if we don't demand it, it will always be six months away, for years to come.

All the Democratic plans have a target date, between 6 months and a year. We need to stop getting bogged down on these word games and start getting the withdrawal and turnover going. Because if areas of Iraq don't start operating independently, we'll never get out of there.

So getting out now is a plan for success AFAIC.

Anything we set up in Iraq will evaporate the minute our armed forces depart.

In the end, all the troops will have died for nothing.

NOTHING ! JUST MORE NAMES ON THE MEMORIAL. GET OUT NOW !

pullout?
A lot of the current insurgency is opposition to U.S. policies and actions in Iraq.
But the insurgents have no chance of becoming the dominant political power in Iraq,
with or without the U.S. there.
The problems of 3 major factions that don't trust each other, question of control of the oil,
differing agendas regarding women's rights, etc. have to be resolved satisfactorly for there to
be long term peace among the factions in Iraq. But its not at all clear that the U.S. being there
is an advantage to getting these issues resolved satisfactorly. The U.S. intentions were not honest.
If the U.N. rather than U.S. had been the peacekeeper, the results would likely have been better.
But this might still be a more viable option for peace keeper than the U.S., which has big liabilities
regarding intentions and history.

Which is to drag out the war even though our troops are "dangerously overstretched" as he said.

We shouldn't base our exit plan on whether or not Repukes will call our candidate "cut and runners." FUCK THEM. If not "cut and runners" it will be something else.

HUMAN LIVES are at stake and the best plan is not one that is based on what spin the Repuke party will put on it. It's the one that gets our troops out as fast as possible, doing the least harm, at this juncture. We need to cut our losses, both lives and financially and end the war.

You sure can't tell it by some of the posts here. Some here would rather just bitch about the past, with no concern for future elections.

The world is filled with war in places that train terrorists. But I don't see Clark or Hillary calling for our troops to be deployed and "stay the course" in Kashmir, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the two dozen other places around the globe that are training terrorists today. Iraq is a pin-prick in the war on terror, but television says otherwise.

They are both tactical plans. There's no difference. And, the strategy SERVED by the tactic of getting out now is to regain some foreign relations respect and dignity, save american lives, and reduce the expenditures. So, there is a strategy underlying the tactic of getting out now.
The Professor

the first step is to stop digging.

As long as the US is in Iraq, the hole is getting deeper. Things will not get worse before they get better, they'll just get worse.

Sid

If you are hemorrhaging, stop the bleeding. We can do this by starting to draw down our troops, as their presence is making things WORSE. BRING 'EM HOME.

BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush's inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring 'em on."

Our mission is to mobilize military families, veterans, and GIs themselves to demand: an end to the occupation of Iraq and other misguided military adventures; and an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations.

The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there.

Our troops are embroiled in a regional quagmire largely of our own government's making. These military actions are not perceived as liberations, but as occupations, and our troops are now subject to daily attacks. Meanwhile, without a clear mission, they are living in conditions of relentless austerity and hardship. At home, their families are forced to endure extended separations and ongoing uncertainty.

As military veterans and families, we understand that hardship is sometimes part of the job. But there has to be an honest and compelling reason to impose these hardships and risks on our troops, our families, and our communities. The reasons given for the occupation of Iraq do not rise to this standard.

Without just cause for war, we say bring the troops home now!

Not one more troop killed in action. Not one more troop wounded in action. Not one more troop psychologically damaged by the act of terrifying, humiliating, injuring or killing innocent people. Not one more troop spending one more day inhaling depleted uranium. Not one more troop separated from spouse and children. This is the only way to truly support these troops, and the families who are just as much part of the military as they are.

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW!"



http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/what/faq.html

And the right wingers will label people unfairly regardless. Who doesn't want to get out of Iraq at this point?

Everybody does.

The only reason to stay there is to save face.
Define success? Are you willing for many many more innocents to die for "success" and meaningless time tables?

There will be no success other than getting out of there. That is it pure plain and simple. You and Clark and the rest of the believers keep trying to shove "democracy" down their throats in such an orally raping manner and see if they don't bite off your dick.

he is having delusions of grandeur which amount to rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

to be kidded:

Staying in Iraq when the overwhelming majority of the population wants us to leave makes this a situation not of liberation, not protecting freedom, not supporting an ally, but the NECESSARILY BRUTAL occupation of a country that never attacked us, plain and simple.

What we need to do is articulate the relevant principles most Americans believe America stands for:

America is not Ancient Rome.
America is not Nazi Germany.
America is not the Soviet Union.

We don't have a view of the world which allows us to subjugate it to our military will, which we couldn't do even if we wanted to. Without the justifications (lies) that have fallen by the wayside, the last remaining intellectual justifications of occupying that country are against everything America stands for. And American troops are DYING FOR THIS?

What Democratic justifiers of continuing occupation want to do is fix what Bush has broken. While the motive is something I can respect, the backdrop of broken principles is something I cannot.

You cannot IMPOSE freedom in an environment in which the very principles of freedom and truth themselves have inherently been flouted. No Imperial Occupation of a foreign country has ever succeeded in doing that. The best that can be achieved is to impose ORDER, TEMPORARILY. And imposing ORDER for its own sake is the type of justification that the worst vile regimes in world history might have been proud of.

Look at what the Bush administration has been doing. It says it supports a free press, and it does this with lies and dishonesty. It pays people to plant stories. This is not how you support a free press. The Bush administration says it supports Freedom(tm) and Democracy(tm). But it ignores the will of the Iraqi people just as it ignores the will of the American people.

And indeed, the imposition of "freedom" has not been happening. Our troops have been dying to establish an Iranian style Islamic Republic that has nothing to do with Democracy or anything we stand for. Our troops didn't go to Iraq to turn Iraq into Iran.

DEMOCRACY is the will of the vast majority of the Iraqi people asking us to LEAVE. If you respect DEMOCRACY, if DEMOCRACY is what you want to fight for, the only thing you CAN do is LEAVE.

<snip>
"What's Wrong with Cutting and Running? That's the question asked by retired Army general William Odom about the continued US military presence in Iraq.

Odom served as director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan. Prior to that, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. He is now a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

He recently said, "The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

In his article Odom writes, "The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the U.S." interests and has not become so....."
<snip>

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/04/144240

The get out now candidates were pushed aside in 2004, because the the count of voters who thought the invasion was necessary was about 60%.
Only time will tell who the voters will select in 2006 & 2008. The times they are a changing.

They seem to be doing just fine for themselves today.

Oh, wait a minute.... Never mind.

Look I don't want to be there.

The american people do not want us there
THe Iraquis certainly do not want us there
Having sais that, we have a egional responsiblity and a morarl responsibilty to stabilize the country as best we can bedore leaving.

We can not cut and run from our responsibilities, but that does not mean we can'f find ways to dial down the tensions and begin to change our role.

of a War Crime?. Change the strategy?

Even with the sanctions after Bush 1 bombings the Iraqi people got everything up and running in 3 months.
This notion that the invaders even have smidgen of legitimacy is at the least paternalistic , at worst it's....

What do the Iraqi people want? That's the real question not how any political maneuvering re:Iraq will make a candidate over here "look" weak. That's a real "we are the indispensable nation" way of looking at this that shows a disregard for what the people who live in that land want.

Self-Determination is a natural right. The entire way this issue is framed here is from a colonial mindset.
A poltical game of strategy being played with peoples lives. Is that what this is about?

Anger is not a plan. Hatred of the mess is not a plan for cleaning up the mess.

Saving our military.
Saving our soldiers lives.
Saving Iraqi lives.
Helping Katrina victims.
Keeping our National Debt probaby from getting much worse.
Stopping Islamic Jihad.
Preventing cuts in Education, Social Security, Medicare.

From Dennis Kucininch

Mr. Speaker, this resolution mentions the word VICTORY 6 times, but victory is not defined. We are assured this administration will know victory when they see it, just like they knew WMDs when they didn’t seem them. Supporters of this bill point to yesterday’s election as victory, but many were drawn to the polls by their overwhelming dislike of US occupation. They like us alright, they would like us to get out of their country. This fantasy victory resolution means more occupation, more war, more civil war, more deaths of our troops, and innocent civilians , more waste of taxpayer money, while this house is reduced to a bunch of cheerleaders in a bloody Baghdad ball sponsored by Halliburton. Congressman Paul and I have a resolution which will let Iraqis, through their new representatives, decide whether the occupation ends or not. You want sovereignty, you want self determination, or do you just want occupation, deception, fake news, fake policy and next year’s fake-out, partial troop withdrawals, while a permanent US presence is being built. These fake resolutions keep this congress in a stupor, almost a trance-like denial of conditions in iraq and how we got there. Wake up congress, wake up America, get out of Iraq.

See video from Liveoaktex

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/kucinichdec1605.wmv

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5615862

first of all, many who advocate "out of Iraq now" have a much more extensive policy for Iraq ... we've called for all sorts of support for rebuilding Iraq internally both politically and economically ... and we've called for a wide array of regional diplomatic solutions as well ...

thanks for mischaracterizing our position in such a trivial way ...

secondly, many who support "Out of Iraq now" understand that the presence of US troops is providing a crutch to the current Iraqi government and that they have very few incentives to kick us out even though that's the will of the Iraqi people ...

third, we've done a terrible job by allowing many of the troops we've trained to turn around and attack their own countrymen ... we've provided some excellent training to Shia militia so that they can repress the Sunnis and destroy their neighborhoods ... that's what happens when you try to solve a political problem with your military ...

fourth, 45% of Iraqis said it's OK to kill their American occupiers ... by what perspective of US imperialism do you believe we have a right to remain there?

fifth, any policy that calls for remaining in Iraq is implicitly arguing that with bush in charge, things will be better by remaining than by leaving ... why are you convinced that giving bush even one more day in Iraq is in the best interests of the Iraqi people or the American people? is that what you consider a "plan for success"?

and finally, what's truly sad about your proposal is that it ONLY focussed on the effect of Iraq on future Democratic candidates ... i suppose you can consider that a "strategy" but it's hardly a "plan for success" ... and, even accepting your political argument, what strategy will you be recommending in 2008 if Democrats still are the minority party? more war? and how about in 2010? more war? and in 2012? more war? will you argue, irrespective of the fact that we are doing harm in Iraq and have no right to be there, that we can't chance having the republicans paint a negative image of our candidates? Murtha said it could take 25 years to fully train the Iraqi troops ... will you still call for this policy of protecting Democratic candidates even then??

The reason for that is that events on the ground could make any specific plan look really stupid six months after it was stated.

There is one point of discussion we should be using, and one point only. NO PERMANENT BASES, PERIOD. Any Dem Iraq policy must be based on calling out the lie of the reason for the invasion, which had jackshit to do with WMD, Al Qaeda, or even getting rid of Saddam. (He'd be just as gone if he'd gone into exile, which his neighbors were trying to arrange--Bush said he didn't care if Saddam left; the invasion was happening anyway.) Stand down on the construction of permanent bases and the construction of the US embassy. If anybody bugs any candidate for more specific details, s/he should just say "Reasonable people can disagree on how best to manage withdrawal and how long it might take."