Hey Clarkies I've got a grievance with your guy!

I'll try this again:) Clark has made it a high priority to capture Saddam and bring him in front of war crimianl trial. No Wes, our top priority should be get out before more of our men and women come home in body bags. If you want to see the Iraqi's get revenge against Saddam keep the santions lifted so that way a middle class can form. Now what does a middle class have to do with bringing Saddam to justice? A middle class is where a revelution comes from and is what get's despots in hot water. Our Revelutionary War leaders were middle class and financialy helped keep the war effort alive. So when a middle class forms in the land we call Iraq a revolution will happen and a goverment of the Iraqi people will form. Saddam will then be helpless as he's charged in either a Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish court. If Clark is a legitamate grassroots canidate then he'll change his stand on this issue because the Clark supporters asked him to. If not then he's just another DLCer that's up there because Lieberman can't win. If you believe that our troops should still occupy Iraq. I ask you to please change you're stance before someone you or I know or love comes home in a bodybag.:)

it's going to take a lot of hard work, help from other countries, luck, and time.

You can't win hearts and minds of a nation like Iraq in 1 month, 3 months, 8 months, or even 2 years. I don't care what Bush, CNN, or whoever says. This was a long term deal when we went in. Get used to the idea and elect either John Kerry or Clark to lead it.

no flames just debate :)

Why don't you believe the Iraqi people can build there own country? I say we give what there owed from the BCF tearing the shit out of it and let them do what they want. They've sure as hell been building civilazations longer than we have. I don't trust Pink Tutu Kerry BTW or possible DLC Clark when it comes to this because they listen to Repugs like Tom DeLay. Don't trust Kerry farther than I can throw an deepfreeze when it comes to this issue. Sorry:(

Yes the Iraqies can rebuild their country as long as they are not under attack from radicals. We need to get this thing Internationalized and play smaller role in it.

I picked Kerry as a second choice...he has a lot of experience that could be helpful...Gep is ok too. Clark is my hero right now. His campaign is based on a different set of values than typical politicians and I think that will become more clear as time goes on.

:toast:

The country will break into three different states. One for the Shiites, one for the Sunni's and one for the Kurds. Everyone is happy then and none of our soldiers get shot all to hell:)

countries, India & Pakistan, was the worst thing the British could have done.

Turn Iraq over to the UN but don't break the country up. If that happens Turkey will invade 'Kurdistan', Iran will want a piece, and Iraq will be worse off.

Give the kurds WMD's to keep the Turks the hell out. If they've got a problem tell'em to go fuck themeselves. Give the Shiites the same to keep Iran the hell away. Last but not least leave'em the hell alone.

Give the kurds WMD's to keep the Turks the hell out. If they've got a problem tell'em to go fuck themeselves. Give the Shiites the same to keep Iran the hell away.

I suppose that's one way to find WMDs in Iraq. I don't believe giving WMDs to nations in an unstable region is a wise option, especially if the purpose of giving them WMDs is so they can engage in a hostile relationship with their neighbors. You're advocating purposefully amping up hostile relations in an unstable region and giving them WMDs. :eyes:

No it isn't. I'm not giving the Iraqi's any god damned thing. I'm giving the Kurds WMD's to defend themselves from attack like we do. The word hypocracy is absent from your vocabular isn't it.

North America is a relatively stable region. I don't see Canada/USA/Mexico going to war with each other anyime soon. Western Europe is another. I don't see France and England going to war with each other.

There are indeed degrees of stability. And introducing WMDs to Iraq does not help regional stability.

So in the interest of ending "hypocrisy" you advocate nuclear proliferation? You want to see a world filled with nuclear weapons available to everyone, instead of working to limit nuclear weapons and push for disarmament?

We have riots about once a year in America in which murders and other killings happen. We lead the world in gun killings(I own guns too). Race riots and hate crimes still flare up in america and segregation is very much alive. Are leader wasn't elected by the majority of the voters so to our own standards we're very unstable.(UN, MOMMY, HELP!!:() We haven't reached a point where Nuclear disarmament is a popular idea yet. If the Kurds not "Iraqi's" because is what white anglo people titled them, had WMD's the Turks couldn't attack. Other than that I'd love to see the day we don't need to be armed but as long as we follow religion, corporatism and personal greed. We might as well shove it up our ass.:hurts:

By stability, I mean the regions that won't fall into intraregional warfare. There's a huge difference between warfare and crime.

And just because Nuclear disarmament may not be a feasible popular idea, doesn't mean we should push fullthrottle in the opposite direction.

The Kurds are very much Iraqis. Kurds are a distinct ethnic group, some of who have wanted an independent state. But if every individual group is not to be considered Iraqis, then I suppose the Turkoman, Sunnis, Shiites, and others aren't either?

I think you'll be hard pressed to find another person who will agree that it's a good idea for the U.S. to start giving out nuclear weapons to third world countries in unstable regions.

And whatever the inequities and flaws in the U.S., we are nowhere near going to war with Canada and Mexico.

for the south to seperate from the US and start the war all over again? Don't believe me look at the state flag of Mississipi and take a long look at that Stars and Bars. Look at all the CCC's and Neo Confederacy movements in the south. Look at all the racialy provoked attacks in america. Look at the terrorist attacks by Christian fundamentalist on abortion clinics and Gay/Lesbian nightclubs. Helping a country defend themselves from foriegn invaders is a good idea no matter what economic situation they're in.

They've been in charge of building and rebuilding since independance. There are the experienced Iraqi and other Middle Eastern construction and operating companies that have been frozen out. European companies also have a vast amount of experience there. None, of course, are being given the opportunity to ply their trades.

However, thanks to us, they are now in a state of anarchy with no legitimate or effective government. Hussein may have been a dictator, but he held things together.

I don't know if bringing Hussein to justice is necessary or not, but it would signal and end to his regime and any threat that he may retake power at some future time. Finding him seems to be a problem, but if we ever do, the argument is that a trial would bring a certain amount of closure to the country and allow it to go forward cleanly.

I firmly believe that going in was wrong to begin with, and our efforts at rebuilding the place have been misguided-- to say the least. Giving the responsibility solely to the Pentagon was the first mistake.

We did, however, fuck the place up, and it is our responsibility to fix it. There are plenty of examples of regime change to look to as examples, and we seem to be looking at none of them.

Making it up as we go.

:grr:

Clark has been advocating that the U.S. gradually give the U.N. full control.

Did you also forget the discussions posted by the admin here of what an unconditional and immediate withdrawl of U.S. troops would do? Everyone here was in agreement with Skinner that doing so would cause even greater chaos and murder than what we have now.

Clark's position is no different from that. Pay attention.

Edited for typos and grammar (sp?).

It's better that it's there blood than ours. Has the land we call Iraq ever been peacful? HELL NO!!. I guess you like seeing our troops come home in bodybags? You're sicker than anything that can put into words. Also a closet bigot as well. I am paying attention to the death counts which you obviesly haven't you DLC sheep. I don't believe you on Skinner BTW. Proove it.

:grouphug: Makes OSU look bad:puffpiece:

Keep the OSU/MU stuff in the lounge please. I just told him how it is if you got a problem then leave coward.

Apparently the only people you say give a shit about are the U.S. troops and no one else, which is very typical of the U.S. centered mentality that got our country in the quagmire to begin with.

And are you REALLY paying attention to the body counts over there? I guess you missed the running counts I've been posting since Bush's "bring them on" speech. Here's the link I've been using:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html

If you think your link is more reliable then I'll gladly use it for future posts.

BTW your "closet bigot" remark is pretty interesting. I happen to be registered with the Green Party and for good reason, given that the DLC/DNC has thrown too much support behind Bush and lost their ass bad in the '02 elections as a result. I switched parties this last Earth Day. I also posted that some time ago.

I've also mentioned that I did in fact serve in the U.S. Army and very nearly went to the Gulf the first time around so don't try to shovel your own standards of sympathy on me.

And if you really want that link I mentioned with regards to Skinner's post, watch this space. If you pay attention you might actually see when I post it.

It takes decades to form a robust and confident middle class. This probably would have worked before the sanctions ruined Iraq, it might even have worked before the invasion, but it's too late now. The country is ruined, and what cohesiveness it had is destroyed. If we pull out now, the best case scenario for Iraq would probably be that Saddam returned and restored some kind of order and unity. That would be bad for the Iraqis, and worse for us, as it would destroy our credibility as a nation, which Bush has already damaged. The worst case would be civil war and gangsterism. Like it or not, we're stuck there for a long time.

If you can't then send a able body loved one. That way you know what the people who there loved one's felt when they came home in a wooden box.

That's his UN-in, US-out plan. None of the other candidates supports that tactic.

How can you support Howard Dean if you don't support his plan for Iraq? He won't cut and run; in fact Dean said so himself.

Dean is my second.

All he said was true. Just people don't want to hear it.

My brother is a reserve non-com in the Marine Corps. He's expecting callup every day, and he's a field medic -- not a very safe occupation in a war zone. My sister served in GWI; my older brother is a reserve non-com in the Army, but he thinks he's too old, in his mid-50s, to get called up in his position (tank driver). I lost a half-brother in Vietnam; two others served there. So spare me the appeal to pity crap, which is irrelevant anyway. We broke it, and now you're drunkenly advocating that we run off and let the place sink straight into hell. Nice, progressive set of ethics you have there.

Man who are you Scott Peterson? You remember the Vietnam lies? There the same ones you believe in. Just sustitute Terrorist for communist. I say pay your tab and get the hell out. What one man calls heaven another calls hell.

Wanted to make sure. Nice, classy move, by a nice, classy guy, with a nice, classy candidate.

Oh well, time for me to stop responding to this thread :)

He just gives smart ass Limbaugh like reply's. The hell are you talking about.

Stop stalling for chrisakes and awnser what I fucking asked you. You obviously do want them dead if you want to put them in harms way for no legitimate reason. Spare me the smart ass comments pal.:grr:

Do we want a volunteer service or not. I don't pretend to be all-knowing on that question. In some ways I think only the draft would be fair since the wealthy and well off of this country supported * horrendous plan.

But many experts in the military or retired feel strongly that a volunteer service is better, more skilled and motivated etc.

We just need the right plan for Iraq ASAP to minimize casualties. Clark was saying on MTP that we need to reduce the logistics footprint. IOW the soft vehicles and other support groups. Makes a lot of sense to me combined with an Iraqi force, some international forces, and a special forces working on the insurgent problem. This is just the military piece, there is the whole political piece to deal with too.

That way everybody's sorry ass has to walk the line for a while. All that other stuff could work BTW. You're alot more open minded than you're other Clark pals.