Which candidates are ready to pull the us out of Iraq NOW???

Not as soon as possible because that means different things for different politicians. As far as I can see only Kucinich is ready to pull them out of that craphole now. We were lied into this war, and we (not to mention Iraqi civilians) are paying a terrible price for it. All for nothing I might add, because the moment we allow free and fair elections in Iraq, they will probably elect an Islamic cleric.

On this issue apart from Kucinich, they are all the same. Its easy to play MMQB and rip others for the IWR. But thats said and done. What will your candidate do TODAY to change situation in Iraq. That is what I care about.

the mess we have made. We need to get the U.N. and some troops from
Bosnia who speak the language of Islam. Let's use some of that good will Bill Clinton created to help us out.

no one else is saying that. But we all sit here and bitch about who caused people to die instaed of talking about what we need to do to stop the deaths.

The UN has never amassed the size of force that would be neccessary to stabilize Iraq without US troops, and they still won't be able to. Just ask yourself this: where will 100K+ troops come from?

of course we will. But we need to hand over control of this whole boondoggle to the UN. Its either that or we are occupying Iraq for the next 5 years plus.

We need to turn over effective control to the UN a.s.a.p., and cancel all the no-bid contracts. My point was solely about the troops. :hi:

who are Islamic are riddled with Al Qaeda sympathizers. Afghanistan, Chechnya and the Balkans were all on the jihadi Grand Tour in the 80s and 90s.

government fails, the US Overseas Import-Export bank has insured EVERY SINGLE contract with Halliburton, Bechtel, etc with OUR TAXPAYER MONEY for any losses they suffer.

So, taxpayers are subsidizing the private profits of these corporations, and they stand to win if they stay, but if they leave, there will be a HUGE transfer of taxpayer wealth to those corporations in exchange for them doinng NOTHING.

Ah, yes. Capitalism at its finest.

How do people feel about pulling out, considering this new fact.

losing troops, killing Iraqis and basically making Iraq a full-time colony because it is now too expensive to pull out? I didn't expect to hear that kind of argument on DU.

transfer profits to them.

Really, how do you feel about pulling out and then sending even MORE tax money Bechtel and Halliburton's way?

Don't you think that if they think there's no way they're going to make money there, they're going to ask Bush to pull out so that they can get the easy insurance money?

Kind of like the mob burning down the restaurant when it stops making money?

You want to be a pawn in that game?

You can't make a bowl or a vase with clay and a hammer--all you can do with a hammer is smash the crockery.

Iranians are active against the ayatollahs--they'll eventually do democracy their way. The Iraqis too. No one is proposing a withdrawal with no stabilizing forces in place.

Controlled market capitalism republican style.

:grr:

UN in/US out, UN in/US out, UN in/US out, UN in/US out, UN in/US out......

catchy little motto....but, gets irritating after the fifth time.

But, that's just my opinion.

n/t

Seriously DK saying that was a big mistake since it is not realistic. Leaving Iraq right now is just going to deliver it to Iran or religious extremists. We are in this mess we have to last it out.

Staying will only bring more deaths for our soldiers and for Iraqis. Either leave now or leave ten years from now, the only difference in the results will be the number of deaths. I don't know about you, but I prefer the option that involves the least people dying.

The examples of occuptations working are far more numerous than those of not. I didn't agree with the war, I thought it was going to be a little worse than it was so far but I also knew that if we would go in it would probably end up being a generational committment. Do I agree with that? No. But I do realize that it is needed unless you want to have complete anarchy.

There's the UK occupation of Iraq after 1919, the German occupation of all of Europe from 1939 to 1945, the Israeli occupation of Palestine 1967 to present, the Israeli occupation of Lebanon 1982-2000, French occupation of Vietnam 1945-1954, American occupation of Vietnam 1954-1975, Russian occupation of Afghanistan 1979-1989, etc, etc.

How about this, why don't you provide me with some SUCCESSFUL occupations, because I think successful occupations of populations that don't want to be occupied are NON-EXISTANT, lest we forget Germany and Japan SURRENDERED.

And quite frankly, I find the suggestion that Iraqis are incapable of rebuilding their country on their own to be racist in the extreme. They've been a civilization for over 6,000 years while we've been a country for less than 300. Who the fuck are we to tell them we know what's best for them.

In Vietnam, LBJ was damn near ready to leave by 1968-- in fact, they were negotiating such a thing until Henry Kissenger (on Nixon's payroll) interfered with the negotiations going on in Paris. The negotiations broke down, which was a major reason for Humphrey losing to Nixon-- who had a "secret plan" to end the war.

Nixon's "secret plan" involved expanding US bombing into Cambodia, Laos and N. Vietnam and escalating troop committments.

And another 25,000 US servicemen and servicewomen paid with their lives. Not to mention the millions more SE Asians who died.

DK's plan involves the UN taking over control of Iraq and the peacekeeping mission-- there would be no "power vacuum", since UN troops would be rotated in and US troops rotated out.

And other than WWII's Marshall Plan, what other US occupations have "worked"? Haiti? Somalia?

:shrug:

we bitch and moan about who got us in the war and why were we in the war. But we have no alternatives to offer right now. Well at least Dean,Kerry,Clark and Edwards don't. Yeah they will move a few people around and maybe speed up the timetable, but they don't plan to change much of anything.

Once a Dem wins presidency, I'm sure half of the posts here grumbling about the plight of the Iraqis and our troops will probably disappear. The only reason they bitch about it now is that it helps their candidate. Once candidate X wins it will no longer be Bush's War it will be candidate X's war. And I bet that'll be just fine for them.

so NOONE will immediately, unilaterally withdraw until replacements are ready to go in.

NOW means a cogent plan to hand over the Iraqi debacle to a real international coalition. At least DK has a timetable.

Iraqis polled don't want it, and they're right, we need to leave them with relative stability and hope for prosperity and tranquility, not a permanant power struggle and civil war, that is what is justified

Only a constitution, and a representative republic will ensure that

not one with candidates preselected by the occupation. Read the other thread about how they are already talking about reviving the spirit of 1920.

Just as the Vietnam War, which was started by Democrats, quickly became a Republican war when Nixon did not pull the troops out shortly after he took office. Nixon opted for Vietnamization.