"Kucinich's mistake is not being wrong but being prematurely right"

Postponing the inevitable

"Faced with escalating turmoil in Iraq, President Bush spurns any talk of pulling out. "America will never run," he vows. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, disagrees: "This disastrous mission must be ended before any more lives are lost. It is time to bring our troops home."

Given that Bush is president and Kucinich is not, American troops will be staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Most likely, though, Kucinich's mistake is not being wrong but being prematurely right.

The administration's supporters think critics are overwrought when they raise parallels to Vietnam, and that's partly true. The scale of the U.S. commitment and the volume of American casualties are far smaller today than they were then. But the parallel also diverges in a way that should alarm the hawks. Even before the attack Sunday that killed 15 soldiers, 38 percent of Americans favored withdrawal. Broad opposition to this war has emerged far more quickly than during Vietnam.

Americans are not severely allergic to combat fatalities, if they advance a crucial purpose. Hardly anyone remembers how many soldiers died in Afghanistan--a war the United States had to fight and had to win. But the public won't support endless bloodshed to underwrite a faulty policy."


This article was written by Steve Chapman, whom if I'm not mistaken, is one of the more levelheaded conservative journalists out there.

You have to register to read the article at the site, but the rest of the article really is GREAT!

Wow. We really are through the looking glass.

'ahead of his time' :D

oh, dear ... I've got to wait another 30 years for some real progress ... if I'm lucky, I will be @83 years old ... whoopee!

back to the mountaintop, again ... repeat and rinse ... keep the ripples of hope rippling ...

... and, so the story goes ...

write off any thought that America has a conscience

now, cosmicdot, get back in line

This is my last chance. I do not think I will be alive 30 years
from now.

I don't think any of us will be alive 30 years from now if Bush gets re-elected. And probably wouldn't want to be under the circumstances facing us with 4 more years of Bush and Bible.

I liked this quote: "During the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson's national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, once asked whether it was better politically "to `lose' now or to `lose' after committing 100,000 men. Tentative answer: the latter. " 'But we shouldn't sacrifice American soldiers to postpone the inevitable.'"

Another news story I picked up in my local paper highlighted for me again what Dennis Kucinich has been saying. About diplomacy. About building partnerships. And about my own concerns with spending our troops unnecessarily and antagonizing the planet with bully tactics.

A news report this morning grieved me:

<snip>

TIKRIT, Iraq - American troops backed by Bradley fighting vehicles swept through Iraqi neighborhoods before dawn today, blasting houses suspected of being insurgent hideouts with machine guns and heavy weapons fire in retaliation for the downing of an Army helicopter that killed six soldiers.

The Black Hawk crashed Friday, apparently shot down by insurgents, capping the bloodiest seven days in Iraq for Americans since the fall of Baghdad.

"This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them," Lt. Col. Steven Russell, commander of the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, said of today's raids.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/Worldandnation/Forces_retaliate_afte.shtml

"Suspected of being insurgent hideouts;" I read: "We show how tough we are and how you shouldn't mess with us by blasting neighborhoods and homes whether we know if there is an enemy there or not, and those killed in the process...well, we showed them."

I say bring this debacle to an end before any more lives are lost, and before we alienate the world any further than we already have.

Dennis Kucinich has it right. And he has all along. He wasn't premature; he was right on target when he stood up in opposition to this war to begin with.

I've seen people criticize Israel for firing missiles into apartment buildings where terrorists are hiding, because they kill innocents. How is this any different? There should be a massive outcry about this.

We're at a crossroads. Will we choose diplomacy or continue to use missiles to kill flies?

Every new day, every new Bush atrocity, simply strengthens my determination and purpose.

I choose the other road...the road less traveled. The road offered by Kucinch and other honest, caring, sensible leaders. If there are any.

:hi:

:hi:

Ihe Iraqis, and whoever else is fighting us over there will NEVER give up and stop fighting(RE: Russians, Afganistan). The North Vietnamese NEVER stopped fighting us never would have. Get out while the gettings good. The American people didn't start that war, Bush did. Bush himself will be the one with "defeat" written all over his legacy, not the US or the military. Cut and run my ass!

If you're driving down the road, and the road ends at a cliff, do you:
a) turn around, go back and look for an alternate route, or
b) keep on driving because you're CERTAIN this is the right road?

Damn, even the conservatives are waking up to this now. Unfortunately, none of the other Dems seem to be willing to admit that we need to get out NOW, lest we be seen as "weak".

:eyes:

I believe there is another way...
I believe we can change this world....
I believe Dennis is on the right track...
I sure as hell believe that Bush isn't......

Maybe those of us who are awake can help others to wake up...or at least enough to start the chenges rolling.

Thank you Dennis Kucinich for stating what no other Dem candidate has the balls to say...
We need to get out of Iraq- sooner rather than later....

It has to come down to this....
Peace
DR

If you tell people to get in a caravan on a highway and then blow up the bridge across the river, do you leave them there to figure it out for themselves or do you help build a new bridge?

You're incorrect on DK's position on the occupation of Iraq. You may want to read his actual position on his web site, and clear up the misperceptions.

In brief, it goes like this:

The FIRST step is to get a true international coalition IN TO IRAQ-- i.e., "UN IN". This means handing over control to an third-party organization who has no ulterior motives in the region.

The NEXT step is to get the US OUT, after we have turned over the administration, management and rebuilding to the UN. That DOES NOT mean that we cut and run-- far from it. We would still support the rebuilding of Iraq, but we would NOT be the ones to directly profit from it.

A better analogy would be closer to this, for our current situation:

"You're leading a caravan on the highway and come to a bridge. You decide to blow up the bridge in front of everyone, leaving no doubt as to who did it. You offer to "rebuild" the bridge, your way, without any input from anybody else. Your "new" bridge does not cross over the river, but only goes halfway across and drops off into the river. Not only that, you set up a toll booth to collect tolls from everyone in the caravan, where there wasn't a toll booth before."

Would the people in the caravan "trust" you to have their best interests in mind? Not likely.

Now, try this on, which is closer to DK's plan:

"You're leading a caravan on the highway and come to a bridge. You blow the bridge up in front of everyone. Because you know you've lost face to the caravan, you choose to go to an outside party to take over leadership of the caravan and to rebuild the bridge. The bridge is rebuilt by the third party, with resources you provide, and the caravan is safely led across the bridge by the new caravan leaders."

But the way I was taught to rebuild my own credibility was to take responsibility for cleaning up my messes. I absolutely think we have to get our grubby fingers off of Iraq, but I don't think it's right for us to turn over our responsibility to someone else. It just seems having Daddy fix a spoiled kids' messes. I just don't agree with Dennis' approach entirely, although I do understand his intentions.

but under the auspices of the international community.

I don't think the world or the Iraqis would trust the US to do what is in their best interests-- our history of overthrowing other "tyrants" and "rebuilding" other countries is not very good, IMHO:

* Iran, 1952
* Guatemala, 1954
* Vietnam, 1958-1975
* Indonesia, 1965
* Chile, 1973

...you get the picture.

If we insist on controlling the rebuilding process, our people will still remain targets not only to Iraqis, but to any other terrorists who can get into the country.

IMHO, THAT's the biggest problem right now: as long as Americans are perceived as an occupational force, we're still going to be the targets of attacks.

Let's say you rode your bike through a flower bed. You'd like to fix it up, but the people whose flower bed it is are so upset that they don't want you anywhere around, and they come after you with a stick to chase you off their property. What do you do? Get a bigger stick?

His plan will absolutely bring the U.N. in. None of the other candidates has a clear plan for doing this. Why do we need U.S. troops when we could have U.N. troops saving the day?

That's part of the problem, there aren't enough UN troops to do this without us. And how damn selfish are we that we're willing to let other people's kids get killed for something we started?

other countries have said they would be willing to contribute to an international peacekeeping force, only if it's not led by the US.

The problem is that, as long as the US is perceived as the occupational force, the violence against our troops will not stop, and rebuilding will not be accomplished.

If the occupational force is led by a true international coalition (i.e., the UN), there's a much greater chance that it will be accepted not only by the Iraqis, but by other countries in the region.

We'd still have to have troops there. There isn't enough troops in the rest of the world to secure Iraq which was my point to the other poster. Of course we should go to the UN. But it's wrong of Dennis to say UN in, US out, because he knows we won't be able to bring our troops home even if the UN does go in. That's just one problem I have with his platform. I like him, but what he's saying doesn't match the facts.

to keep public order, and a small, agile military force to suppress warlordism. There are plenty enough resources in the world to supply those needs. We have to have a large force there because we're invaders and occupiers, not because of any intrinsic needs of the population.

the war. Now those Democrats are waking up. In time, they will wake up and learn that he is right about everything. Hopefully that will be before the nomination.

And share the reins and there will be nations willing to paticipate. One's that won't have targets on their backs.

or why we shouldn't try to get as many troops out ASAP (?!), made me think back on what Howard Zinn was saying about the Vietnam War.

He said that back then, as now, there was a lot of hooey coming from politicians, echoed by journalists, that we shouldn't 'cut and run'.

When will we ever learn?

:(

has just said that Kucinich is the only Dem candidate with any grasp of a real plan.

Isn't that what the Repubs are always braying about? That Dems just whine and complain, but don't offer solutions?

Go Kooch!

:D

He doesn't just have a theoretical plan; talk to him, and he gives you the history, the current status, the nuts and bolts and how to put them together...

When it comes to Dennis Kucinich, there's a world of substance behind the soundbites.

of any sort. :)

I understand the need for UN involvement in Iraq, but can we consider the message we send by pulling out?

If you want the US out, just bomb a couple buildings and that's enough to sway our policy. I'm going to assume that the terrorists' first goal is to get rid of the United States (and feel free to challenge this assumption). We send the message that their tools are working, just like when we've pulled out of Middle Eastern countries before. We have to show terrorists that we are in this for the long haul, and that we aren't going to be deterred simply by their actions.

Yes, this will cost American lives, but that's the price for starting a war. Was it Bush's war? Yes, but if I'm not mistaken, at the time he started the war, he had the majority of the American people behind him (I think his approval rating spiked around April). Now, I'm not defending the war, but I'm saying that the majority of Americans supported this war and now we've got to take responsibility for that as a country. Merely passing this off as the previous President's mistake is irresponsible.

What we need to do instead is come up with a policy that will stabilize Iraq. What this is, I don't know, because I'm not a foreign policy expert. Perhaps a policy that is less radical in its shift towards democracy, I don't know. But we can't just cut and run, saying, "it was George's war."

that's the same logic used during Vietnam.

Goodness knows that's what Bush will be saying. 'what kind of message will we send', etc.

:puke: