Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kucinich: 'You can't be in & out at the same time' - The War in Iraq has entered a New Stage of PR

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:16 PM
Original message
Kucinich: 'You can't be in & out at the same time' - The War in Iraq has entered a New Stage of PR
The War in Iraq has entered a New Stage of Public Relations

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

U.S. House Representative
Posted: August 19, 2010 04:57 PM

Who is in charge of our operations in Iraq, now? George Orwell? A war based on lies continues to be a war based on lies. Today, we have a war that is not a war, with combat troops who are not combat troops. In 2003, President Bush said 'Mission Accomplished'. In 2010, the White House says combat operations are over in Iraq, but will leave 50,000 troops, many of whom will inevitably be involved in combat-related activities.

Just seven days ago, General Babaker Shawkat Zebari, the commander of Iraq's military, said that Iraq's security forces will not be trained and ready to take over security for another 10 years. One story is being told to the military on the ground in Iraq and another story is being told to their families back home.

You can't be in and out at the same time.

This is not the end of the war; this is simply a new stage in the campaign to lull the American people into accepting an open-ended presence in Iraq. This is not an honest accounting to the American people and it diminishes the role of the troops who will put their lives on the line. This is not fair to the troops, their families or the American people.

................

more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/the-war-in-iraq-has-enter_b_688218.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who thinks the last American service person has died in Iraq?
With the Iraq war "over," we can expect an end to casualties there, right?

As usual, Kucinich is correct.

The message police are the enemy of the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
64. Damn sure didn't expect the costs to go up???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R'd.
The unreccer's are out in force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. So the Korean war is still going? WW2 never ended?
Why can't people wait and see what happens, how many hostile incidents occur involving US troops, and whether they were offensive or defensive (US military personnel have killed and been killed in Korea long after 1953), rather than making blanket assumptions that a war only ends when there are no US soldiers at all in a country?

Bookmark this for a six month review folks. If US military deaths are not down 75% or more from the last six months in Iraq g then I will agree they are still in a war. Wioll you agree they are not if deaths do dramatically decline?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. yeah, the daily korean body count is pretty massive.
Edited on Thu Aug-19-10 04:41 PM by jonnyblitz
:rofl: damn those IED's going off all over Seoul!!11 :sarcasm: you people are a fucking trip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Which would be sensible if we knew what the daily body count in Iraq will be
Edited on Thu Aug-19-10 04:44 PM by dmallind
Care to make a wager and see who is closest, or does your "fucking trip" not back up your "fucking mouth" like most pontificators before the event?


Are you the one DU know it all with the courage of your convictions I've been looking for for so long? How much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonLP24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Wager on percentage of lives that will be lost???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. wow..
just fucking wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. The daily body count of U.S. troops lost in Iraq is zero.
The daily body count of Iraqis killed by U.S. troops in Iraq is zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
41. yeah right. waste of time replying. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocet Donating Member (699 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #13
48. I am sure that these people will be happy to find out that the daily body count is zero.
Date--------------Country------------Name---------------Rank--------------Age------Cause

8-19-2010------------US----------Wright, Christopher------Not yet reported-----0-------Hostile - hostile fire

8-15-2010------------US----------Rhett, Jamal M.----------Specialist------------24------Hostile - hostile fire - grenade

8-07-2010------------US----------Hinkley, Faith R.---------Specialist------------23------Hostile - hostile fire

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx


People are not statistics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
42. Jonny is a vet, he doesn't "wager" on the death of soldiers
WTF is wrong with you for even suggesting something like that???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
50. You didn't just offer to bet on the lives of soldiers, didja?
Yikes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. +1
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankmeCrankme Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Yes, the Korean war is still going.
No military battles are being fought because there is a truce in place and has been for many decades. Secondly, we don't occupy S. Korea. We have military units stationed there for defense against external enemies, not internal insurgents. Lastly, we don't have the run of the country. Our troops do not have immunity from the laws of S. Korea while in that country. Our troops do not patrol their streets, do not man check points within the country against S. Koreans, we don't no have rules of engagement against S. Koreans. I could go on but you should get the picture.

Also, WWII did end. We won and were able to dictate terms of surrender to the legitimate government of Nazi Germany and Japan. Under those terms of surrender we forced them to accept the occupation of their country, the de-nazification of Germany and the establishment of a new government that was based in democracy and had them write a new constitution. Our occupation troops left and due to the threat of the USSR the NATO member Germany allowed us to man military bases to help against any aggression from outside enemies. They, like S. Korea, have restrictions on what they can do and are bound by the laws of the host countries.

Germany, S. Korea and Japan are not analogous to Iraq in any way, shape or form. Germany declared war on us, Japan attacked us and S. Korea requested help from the U.N. against N. Korea aggression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
39. How refreshing, thank you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ticonderoga Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
44.  Approx. 100,000 mercenaries
remain in country whose deaths the DOD are not compelled to disclose. Kabuki theater folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
78. And tax money will continue to be used to pay private companies for the contractors
as we continue to protect the infrastruture there so we can't afford to repair it here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
45. Technically, the Korean war ISN'T over -
There was never an armistice, never a treaty, just a cessation of active hostilities which DO flare up at irregular intervals. And because that war is on-going, we have troops there in case of a big flare up.

And your definition really sucks. By your lights we were never at war in Iraq, because our casualty rate was so low - why we'd have as many casualties in a day in Vietnam as we'd have in a month in Iraq - and Vietnam wasn't really a war at all - only 50,000 dead over 11 years? Now, WW2, THAT was a war! A hundred thousand dead for each year.

I don't care if casualties drop of 20/mo to 20 in 6 months - as long as there is a hostile force shooting at our troops WE ARE AT WAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. "we" are the hostile force.
it is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE for iraqis to be shooting at us. we unjustly and illegally invaded their country causing untold casualties and suffering far in excess of what "we" have suffered.

there is NOTHING legitimate about our presence there and there never will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. So who thinks that the Iraq War was for defending America?
Who thinks that the Iran War will be next? America needs to grounded in America instead of being a war puppet policeman for internationalist neocons. We've had too many wars where young Americans have given their lives for the corrupt greedy war profiteering elitists and while average Americans have been massively indebted. We need to eliminate entangling alliances and work to regain our nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. And don't forget about that 'superbase' that was built...
you think we're just going to walk away from that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
54. I Haliburton built it...
it might be less expensive than the cost of maintaining it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R
Great article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. You can always count on Dennis to speak the truth.
I just read that the private army of mercenaries, already huge in Afghanistan, will now be doubled in Iraq. So that 'money for the troops' is really money for the 'mercenaries'.

I know, we are supposed to call them 'contractors' so people will think they are building things.

I believe the reason we are leaving 50,000 combat troops in Iraq, is because according to the law, our private army, or 'contractors' cannot be justified unless they are 'servicing the troops'.

All that money going to Iraq now will be going into the hands of private contractors, hiring killers from wherever they can find them. And they are not all American contractors. The U.S. has awarded contracts to British Mercenaries and to others, and some of their employees are from some of the worst dictatorships in the world.

The whole thing stinks, I don't know how Dennis doesn't lose his cool, seeing so clearly and having to listen to his colleagues either lie to uphold the fake image, or remain silent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good for Kucinich. I wish he would have mentioned the mercenaries.
How many are in Iraq? How much do they cost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Mercenaries should be against the law
and there should be a fair draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #33
43. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lob1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
70. During Viet Nam, I was very much against the draft.
The Bush Wars have changed my mind, tho. During Nam, people saw their own kids being drafted, killed and maimed in a senseless war. (Anyone remember what it was about?) Everyone knew someone that was serving, and that affected how people thought of the war. It took a while, but republicans with kids in Nam were out protesting with us Lefties. We can't protest and be meaningful when our troops have volunteered. And mercenaries are an abomination. I now believe we have more sway over our government with a draft. It would have to be a fair draft, tho. No deferments like warmonger Dick Cheney got. Deferments serve to extend the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. K and R (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. Correct once again, Mr. K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R
for a little truth.

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
17. *yawn
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Your yawn makes me yawn.

Too predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. .
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. ...
:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. damn, now i'm yawning. i hate it when that happens.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. At least
I didn't sneeze. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Appalling!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. Probably not your best response ever.
I know for a fact that you can do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. So can Dennis
unfortunately. He's become quite predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Binka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. You Quote Conrad
Do you understand what he meant? Obviously not. Ignore for the fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. I'm not quoting anyone. The yawn, is mine.
Further, no one said we were "out" of Iraq. What has been stated is that we have ended the combat mission. Rachel Maddow who is in Iraq stated "the war is over." I defer to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. "we have ended the combat mission"

"Major combat missions have ended."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. So you're saying that Obama = Bush?
Really?

"Major combat missions" vs. the combat mission period, and a completely different source. Again, I defer to Rachel Maddow who said "the war is over" while sitting on the sand, in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. No.
...and for your personal growth,
almost every reply that begins with "So you are saying..." is a Strawman, which is TRUE in the case of your post.
No Charge.

I do NOT think Obama = Bush.
Nobody I know or care to talk to believes that Obama = Bush.
I DO believe that in too many areas, Obama Policy is a continuation of Bush Policy, or too close to Republican Policy to represent much difference.


What I am saying is I don't trust the MIC no matter which party is in power.

Even you would have to admit that the two quotes are similar?

Deja Vu?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. I admit the quotes are similar, but the men are not.
Thus my question to you. I am aware that you consider the two parties one in the same, I on the other hand do not. Neither did the guy in your sig line Bvar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. But he worried that might change
Edited on Fri Aug-20-10 03:49 PM by dflprincess
"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

And since his death it has.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. Wellstone
was noting what was has been an issue within the party for years. He knew that politics is local.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/nader_10-24.html

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: "You know, I think you do focus on ordinary people, but I think that what we're saying is, if you live in Texas, Jim, go ahead and vote for Ralph. But in states where it's going to be close, if you care about the environment and if you care about economic justice, whether or not there's more investment in education and kids and health care, and if you care about reform, and if you care about a Supreme Court that will respect the right of women to choose, and a Supreme Court that won't overthrow much of the work that we've done in our lives, then you're going to vote for Vice President Gore. That's what this election is about. I'm for Ralph doing well up to the point that this means that George W. Bush gets elected president. You don't want George W. Bush and his supporters in control of national government. The differences make a difference, especially for the lives of ordinary citizens in America. I'm sorry, Jim, when it comes to Head Start, or child care, or kids in school, or prescription drugs for elderly people, those are important issues to people's lives. I don't think you want to see a vote for Ralph becoming a vote for George W. Bush."

Paul Wellstone NEVER said the two parties are the essentially the same. He NEVER suggested we ignore the important differences that make a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #85
98. I never said Wellstone said we should ignore the differences
Edited on Fri Aug-20-10 11:04 PM by dflprincess
in the two parties traditional positions. He was exhorting the Democrats not to abandon their principles.

I pointed out that he was concerned about elements within the Democratic party that want to do just that by becoming "kinder, gentler Republicans". Sadly, that group seems to be gaining ground.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Wellstone clarified that he supported Democrats over Republicans period. He did not use the term
"traditional positions." He directly took on Nader, and asked that progressives vote for Al Gore. In fact, he used the term "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." He was right.

I disagree that conservative forces are gaining ground within the Democratic Party. Look at the Presidency of JFK, for example. Certainly he was to the right of Barack Obama, as was Bill Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #73
86. Again, you persist with the Strawman Fallacy.
I do NOT consider "the two parties one in the same".
THAT is a complete and utter FALSEHOOD
and those who perpetuate that FALSEHOOD are NOT interested in any HONEST discussion of the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #73
100. This isn't about the men (bush* & Obama) its about the policies n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-21-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Which differ under the two
men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #31
53. Looks like predictability is catching on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
61. Yes. You can count on Dennis to be consistent.
You will never find Dennis to be AGAINST the War on one day,
and FOR it on the next.



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."

--- Paul Wellstone


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. As such he should celebrate its
end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. money
knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. The oil companies need their newly aquired assests protected.
including Halliburton while they fulfill the contract to build 15 wells.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Smedley Butler

Same old, same old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
91. Bing-effin-o. The war is over. Iraq is conquered and colonized.
By oil companies, as well as do the many other types of multi-national enterprises that are nesting and spinning their webs there. They need protection now.

Making Iraq safe for multi-national corporations was 99% of the motivation behind the conquest of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. off message!!!
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
30. Dennis nails it as usual
this, like many of Obama's "wins" are wayyyyy more PR than substance. It's bullshit. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Sadly POTUS Obama and Team define their victories
as "wins" regardless of the content.

Neo-liberal and Neo-con foreign policy is not that much different.

I favored Obama over Clinton because I thought Clinton to much the hawk.

Obama kept the GWB era military leaders and has expanded military in Africa and Latin America as well as AfPak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. The challenge is becoming
finding a country where there are no US troops. The MIC is firmly in control. Kudos to Dennis telling it like it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. DU ignores the increased military foot prints in Africa and Latin America.
There are knowledgable liberal posters that are steadfast in relating reality and also reactionaries that are willing to support continued or expanded Authoritism, economic colonialism, and violent right wing leadership (and still call themselves liberals and Democrats).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanpalmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. Central Asia too
It's clear now that Obama is a big supporter of the MIC, and of the empire. There's really no drop-off from GWB; more like an all around increase in support. I don't know how real Democrats can support it or support Obama who authorizse the dirty work. It's nothing more than killing people for their oil and other resources.

We need a new President who will make the necessary changes. The hundreds of billions Obama is spending on defense is wasted spending. It's taking money away from SS, Medicare and other needed social spending. The Catfood Commission is going to increase SS and Medicare taxes and reduce benefits so the MIC can be fully funded. This is bullshit. I hold Obama completely responsible for it. He's making some really bad choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-19-10 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
36. knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippywife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
46. k&r
Kucinich is right, and has always been right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
49. War is Peace-Peace is War. That's the way the powers that be roll.
Sickening ain't it? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
South End Liberal Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
51. No end to the war? The Post thinks so.
The Post also notes that “About 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, mainly as a training force”, and concedes that “There might never be an acknowledged end to the Iraq war – a moment where it ceases being America’s conflict.”


THERE MIGHT NEVER BE AN ACKNOWLEDGED END TO THE IRAQ WAR.


Military Industrial Complex: 1
We the People: 0


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
52. PR?
Dennis, I'm sorry. The proper term is propaganda. Let's keep this honest, please?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullsnarfle Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
55. Revolving door wars?
Anybody want to guess how many of those troops who ARE coming home from Iraq get handed orders to Afghanistan before they can even get their bags unpacked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
57. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
58. The troop that left are in and out
Edited on Fri Aug-20-10 11:30 AM by ProSense
They're out. Juan Cole has a good piece here

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lob1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
74. They're out of Iraq, but they're being sent to
Afganistan, according to at least one troop interviewed on MSNBC during the withdrawal. They'll going home for 6 months, then off to Afganistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fogonthelake Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
62. Some folks allow themselves to be lulled....




................
This is not the end of the war; this is simply a new stage in the campaign to lull the American people into accepting an open-ended presence in Iraq. This is not an honest accounting to the American people and it diminishes the role of the troops who will put their lives on the line. This is not fair to the troops, their families or the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. Good point....
but then the truth usually is.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
66. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savalez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
67. US Military Deployments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
68. Thank you, Dennis.
The hype over this fake withdrawal is insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #68
75. Hype for (fake) change.
Hype over fake stimulus
Hype over fake health care reform
Hype over fake withdrawal

I just want to know if chocolate rations are going up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #75
82. My mother and another 86 year old she was talking to at in the doctor's waiting room today
agreed they'd believe the war was over when they see a block long conga line on Hennepin Avenue in downtown Minneapolis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
72. The war is over
and Kucinich has to come to grips with the fact that it is

There is no war in Iraq. There are 50,000 U.S. troops still occupying the country, but they are not fighting a war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Complete bullshit.
Oh look! I have my own little blue link.

Of course, I also have the manners to pull a quote from the source I'm linking to:

Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal


By Kenneth M. Pollack
Sunday, August 22, 2010

<snip>
1. As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iraq.

Not even close. Roughly 50,000 American military personnel remain in Iraq, and the majority are still combat troops -- they're just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called "brigade combat teams" and instead will be called "advisory and assistance brigades." But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal.

American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as "advisers." American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full "battle rattle" and ready for a fight.

More at washingtonpost.com.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. Really, the war wasn't a failure? Also, from your link
Edited on Fri Aug-20-10 03:47 PM by ProSense
Be very, very careful with Iraqi public opinion. Polls are rarely subtle enough to capture the complexity of Iraqi views. Typically, they show a small number of Iraqis who want the Americans out immediately at any cost, a small number who want them to stay forever and a vast majority in the middle -- determined that U.S. troops should leave, but only after a certain period of time. When Iraqis are asked how long they believe our troops are needed, their answers range from a few months to a few years, but are strongly linked with however long the respondent believes it will take Iraq's forces to be able to handle security on their own.

One typically hears the same from people across Iraq and throughout its social and political strata. Iraqis are nationalistic, and they resent the American military presence. Many also feel deep bitterness over the mess that the United States made by invading and then failing to secure the country or to begin a comprehensive rebuilding process, failures that led to civil war in 2005-2006. Most Iraqis are relieved to have been rescued from that descent and are frightened that it will resume when the Americans leave. This is because their security forces are still untested and their political process has yet to show the kind of maturity that provides Iraqis confidence that they are safe from the threat of more civil war. Consequently, a great many people are both determined to see all American troops leave -- and terrified that they actually will.


Which is exactly what Perry states with more specificity.


Also from your link:

American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as "advisers." American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full "battle rattle" and ready for a fight.


Maybe you should take note of the WH's Facts and Figures on Drawdown in Iraq.

You call BS, but the facts are there: The war is a failure, the President did withdraw the troops promised and the only way to dispute the information coming out of the WH is to try to spin it by claiming they're saying something different.

On edit, thanks for the link to the Brookings Institution's point of view. I'm sure you will love them as they continue to push for a longer presense:

Going forward, America's involvement in Iraq can (and hopefully will ) be much reduced, but the need for a U.S. presence will endure for many years. Iraq has demonstrated great potential, but at this point it is only potential. The country still holds great peril as well -- not just for Iraqis, but for our interests in one of the world's most strategically important regions.

For these reasons, Obama was right to also warn that the United States will need to remain deeply involved in Iraq and will probably face casualties therein the years to come, regardless of how we label our mission there.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. I know this is tough for you, but please try to stay on topic.
Are all combat troops out of Iraq as the President claims, or are they not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Is this true:
When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. At his Camp Lejeune speech on February 27, 2009, President Obama announced that the United States would end its combat mission on August 31, 2010, and retain a transitional force of up to 50,000 U.S. troops to train and advise Iraqi Security Forces; conduct partnered and targeted counter-terrorism operations; and protect ongoing U.S. civilian and military efforts.

link


Do you dispute that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. Here's what's not true: your claim that "the war is over".
And no distraction you throw up will change that hard fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. There is no war
Where is the war?

There is a war in Afghanistan, but some of the same people claiming that there is a war in Iraq say what's going on in Afghanistan isn't a war.

There is no war in Iraq.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Congratulations on going Full Metal Orwell
I know you've been working toward this goal for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. FMO..
:rofl: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #72
89. .
Edited on Fri Aug-20-10 04:14 PM by jgraz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #72
92. we've never been at war with east iraqia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #72
94. Wow. What disrespect for the troops left behind,
trivializing the danger they are in. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. No kidding.
As if we needed more proof that these troops are just political pawns to some people. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Yesterday's talking point was that leaving those troops
behind is "just like we still have troops in Germany and Japan."

Sure it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. I'm sure those folks have already booked their Baghdad vacations
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
77. Dennis is too soft. He needs to make it clear that if we're paying for mercenaries then the war is
on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fogonthelake Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-21-10 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #77
101. ah, but they are saying it is less expensive for taxpayers. Yes,
they did say that. Its a failed excuse in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-20-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
80. Iraq Holdings L.L.C is now a subsidiary of America Inc. after a protracted hostile buyout
Or maybe Iraq is actually now a Colony of the United States! American Iraq. If we stay there long enough It could be brought into th Union as the fifty first state (ooh tough luck Puerto Rico try finding some oil and try again in a decade or two...).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC