 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 10 May 08 - 09:49 AM Being philosophically opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq carries absolutely no risks whatsoever in US society anymore. The American majority is now openly against the war. To oppose it involves no risk. Now, the only risk personally is in trying to stop it. During the summer of 2007, there were endless "anti-war" rallies outside the offices of Republican members of Congress, and TV ads by MoveOn, etc. resulted in progressive dollars being dumped in the coffers of the media war machine, with no change in policy achieved. Why? No similarly funded effort has insisted the Democratic party leadership to actually end the occupation. Now, the biggest smokescreen of all has descended over so-called liberals and progressives--the Democratic party presidential horse race. Who cares about the war? We're gonna have the first black president! Where does he stand regarding the war? Philosophically was opposed to "starting" the war. And his position on ending the occupation? Well...there are personal political risks involved for him to oppose the occupation. Which is why he voted whenever he had the chance, to keep it going, and to beef up the war in Afghanistan. For a very interesting read, try Norman Solomon's latest, "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: john f weldon Date: 10 May 08 - 09:59 AM Despite being on the air 24/7, US news media can only follow one story at a time. Now it's Ob vs. Cl. If it wasn't for "Iron Man", who'd know there was fighting going on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 10 May 08 - 10:04 AM Two things: 1. Insufficient numbers in Congress to over-ride a veto... 2. Bush who is not shy about using the bully pulpit to demonize anyone he doesn't like... Change this equation and you change the entire situation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 10 May 08 - 10:31 AM The Democrats, Bobert. Why are you refusing to hold the Democrats accountable for their votes to start & sustain the war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 10 May 08 - 10:34 AM And even if the Democrats manage to gain a substantial majority in the Senate (the already have one in the House), and Obama in the White House, do you truly believe they will end the occupation, bring the troops home, and stop US military interventionism? You seem absolutely certain that returning to Democratic party majority rule will end US military interventionism. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Amos Date: 10 May 08 - 11:05 AM One reason is that the Democrats at he time were not led by anyone, had no core arguments to forward in any united way, and had no individual bold enough in the wake of the Administration's clouds of FUD and all the 9-11 crap to stand up and reject war as the answer. At this point, they have a Presidential candidate who can act Presidential and is willing to represent the reasons against war as a first choice. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 10 May 08 - 11:14 AM What Amos said... Yeah, if Obama wins and the Dems hold both houses of Congress in sufficient numbers to cut off a filibuster then the chips will down... Do I hold faith they will cut off the funding??? No... Do I hold faith that Obama and his Dems will get US outta Iraq in 16-18 months... Kinda... But do I think that McCain will get US outta Iraq by 2012??? No, not at all... He will probably have US in Iran, as well... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 10 May 08 - 11:32 AM Also, there is no draft. Without that many of the young protesters have no personal involvement and no personal risk in the war. Yeah, maybe their sister or brother or neighbor or cousin or high school chum is over there, but they're not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 10 May 08 - 11:58 AM And it is all a crock. The Democrat majority voted for the war, and they have consistently voted to continue and expand it. Including Obama. Including the leadership of both the House and Senate. So, how will voting for Democrats end this nightmare? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 08 - 12:48 PM I have felt all along that there is very little...indeed almost no chance of the Democrats ending that war. Why? Because they represent the same behind-the-scenes imperial corporate power structure that the Republicans do, and that power structure has no intention of ending its wars in the Middle East or pulling its troops out. The power structure plays "good cop - bad cop" with the American public to soften them up and keep them confused. The "good cop" is the Democrats (they sound nicer and gentler). The "bad cop" is the Republicans (they sound tougher and more likely to come down hard on someone). When the public is scared enough of imagined foreign or domestic "threats to America" they turn to the bad cop to protect them. When the public is sick of all the bloodshed and waste that the bad cop has caused, they turn to the good cop to get them out of the mess. Both cops serve the same war-making masters. The intention of the masters is to keep American voters endlessly befuddled and disempowered by making them keep waffling back and forth between the good cop (Mom) and the bad cop (Dad) forever and ever or until "death do us part". ;-) And it works. Like a charm. From cradle to grave the foolishness goes on and on, and the imperial masters run the show. It's total bullshit, and the rest of the world knows it, but Americans are trapped in their social tradition which rests upon the great phony duopoly of "good cop - bad cop", Dems and Reps. They should kick both of those parties out forever. No one should ever vote for them again or give them one dollar out of their pockets. There should be a damned revolution against those 2 parties, but there won't be. People aren't desperate enough for that yet. Now, here's the reality, due to all I've outlined above: Either Obama or Clinton or McCain will be the next president. The $ySStem has decreed it so by the power of its allmighty $$$$ and its corporate-controlled mass media. Okay. So if I were there, what would I do? ;-) Heh! Well, I'd probably vote for Obama, since I have some faint hopes that he might be a good man of some independent mind, despite being part of the $ySStem, and he might improve things a little if he was elected. These are faint hopes....but a faint hope is better than no hope at all, I suppose. I have no such faint hopes regarding Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I would also not be inclined to reward the Republicans for the last 8 years of criminal behaviour by voting for them if I was an American...but I hardly expect the Democrats to be any less criminal, once in office. I see no hope in voting for Nader or some other such independent candidate at this point. It would be like throwing an egg at an oncoming battleship. Still, if anyone wants to throw their egg at the approaching battleship of state in that fashion, I won't criticize them for it. I don't expect much from the government, frankly. Not yours. Not mine. I know who they really serve, and it's not you or me or the general public. It never was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 10 May 08 - 01:18 PM The current security problem of the Iraq war is that it has been screwed up so bad, that pulling out is as dangerous as staying in. The political problem is that Bush is just buying time until he can pass the war to the Democrats so that the GOP can blame them for losing it. He can buy all the time he needs because the Democratic majority is too small to force any action. In fact, with the Republocrat, Lieberman as the deciding vote in the Senate, legislative opposition to the war is impossible. Remember, that they need 2/3rds to overcome Bush's veto. I don't want Obama to pull all of our troops out right away. I want him to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq as long as is necessary. But I do want him to disengage us from the Iraqi civil war. The political structure of the USA is basically what you see. Its not "good cop/bad cop" is is a tug of war for a very small band of middle ground. The corrupting influence of Lobbyists and lax election laws exacerbate these problems to a sublime level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 May 08 - 01:31 PM To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? W Shakespeare |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bill D Date: 10 May 08 - 01:36 PM One more time...just to TRY to keep some perspective on this: Voting for the war is a very broad brush to paint with. Many Democrats simply were trying to give Bush & the administration the benefit of the doubt when they swore they had good evidence of WMDs. THEY WERE LIED TO! Many legislators have since backed down, apologized, issued statements..etc....saying they would NOT have authorized military action (not 'war'..we are NOT 'at war'!) if they had known the true situation. You may call them gullible, but branding everyone who voted 'yes' as "supporting war" is a flat exaggeration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 08 - 02:04 PM The lies about Iraqi WMDs back in 2002-2003 were not lies that anyone with a modicum of good sense and responsibility would have put their faith in, Bill. In my opinion. Kucinich didn't believe them, for example. Neither did a number of other people in Congress...but they were a small minority among a herd of political sheep. It was a very transparent and predictable effort on the part of the Bush administration to bamboozle the American public (and America's allies) into supporting an unprovoked war of outright aggression on a small and basically helpless country that had already been utterly crippled by over 10 years of bombing, scanctions, and general harassment. It was a criminal act of war by the USA. I have never in my lifetime seen a war launched by a great power with less justification. It was an absolute outrage. Anyone who did not oppose it forcefully at the time was either not very smart...or not terribly honest...or very much in collusion with the neocon forces behind the war effort. Either way, not a good decision on their part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Don Firth Date: 10 May 08 - 02:28 PM I don't care what your latest rant is, GUEST,Fantasmagoofball, I'm still not going to vote for Ralph Nader! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Amos Date: 10 May 08 - 02:49 PM Voting for Nader sure won't end this nightmare. The only tool we have is voting and pressure. What do you effin' suggest, magma-mouth? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 10 May 08 - 03:20 PM What do you expect the Democrats to do? Vote not to supply beans and bullets to the troops? That's not only a political kiss of death, it would be as immoral as the actions that got us in there in the first place. "See? See what I did, Daddy? I'm a wartime President too, Dadddy!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 08 - 04:42 PM I expect them to do exactly what their major sponsors and sources of cash require them to do... ;-) (fund the existing wars and prepare the ground for future wars of a similar sort). I do not expect them to do what ought to be done: arrest Bush and Cheney and most of their key underlings and put them on trial for war crimes and other crimes against humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 10 May 08 - 07:28 PM Come on, LH... Admit that obama has the best chance of getting US outta Iraq... You know it's true and I know you know it's true... Yeah, it's always fun to play the twiddle-dee-twiddle-dum stuff but this time, IMO, there is a slight chance that a great orator with an engaging smile *just might* make a difference... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 08 - 07:36 PM I think he might too, Bobert, and that's why I would vote for him rather than Hillary or McCain. And I've said that numerous times. I despise the Democratic and Republican parties. That doesn't mean I despise Barack Obama or various other individuals who are in those parties. I think Jimmy Carter was a good man, and he was a Democrat. Sometimes a corrupt party can put a good man "in power", but once he's there he has to deal with the weight of the machine itself, the machine being ever present all around him... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 10 May 08 - 07:54 PM Don't forget that at the time of the sabre rattling against Iraq the Dems were not in control of the situation and found themselves in danger of being labeled traitors. Remember Freedom Fries? As far as getting out, there is a pretty well founded belief that to end the war and just exit the arena would lead to an all out civil war in Iraq with Iran ending up the winner over everyone else. We're talking about a people that hold a pretty long grudge so I think that if they do manage to be peaceful long enough for us to say "Mission Accomplished" (for real this time) and pull out then they'll just launch into it then. So why stick around? I feel that this last maneuver by the Iraqi gov't was a convenient campaign year gimmick that allowed us to break a long standing truce with an anti-occupation cleric under the guise of the Iraqi gov't taking up security of the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 10 May 08 - 08:35 PM Yo, LH... Jimmy Carter is the only presidential candidate I voted for who won... That's going back a long time... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 10 May 08 - 09:18 PM You and me both, Bobert. But I even voted for Humphrey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Don Firth Date: 10 May 08 - 10:27 PM I can understand why a lot of responsible, thinking people in the Democratic Party are reluctant to just issue an abrupt order and pull the troops out of Iraq. The principle is, "You broke it, so you fix it." The United States, under a bellicose and bullying administration started this illegal and very ill-advised war, and in the community of nations, it's the responsibility of the United States—under whichever administration—to bring it to an end in a responsible manner with minimum bloodshed, and not just turn our backs on it and walk away. The result of doing that would quite probably lead to in-fighting, warfare, and general instability in the Middle East for generations to come. I want us to get the troops out and end this thing as soon as possible. We shouldn't be there in the first place,but by going there and starting this mess, we incurred responsibilities. Once again, it's a matter of "You broke it, so you fix it." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 10 May 08 - 11:12 PM A successful withdrawal is one of the most difficult things to pull off, militarily speaking. You have to provide covering fire, protection, for those withdrawing. Something like: 1,2,3,4,5,6 are going to withdraw. 2,4,6 provide protection for 1,3,5, who in turn provide protection for 2,4,6 to withdraw -- or in variations of this. In a situation like Iraq is and Vietnam was, you really shouldn't abandon your friends either. If in the above example 1,2,3,4,5,6 all withdraw at once most will become casualties. And of course the situation on the ground -- the tactical situation -- varies from moment to moment. Getting into The Big Muddy is easy, getting out again is another story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 08 - 11:33 PM Agreed, guys. You can't just pull all the American troops out at once and leave chaos behind you, it has to be done gradually and in a responsible way. Here's a suggestion: Arrange for a UN peacekeeping force to go in by stages as the USA and the UK withdraw by stages. The UN peacekeeping forces would have to be provided by neutral countries not previously engaged in the conflict, and they would provide some of the covering fire you mention, Rapaire, if necessary. It might be somewhat difficult to arrange that, but I don't think it would be impossible, because most of the world community would very much like to see that war ended, and the Anglo-American intervention ended. Also arrange to restore full Iraqi sovereignty over their own oil...and the marketing of that oil. This would be bad news for certain friends and corporate clients of the Bush administration, good news for Iraqis and most likely for the European Union. It would be a colossal defeat for the Anglo-American powers and their corporate backers, because they would not be controlling the Iraqi oil and military agenda any longer. That's why I think they will not even consider such a plan, but such a plan may be the best overall solution to a war that otherwise simply cannot be brought to a conclusion. Seems to me that Dennis Kucinich suggested something pretty much along those lines. He also suggested that America pay war reparations to Iraq for the damage that has been done to that country, and to that I say, damned well right. Major war reparations. Such reparations should also have been paid to Vietnam, but they never were. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 11 May 08 - 03:26 AM So Little Hawk's suggestion is that one UN peacekeeping force is replaced by another UN peacekeeping force. How well is that other UN peacekeeping force coming along in Darfur Little Hawk? "Gravest humanitarian crisis facing mankind" was how Kofi Annan described it how long ago? Took ages to stir themselves into action, no sorry correct that, took ages to stir themselves into thinking about taking action - and they're still doing damn all yet. Little Hawk doesn't explain why one lot of foreign infidels will be treated any better than the current crop, although that does come into play more in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Little Hawk also was to "arrange to restore full Iraqi sovereignty over their own oil...and the marketing of that oil." How do you restore something to someone that has never been taken from them in the first place? Who has sovereignty over Iraqi oil and gas at the moment - The Iraqi Government. Who is marketing Iraqi oil and gas at the moment - The Iraqi Government. At $120+ a barrel they are doing rather well out of it as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: quokka Date: 11 May 08 - 05:07 AM I have just seen the documentary 'Taxi to the Dark Side'(2008) about Abu Graib and I am still reeling. The so-called 'leaders of the free world' should be forced Clockwork Orange-style to watch this and then try and look us in the eye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 08:26 AM This isn't a thread where I'm going to tell people to vote for Nader, so get over yourselves. The question I'm asking all of you here is, to what lengths should the American citizen be going to STOP the war. End it. It can and must be done, and it can and must be done quickly. It is clear it will end no better than the Vietnam war ended. Or the Korean war. I couldn't agree more with Little Hawk when he says--wait a minute--there were PLENTY of responsible people who NEVER bought the WMD stories, including the vast majority of governments on the planet, the UN, and the international weapons inspection teams that had been monitoring Iraq for years. Or do you all forget that part? That those of you who are now offering lame excuses for why the Democrats support the war because you don't, but don't know what else to do because they are your team... See, that's the thing. They are YOUR team (most of you), so you rationalize away the war, the destruction, the lies, the torture--all so you can keep voting for your team. Which is why we have this war to begin with--all of you keep supporting the warmakers, by refusing to think outside the conventional party line boxes drawn for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 11 May 08 - 08:54 AM Fanny, I suggest that you do your best to stop projecting your concepts of what was, what is, and what should be onto others. Hans Blix and the inspectors were not permitted to visit certain sites, remember? The then-Iraqi government became more and more uncooperative, even to the point of refusing to allow the UN to service the monitoring cameras. The Korean Police Action ended with a truce, which is still in effect, not a rout as the Vietnam Conflict did. (They were NOT wars as they were not declared. Neither is this one. This is not to say that they may not have been unconstitutional. As a former infantryman, I tend to think that any time someone is trying to kill you you're at war, constitutionality be hanged -- but that's a very personal definition.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: van lingle Date: 11 May 08 - 08:57 AM Like a lot of other folks (just about everybody I know) I saw the bogus run up to this war for what it was. It still mystifies me that so many members of Congress supported it. Were they privy to some of Bush's "intelligence" (there's an oxymoron) that we were not? Regardless, we're there now on an immoral grounds and IMO our first responsibility is to secure the saftey of the Iraqi people. If that requires an immediate withdrawl fine, if not we need a reasonble person/administration to assess when a pull out is feasible. Although I'd like to see this whole mess over as soon as possible I'm certainly not qualified to determine when to go so I can't answer your excellent question. Ask again when Bush/Cheney is gone and we see how the new admin. is performing. I'll be out on the street again, if necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 09:14 AM Ditto what van lingle just said. You know, the problem here is cognitive dissonance. Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, the people who vote for that nominee either rationalize their votes as "lesser of two evils" (and I find them to be far more honest). But as the election gets closer, they become convinced of the great goodness of the candidate. We have certainly seen this phenomenon here, and that is what I'm talking about. People actually are going against their own moral compasses to support candidates they shouldn't be supporting, if they are to be true to their own values, and acting with integrity. The only thing I can, in good conscience, do is vote for Nader (a protest vote), or not participate in the corrupt system. I'm not sure which of the two it will be, but it will be one or the other. The disconnect I'm having in 2008 is no different than the one I had in 2004, except this year even more people I never would have expected to go the cognitive dissonance route, have merrily taken off down that very path. Makes me question most everyone's judgment that I thought was sound for the better part of the last 2 decades--like Barbara Ehrenrich. Obama's progressive Illinois supporters thought they were getting a far more liberal and progressive senator when they worked to elect him. What happened once he landed in the Senate? Weeeeellll...just as one example. Obama has boasted to campaign crowds that he had passed a law to increase regulation of nuclear power plants. Specifically this was a response to the Exelon Corp. which had failed to inform the public about radioactive leaks at one of its plants. Senator Obama scolded both Exelon and federal regulators. He presented a bill to force nuclear power companies to disclose even small leaks. On the stump, Obama stated that this was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed. I did it just last year (New York Times, 2/3/08, p. A1)." However, this was a lie. Obama had introduced such a bill, but it was repeatedly weakened until it no longer imposed any demands on the nuclear power industry…and then it was dropped. Obama never got any law regulating the nuclear power industry passed. Why did he cave in? The New York Times reports that Exelon was "one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money (same, p. A17)." Since 2003, Obama has gotten more than $227,000 from officials and employees of Exelon. Two of the top executives are among his biggest donors. Obama's chief political strategist has been an advisor to Exelon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 09:30 AM And the labor unions supporting the candidates that are pro-business--Obama and Clinton both--WTF is up with THAT? Pro-NAFTA--both of them! They just tell these sleazy lies to sedate the labor constituency. Obama happened to be caught out in that lie, but it just as easily could have happened with Clinton, whose husband is the very capitalist authoritarian who forced the damn legislation down the world's collective throat! These venal politicians and their personal ambition causes them to lust after the power that comes with being the CEO of the world's largest authoritarian capitalist regime. There is nothing democratic about this nation's political system at the federal level. Nothing. And the corporations that now control the federal government don't give a damn about destroying it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 09:53 AM I realize most of the activists here are not activists working in the peace and justice movement. They may be working in labor or electoral politics activist roles. So people here are not likely to be well informed about the debate going on in the peace and justice movement right now--since it has become clear that Obama will be the nominee, and since his interview on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program and his foreign policy speech back in April, so upset the apple cart on the left. From Chris Hedges: With Obama & Hilary Supporting the War Many Ponder Protest Votes for McKinney or Nader * A Conscientious Objection By Chris Hedges Truth Dig, March 23, 2008 Straight to the Source Those of us who oppose the war, who believe that all U.S. troops should be withdrawn and the network of permanent bases in Iraq dismantled, have only two options in the coming presidential elections-Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. A vote for any of the Republican and Democratic candidates is a vote to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq and a lengthy and futile war of attrition with the Iraqi insurgency. You can sign on for the suicidal hundred-year war with John McCain or for the nebulous open-ended war-lite with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or back those who reject the war. If you vote Democrat or Republican in the coming election be honest with yourself-you have voted to allow the U.S. government to continue, in some form, the campaign that needlessly kills ever more Americans and Iraqis in a conflict that has become the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history and a crime under international law. From the peace & justice newsletter, Dissident Voice: Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama? by Kevin Zeese / April 3rd, 2008 In the last two weeks Senator Obama has been sounding rather hawkish. Perhaps he believes he has the Democratic nomination wrapped up and now can start running to the center-right. The peace movement needs to let him know his positions are not acceptable. Some peace advocates had already given up on Sen. Obama because of his record since he came to the U.S. Senate. His voting record on Iraq and foreign policy is very similar to Sen. Clinton. Obama did make a great speech before the war began, saying much the same thing that peace advocates were saying, but that seems to have been the peak of his peace advocacy. Indeed, Black Agenda Report described how Obama took his anti-war speech off his website once he began running for the senate. And since coming to the senate he has voted for Iraq funding, giving Bush hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, he is calling for nearly 100,000 more U.S. troops as well as keeping the military option on the table for Iran. But in the last two weeks he has moved to the right. On April 1, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Obama about what type of U.S. residual forces he would leave behind in Iraq. First, Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as "a strike force in the region." Where would this strike force be based? Obama said "It doesn't necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places." Of even greater concern was the 140,000 civilian troops — the private security forces that some describe as mercenaries — who are in Iraq. With regard to these Obama said: "we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops." When Goodman pressed him on whether he would support a ban on private military forces Obama said "Well, I don't want to replace those contractors with more U.S. troops, because we don't have them, alright?" Obama seems to be choosing his words very carefully when he talks of his Iraq plan. He always talks in terms of only "withdrawing" "combat" troops and ending "the war." Withdrawal is not the same as bringing troops home as it could mean moving the troops somewhere else in the region and into Afghanistan. Combat troops are a minority of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, ending the "war" is not the same as ending the occupation. Indeed, Obama plans to keep the massive U.S. Embassy as well as the long-term military bases being built in Iraq. No wonder he does not talk about ending the occupation as it does not seem that is his intent. What are the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the Iraq war and want to see U.S. forces brought home to think? It sounds like Obama would leave more than 100,000 and perhaps even more than 200,000 public and private military troops in Iraq. And, he would leave strike forces in the region "not necessarily in Iraq" who could strike in Iraq when needed. Is this what he means by withdrawal? The other important speech that Obama gave focused on his broader approach to foreign policy. In this speech, given on March 28th, Obama praised the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. Obama described his foreign policy as a traditional U.S. approach — certainly not the "change" he promises in his big campaign speeches saying "my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan." There is lot to unravel in the foreign policy of these former presidents. While these X-President's are much more popular than the current occupant of the White House, which is why Obama believes tying himself to those will garner votes, each of their foreign policy strategies relied heavily on the use of the U.S. military. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 11 May 08 - 09:57 AM "I couldn't agree more with Little Hawk when he says--wait a minute--there were PLENTY of responsible people who NEVER bought the WMD stories, including the vast majority of governments on the planet, the UN, and the international weapons inspection teams that had been monitoring Iraq for years." - GUEST,Fantasma (Another "mushroom" Guest with a 295 posting record from 15th April) Plenty of responsible people were there? "vast majority of Governments" never bought the WMD stories so quotes Fantasma. Really? how many on the UN Security Council in September 2002 either abstained or voted against UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The main point Fantasma was that the world didn't know, because "international weapons inspection teams" had not been monitoring Iraq for years, and Saddam Hussein by his own admission did his utmost to foster belief in the fact that he did still possess Chemical and Biological WMD. UNMOVIC did not go into Iraq to find WMD, they went into Iraq to establish exactly what the situation was with regard to Iraqi WMD capability and their weapons programmes. A question for you Fantasma about your question: "The question I'm asking all of you here is, to what lengths should the American citizen be going to STOP the war. End it." What war are you talking about Fantasma - The War on Terror? - The War on Drugs? - The War on Poverty? - The War on Aids? All are being fought by the US at the moment. The US however is not "at war" in either Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else on the planet at the present time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 10:05 AM And moving even further right, Obama recently fired his politcal advisor who was in contact with Hamas. This, as former President Jimmy Carter has been blowing the horn about the volatility of the situation across the Middle East. And his messages are going unheeded, and Obama is playing the same game Bush/Cheney have been playing with the territories for 8 years running. Hezbollah is now in control of at least part of Beirut, and any semblance of civil order in that country is crumbling by the hour. Olmert is threatening to "impose" order on Gaza, and recently shut off all electricity to the territory... The US installed puppet government in Iraq is teetering on the brink of collapse... At least one person was killed and several wounded in Afghanistan Saturday when police opened fire to disperse a protest accusing US-commanded soldiers of killing civilians, witnesses said. The clash erupted in the eastern province of Nangarhar as up to 1,000 demonstrators tried to block a road with rocks to protest against the killing of three men in a military operation overnight, witnesses said... The Obama Middle East peace plan is what exactly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 11 May 08 - 10:10 AM I find myslef not agreeing too much with anyone here... Iraq was broken before we got there... The only way it was, in the very least, governable was having a heavy-handed dictator... That was probably the best case scenerio we could have expected then and it may be a likely outcome after we are gone... (That is heresy, Bobert... We ***have to fix*** it and leave the Iraqi people ***safe*** before we leave...) That, "my friends", is John McCain's plan for Iraq and if those are out goals than we will indeed be in Iraq for the next 100 years... Those should not be our goals... I agree with T-Bird somewhat in that replacing a bogus UN peacekeeping force with a more legit UN peacekeeping team is not logical... The bottom line is that in our disrupting the balence of power we have ignited a civil war... Lots of us predicted this outcome during the mad-dash-to-Iraq days and it is very much a ***reality*** and if the US or UN peacekeepers are in Iraq then from week to week they will find themselves on one side or the other depending on who is killing more of the other side... This is an "insane" policy... What we must do is get the heck out over a ***specified*** period of time which may force the Iraqis into trying to figure stuff out politically while concurrently preparing for the human costs of an outright civil war... This part isn't a DoD mission but a State Department mission that will involve relocations, diplomacy with Iraqs neigbors and UN assitence with food, shelter, medical help, etc. to assist refugees... This is reality... 100 more years of "stay the course" ain't gomma get 'er done, ain't gonna fix anything and ain't gonna make Iraqis safe... And in the words of Walther Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 10:37 AM Your credibility as a lover of peace and justice is shot with a lot of us Bobert, because we see what tremendous lenghths you keep going to, in order to rationalize your support of a pro-war, pro-American imperial empire candidate. Just so you know. You can't bamboozle everybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 10:44 AM What is to be Done? by John Halle / May 7th, 2008 In the wake of his furious denunciations precipitated by his pastor's suggestion that the U.S. is anything other than a victim of terrorist violence, it should now be clear to even his most starry eyed acolytes that under an Obama administration the US. will remain the "leading purveyor of violence in the world today" as much as when Dr. King characterized it as such forty years ago. That means, most notably, the U.S. Army will remain in Iraq doing what armies do: blowing up buildings, killing scores of people and getting killed themselves-financed by ever more extravagant deficit spending from the treasury. What this means for the sixty five percent of the population committed to ending the three trillion dollar genocidal fiasco is that whoever takes office will scale back and end U.S. occupation only under duress. He or she will need to be dragged kicking and screaming-by us. Given this reality, the question for the movement remains what it has been since the failure of the huge antiwar demonstrations of 2003 and after. How do we communicate that we mean business? That when we say "no war" we mean no war. The Language of Force The best answer was delivered appropriately enough, on Mayday by the ILWU which effectively shut down all shipping on the West Coast, not for a fattened paycheck, but in their words, "to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U. S. troops from the Middle East." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 10:57 AM And since I didn't see any reference to this May Day anti-war direct action by the west coast longshoremen here, I dared mention it in this thread. I certainly hope we see the majority of the peace and justice movement in Denver, not St Paul, this summer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 11 May 08 - 11:51 AM When I was in college it was "Peace and Freedom." The P&F folks had about as much effect as the "Peace and Justice" people are having now. Until May 4, 1970. Then they learned that the cops and the National Guard actually have REAL bullets and REAL guns and will use them. After that the P&F movement sort of sputtered along, the SLA taking Patty Hearst hostage and all that, and finally petered out because the former members became executives, too busy to recall the days of righting what was wrong, the days of writing on the wall. Except for a few, who sort of went to ground. A few who decided to work to upset the system in other ways. Unfortunately, folks like Karl Rove had learned from the P&F people how to manipulate the media and so little by little we landed in the mess we're in. And it will little by little that we'll get out of it. Or are you proposing a dictatorship, Fanny? Throwing out the Constitution to put yourself or your friends in power? Because if you are I'll fight you just as hard as I'd fight anyone with that agenda. Unlike some, I try to keep my word and I promised to support the Constitution and if that means going to live in the hills and shooting folks, so be it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 11 May 08 - 12:02 PM No, FtP (Fantz the Proclaimer), you are 100% ***wrong***!!! You ain't gonna bring peace to Iraq with another 100 years of war, which seein' as you have no plan at all, we can safely assume that is exactly your plan for Iraq... What have you proposed that isn't tightly wound in colonialism??? Nothin', that's what!!! So you can take you accusations and you labels and stick 'um where the sun don't shine... Your closet McCainism is showing thru loud and clear!!! Hope you enjoy yer little "100 Year War"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 11 May 08 - 01:12 PM I think Fantasma is simply pointing out what's actually going on, Rapaire, rather than proposing a dictatorship or any other kind of rash action. Why would she be arrogant enough to imagine she had a solution to the mess the US is presently in? Ha! ;-) I very much doubt that anyone here has a solution, but I bet some are arrogant enough to think they do. I sure don't think I do. I expect the system to eventually fail...and then something new will take its place. It's too insane and corrupt not to eventually fail and be replaced by something else. But those are things that will happen sometime further down the road, probably after all of us here have ended our corporial lives and moved on to whatever comes next. Fantasma is not proposing dictatorship. She is not proposing violent revolution, going into the hills with guns. She is simply talking about the situation, about what is actually going on, and I find myself in agreement with most of what she says about it. You know what? I'm not here to change the world. Neither are you. It's beyond us to change the world, and it would be the height of egotism to think we could. I'm here to change myself...through experience of one sort or another and the way I deal with that experience. I want to observe the world, I want to understand what's going on around me, and THAT's why I am interested enough in politics to bother discussing it....but do I think I can change the world??? Ha! No sir, I do not think I can change it. I can only change myself. The USA CANNOT bring peace to Iraq. There's no way. There will be much internal strife in Iraq regardless of what the USA does in the next few years, but there are better and worse things that could be done...the present course of "staying the course" being taken by Bush is one of the worst of the various likely choices that come to mind, and that's why I oppose it. I also oppose it because it was, from the beginning, an illegal and unprovoked war of aggression, based on outright lies, done for hidden and unadmitted reasons. Those who launch such wars are international criminals and they deserve to lose their wars and be put on trial and imprisoned for probably the rest of their lives. Just like Hitler or Mussolini or Goering or Himmler (only I don't believe in capital punishment, I believe in imprisonment for people who are incorrigible). Same basic deal. Their armies should be made to leave the occupied lands, their military bases should be dismantled, their civilian contractors should be kicked out, and their political commanders and corporate bosses should be arrested for crimes against humanity, and tried in an international tribunal. None of that is likely to happen while the USA remains militarily dominant in the world. ;-) Nor was it the least bit likely to happen to Hitler or Mussolini...while the Axis forces remained dominant on the battlefield. Same basic deal. He who has the most firepower controls the agenda. No, only an utter and total military defeat or a total social collapse of the ruling system and its replacement by another can bring such criminals to justice. I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime, because the present conditions in the world don't lead toward any such resolution. We have a one-power military dominance in the world right now, kind of like the Roman rule in the year 50 AD. And it will linger on for a bit before it falls and is replaced by something else. I give it at least a few decades yet before that is accomplished...2 or 3 at minimum probably. Maybe longer. I'll already be gone from here by then...just like I spread my wings and flew away into the bright sky. Ah. Now there's a sweet thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 11 May 08 - 02:18 PM I quite agree that the conflict in Iraq is immoral. More than that, it's unethical. And if you think for a minute that at 63 I relish the idea of living in the hills off partially cooked rabbits and raw rattler you're better think again. Can I? Yes. Would I? Yes, if like the French Maquis I felt it needful. But what I keep hearing here is "We're right and everyone else is wrong and if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" -- all of which I heard in the '60s and early '70s. But what is happening here is that Fanny is insisting that only those who agree with her are right and everyone else is EEE-vil. There is NO single, simple solution. None. It's going to take a lot of work and a lot of years to get us (and by that I mean more than just the US) out of the mess that it's taken us years to slowly slide into. It will be three steps forward and two steps back -- but the ultimate direction is forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 02:31 PM Rapaire, you seem to have missed the fire sale on clues. I have never claimed we should all join hands and overthrow the government, nor that we all head for the hills. You are spinning. What I do not hesitate to point out is the hypocrisy of our political leaders, including the most popular politician(s) of the day like Obama, who are part of the problem, not the solution. I advocate all the time for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. I advocate all the time for closing all military bases around the world, and bringing ALL the troops--both US military and the mercenary armies we are funding (like Blackwater in Iraq) back to the US, and redistributing funds saved to peaceful uses. I, along with Dennis Kucinich, advocate for a Dept. of Peace at the cabinet level, to oversee the demilitarization of the US empire. Finally, at the end of the day there is one more important thing everyone should be quite clear about me NOT advocating: to vote for McCain, Clinton, or Obama as any kind of positive thing to do to help prevent our democracy falling over the precipice upon which it is now teetering--to a full blown fascist state, and any sort of continuation of corporate control over the federal government. Obama will only make the problems we face worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 11 May 08 - 04:52 PM What has me really curious is whether you're right about Obama in that respect, Fantasma. Only if he is elected will we ever find out. And be assured, it'll be either him, or Hillary Clinton, or McCain who gets elected...(unless all three of them happen to die before the election, which I think is very unlikely). Dennis Kucinich has it right. That's why he didn't get on a number of those TV debates, that's why the media shut him out, and it's why you will never see him elected president. Not a chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Rapparee Date: 11 May 08 - 04:56 PM Fortunately, I'm close enough to skip over into Canada. As if that would do any good.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 11 May 08 - 05:22 PM Well, we are just a northern branch plant of the Great Oligarchy, Rapaire. Our politicians get their marching orders from essentially the same people as your politicians do. Still and all, it definitely is a bit safer and more reasonable up here in a number of respects. A bit kinder. I put that down to the inertial weight of our past social traditions...and the fact that we are located a bit farther away from "Ground Zero", so to speak, where the "rough beast" crouches over its daily meal of broken human lives. If you do decide to skip north I will put it a good word for you. And you could even get to meet Shane. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 11 May 08 - 08:24 PM Clinton's plan: Who knows??? McCain's Plan: 100 years... FtP's (Fantz the Proclaimer) PlanL: Who knows??? LH's Plan: Who the heck knows??? Obama's Plan: 16 months and we are OUT!!!! Bobert's Plan: What Barak said... B~ P.S.Too many folks thinkin' that stuff is gopnna have to be "fixed" before qwe leave... Ain't gonna happen in our life time... Just how many decades/centuries are you folks waiting for stuff to be fixed... Yo, FtP... What us your plan again??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 09:29 PM Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed; in the second it is opposed; in the third it is regarded as self-evident. --Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 11 May 08 - 09:46 PM The real problem here is that you, Fantasma, seem to think that we can just "end" the war. No matter who the future president is there are just too many different variables to just "end" our involvement. We're not deluded or in denial, we who were against the war from the start saw all that has happened but were branded as pessimist doomsayers. The warhawks decided to ignore the warnings but now are admitting we were right. But nobody really knows how to bow out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 11 May 08 - 09:50 PM Here is how we do it. We pack up, and hit the road back to Kuwait. Load up all the ships and planes, abandon plenty. And then it is done. Just like the fall of Saigon. No sense delaying the inevitable, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 08:42 AM Yup, FtP, that's purdy much what is going to happen on the "military side"... And that is reality... We have proven over and over that there is no military solution to Iraq... Many of us, as Chief Chaos has pointed out, saw this coming... I know I did and my feeling's are archived here in Mudville... But ending the occupation doesn't mean washing our hands of Iraq like we had to do in Vietnam... This is where the State Department comes into play where we engage Iraq's neighbors in negoitiations to assist in the "human consequences" of our military withdrawl... This is where the wok needs to begin... And the Iraqis understand that "the world [will be] watching" and so it is to their interest to play as nice as they can in the midst of their civil war... This is where Obama's pledge to talk with the Iran's (without preconditions) is a step forward... The sabre rattling of the Bush/McCain/Clinton camps does not send out that message and therefore is counter-productive in insuring that neihboring countries become involved in helping with the "human" concerns... This is a plan that sho nuff ain't perfect but it beat the heck out of "stay the course", or not leaving without "victory", both of which are terribly flawed and impossible... And it sho nuff ***ain't*** like Saigon... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 12 May 08 - 08:47 AM You could be right about this, Fantasma. A rapid USA pullout back to Kuwait would result in some very nasty internal violence in Iraq as the Shiite majority slammed down on the Sunnis and the Kurds...but Iraq is riddled with very nasty internal violence anyway already. It's like hell on earth in Iraq, and the different communities have been divided utterly against each other. In Baghdad the city has been more or less ethnically cleansed into sealed neighborhoods of one group or the other. The harm that has been done to that society by the American invasion has been simply catastrophic, and the fallout from it is going to last a long time. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy which will explode like the Geni from the lamp as soon as the lid of foreign occupation is taken off the pot. None of this has much of anything to do with Al-Queda (which is a largely fictional entity, specially in Iraq). It has to do with the aspirations of 3 separate ethnic/cultural communities IN Iraq...the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and they will fight it out as soon as restraints to their doing so are removed. Someone will win that fight and take over in Baghdad, and a new "strong man" will emerge, possibly worse than Saddam, but life will gradually get back to normal, if you could call it "normal". **** Bobert, I like Obama's proposal okay, as it stands...but I don't trust it to stand once he's in office and he has to start dealing with the great corporate powers that be which stand all around and behind the presidency. I don't trust him to hold to that promise, even if he now is being genuinely honest in making it. I would vote for him, yes, on the basis of what he says now...but I highly doubt that it will play out that way afterward. ******* Keep this in mind, folks. The Germans did not know how to withdraw from France either. It was a real conundrum. Even when defeat was inevitable, they could not figure out how to withdraw. Withdrawing from Russia was even more problematical, not to mention withdrawing from Greece or Yugoslavia. No withdrawal plan could be found which was...well...comfortable to contemplate. Criminal aggressors, you see, have a real problem on their hands when they are occupying a foreign land, but it just doesn't work out according to their original plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 10:11 AM Withdrawl needs to be packaged and sold, LH, as part of a new consciousness... We are all stuck in a erat where failure after failure is acceptable... Someone has to be at the helm when we diseengage and I can't see McCain as capable since his thinking is too steeped in "military"... Einstein said that "a problem cannot be solved with the saame consciousness that created it"... I very much beleive this to be true... Vietnam is a good example... We did have to disengage but we didn't have to bungle it the way we did... Had we used more creative diplomacy with Hanoi it could have been accomplished more orderly but we used military thinking in the disengagement... This is where, IMO, Obama has the best chance to to avoid "worst case scenerio" in that during the 16 months of disengagement he has time to use a fresh foriegn policy that doesn't merely threaten but brings our adversaries into discussion of "regional security", which is the crux of what everyone in that part of the world wants... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Duarte Pio Date: 12 May 08 - 12:25 PM Teribus. Why do you think the use of force is always the solution ? There is no justification of the use of armed aggression against a civilian population. I never met such a war munger in my entire life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Don Firth Date: 12 May 08 - 02:10 PM Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed; in the second it is opposed; in the third it is regarded as self-evident. --Arthur Schopenhauer The problem there, Fantasyhead, is that this is not true in all cases. Sometimes a statement that someone asserts as the truth, in the final analysis, turns out to be ridiculous. History is full of such. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 12 May 08 - 03:24 PM Yes, I agree that a new consciousness has to be established in that situation, Bobert. Just as you say. Obama could theoretically do what you are suggesting, in the way you are suggesting. Whether he will or not (if elected) remains to be seen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 03:52 PM Well, yeah, it is addicted to war... Problem is that it's having a hard time payin' for the fix... Time for some serious Betty Ford and WMA (War Mongers Annonomuos)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 12 May 08 - 03:54 PM War is good business for those at the top of the "food chain". That's why the USA is addicted to war. It's an addiction that will be very hard to break as long as it benefits the wealthy elite who are calling the shots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 12 May 08 - 04:26 PM Following question from yet another one-post-Guest-Mushroom "Teribus. Why do you think the use of force is always the solution ?" Do I? Where? When? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: artbrooks Date: 12 May 08 - 04:29 PM Those who advocate a "rapid withdrawal" from Iraq should recall that it took over two years to disengage in Vietnam, but it was completed, on schedule, 90 days after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. It was about two years after that when the North violated the conditions of the armistice and invaded the South. Abandoning everything where it is and driving south to Kuwait would, besides leaving Iraq in worse chaos than it is now, result in a couple of hundred thousand troops being crammed into a small area, with the need to bring in massive amounts of supplies to sustain them until they can be lifted out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Freethinker Date: 12 May 08 - 05:20 PM Get Blackwater and Triple Canopy out of Iraq. That's why you don't have a draft. The military has been privatized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 05:25 PM I don't believe that anyone is advocating the kind of disengagement that you have described, Art... Obama certainly hasn't... He has suggested a 16 month operation... Figuring that if the 16 months begins Jan. 20, 2009 then the disengagement will be completed around May of 2010 some 7 years and 3 months after the initial invasion... 7 years, 3 months!!! If we can't accomplish any worth objective in that amount of time there is little chance that another 100 years will make a difference... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: artbrooks Date: 12 May 08 - 05:34 PM I wasn't suggesting that anyone was, Bobert - I was attempting, in my usual crude way, to address the idea that we could leave quickly. I think that 16 months is quite reasonable and do-able. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Freethinker Date: 12 May 08 - 05:56 PM There is propaganda suggesting that we can't pull out immediately. If there was will to do it, it could be done without the casualties that the leading "pundits" say would be there. Otherwise we have "military excuses" for not disengaging in a fruitless occupation. The longer we stay, the more casualties there will be as evidenced by the longest occupation in the history of the US. Any casualties would be minimal compared to what happens if the US stays in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 12 May 08 - 05:56 PM I'd love to see a withdrawal of forces of some decent amount. I believe that half the problem is caused by the fact that we're there supposedly "keeping the peace". If it came to the Iraqis actually having to deal with the day to day relationships between the factions they might actually work at it. As it is I think that the Powers That Be (PTBs) and the Iraqi gov't, are abusing the troops to try to shore-up the position of the current gov't. I really don't think withdrawing to Kuwait is an option. If there is a "real" Al-Quaida in Iraq they will attack across the border and cause problems for the Kuwaitis. I think we should withdraw to home and then augment the troops in Afghanistan and limit the number of fronts we're engaged in. We should have never gone to Iraq in the first place much less before actually defeating Al Quaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Little Hawk Date: 12 May 08 - 05:57 PM Art, Vietnam had always historically been one country. It was one country before the French colonized it. It was one country when it fought against the French, prior to WWII. The French found their most willing Vietnamese servants and collaborators amongst the Catholic minority in a Buddhist country. It was one country when the Japanese took it over in WWII, and the Vietnamese revolutionaries fought the Japanese as they had fought the French before them. Ho Chi Minh was at that time considered a valuable member of the Allied cause, and he was. The Viet Minh expected to be given Vietnamese independence after WWII, but they were not. Instead the French colonial forces returned, and the war for Vietnamese independence resumed. Vietnam was still one country. The USA chose to give the French quite a bit of help fighting the Viet Minh. THAT's where your problem between Vietnam and the USA starts. The USA should not have helped the French, they should have pressured the French to leave and to grant independence to Vietnam...as one country. The French finally threw in the towel in the mid-50's after the lengthy battle at Dienbienphu...and they had to negotiate a French withdrawal from Vietnam, still ONE country. The withdrawal was to take 1 year. During that year Ho Chi Minh would set up the new Vietnamese government in the north, the French would maintain an interim administration in the south. The country was thus divided for an offical period of one year by the peace accords to allow the French to disengage in an orderly fashion. At the end of that year, the line of division was to cease to exist and national elections were to be held. That never happened. Why did it never happen? Well, the CIA and the USA and the French had decided that "their people" (meaning the Catholic minority Vietnamese) could not win such national elections, therefore Ho Chi Minh's people would win, and they didn't want that. They unilaterally therefore broke the agreement when the time came. There's your original violation. They refused to hold the scheduled countrywide elections. They refused to do away with the artificial division of that country into two zones. They thus betrayed the vast majority of Vietnamese, artificially divided ONE country into two ireconcilable halves, and put their half in the south under the rule of a series of Catholic Vietnamese despots who were no proper representatives of a predominantly Buddhist country, but rather former collaborators with the French colonials. That is when the Vietnamese civil war began. It was as inevitable as your American Civil War, but unlike that one, it was provoked by foreign colonialism...first in a direct sense, then by proxy. That war ended in the mid-70s when Vietnam became again, one country, and I think that the fall of the southern regime at that time was about as well-deserved as the fall of any regime I can think of, other than Pol Pot's, which was even more deserving of oblivion, needless to say. The South Vietnamese regime was nothing more than a militarily and politically moribund and incompetent puppet of Washington's special interests in the region. The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, were and are and always have been their own bosses, and they represented Vietnam, period. Were they nice and gentle and democratic in their ways? No! And neither were the dictators and stooges who worked for Washington in the South of that country. As the French before them, the Americans had found natural allies amongst the Vietnamese minorities (Catholics and Montagnards). This is what the Empire always does when it engages in economic/military colonization of some foreign country...it finds various disgruntled or frightened religious or ethnic groups who are either in the minority or are disadvantaged in their local power base and then arms and empowers them against the other groups in the country. They proceed to kill each other for America and their country gets devastated. Divide and conquer tactics. In the end the Empire betrays all of them, because the Empire does not go in to help anyone, it goes in to exploit local resources and achieve strategic advantage in a region. That is exactly what has been done in Iraq too, and you can see with what dire results. Iraq, once considered the most progressive and modernized country in the entire Arab world, has been turned into a complete disaster...and hundreds of thousands have died while millions have been displaced. Many more will die before it's over. How many Vietnamese died? A million or so? They died for Washington's imperial ambitions, just like Iraqis are dying right now. Reparations were never paid to Vietnam by the USA. I predict that they will not be paid to Iraq either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 06:25 PM I agree, LH, that reparations will not be paid to Iraq... I think this is because that no matter what an Iraqi governemnt looks like in 3 years it will not be one that was part of the plan... As for getting out now??? If it were up to me I'd go for it... If Gworge Bush said that he was pulling out tomorrow I would be doing the Eagle Rock dance all over this farm... Reality 101: A President Obama, in an attempt to seem the "uniter" will pander to those who will be disappointed that there will be no "coon skin" to nail to the wall but should appreciate the effort that will be made to create the best diplomatic efforts in the region and the softest defeat... I am deeply saddened that during those 16 months that hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi's will die... I mean, torn up inside, saddened... This war is the worst foriegn policy decision since Fort Sumpter but given the fact that Fort Sumpter really wasn't a "foriegn policy decision" I'd have to say that it was the worst decision in the history of the United States... Worse than Vietnam because we had Vietnam as a model... And with Senator Obama as president this is probably the best realistic outcome... And it may cost him a 2nd term but if he is the real "stright talker" in this race and is the next president then I believe that he will keep his word... It would be nice if McCain had top clean uop this mess but he just is not wired to see it as a mess... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 12 May 08 - 06:30 PM LH - There were a good deal of Chinese communist forces as well as Soviets on the ground and in the air in Vietnam. I'm not disagreeing with you but saying that the North Vietnamese fought with their own arms and people is ludicrous. I know you see the military industrial complex behind these things, but most people seem to want somebody to do something for the oppressed and disadvantaged like the people in Darfur, Tibet and Myanmar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 06:37 PM Yes, Russia and China had their own little military/industrial complexes cranking out arms for the North Vietnamese and some for the Viet Cong, as well... Wereever there's a war you can bet that some military/industrialist is there to provide arms... The US very much included... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: artbrooks Date: 12 May 08 - 06:45 PM Actually, LH, historically Vietnam was two countries, with the north (Tonkin), under the Trinhs, tied fairly closely with China and the south (Cochin), under the Nguyens, more connected to the other regions of SE Asia and the archipelago. The latter managed to consolidate the entire "nation" under its rule for about 40 years, in the late 18th century, until it was, in turn, taken by the French. Otherwise, except for the usual political and grammatical spin, your history is essentially correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 12 May 08 - 06:54 PM I forgot also to ask how a predominantly budhist country with apparently a not so insignificant Catholic minority was taken over by a "godless" communist regime. I don't think the U.S. should have been involved in Vietnam after the French decided to throw in the towel but considering what happened after the Soviet Revolution and the Peoples Revolution of China I can see where some might have believed they were keeping a great deal of the native population from being slaughtered simply because of the fact that they lived in and worked for the French. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 12 May 08 - 07:53 PM The French left in the mid 50's... If there were going to be reprecussions they would have occured long before '61 when the US stepped up it's activity with "advisors"... So I don't really buy into that motive... Rubber??? Yes... Geo-political stuff??? Yes... Protecting folks who 6 years ago worked for the French colonialists??? Nah... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 12 May 08 - 08:04 PM Not asking you to. I've never really understood how we got involved in the first place aside from an irrational fear of communism in small out of the way countries. I do know that the Pres. was lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and that the whole damn thing was handled miserably. I'm definitely not trying to defend the folks that were really behind the whole thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 13 May 08 - 08:11 AM Freethinker is dead on the money. The claim that we can't pull out quickly is pure military and political propaganda, being spread by people with an interest in perpetual war. Like Blackwater. Like the no bid military contractors. Like the ruling elite with connections to military related "privatized" management of the armed forces. Bring home the troops NOW. Period. The Obama plan is just as pro-war and the Clinton and McCain plans. You want to end this war, vote for an authentic anti-war candidate, or sit out the election. But don't expect those of us who don't buy the mainstream propaganda to buy your "agree to disagree" crap arguments about it. Obama won't pull out any more than the other two. Which is why Wall Street loves Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 13 May 08 - 12:23 PM At least iot is a plan, FtP... But I could live with an immediate withdrawl, as well... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Don Firth Date: 13 May 08 - 02:46 PM Ralph who? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 13 May 08 - 09:26 PM Okay let's pull them all out now. How many days/weeks do you think that's going to take? Do we just drop everything and run and leave weapons and supplies behind for the insurgents and other bad guys to inherit? And what about the Iraqis whose country is a smashed and stinking hole who still count on us to provide some semblance of order (as corrupt as that order might be)? Regardless of who is at fault for the mess should we just bail out? I can think of several radical countries who would just love to come in and sweep up the pieces. And think of all the misery left behind that will just generate the next wave of radical Islam for the world to deal with. Nice idea Fantasma, it just isn't a real world solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 14 May 08 - 01:41 AM Well Guest Chief Chaos, that is a question that has been asked on this forum before, and none of the "Get them out NOW", or at least "as quick as Christ will let you", crowd will come out with any answers. "Do we just drop everything and run and leave weapons and supplies behind for the insurgents and other bad guys to inherit?" Interesting question that, I have one for you relating to it. What would they use all these US weapons and supplies for, they didn't need them to defeat you, so what would they use them for? Their Soviet designed armoury proved to be perfectly adequate. "I can think of several radical countries who would just love to come in and sweep up the pieces. And think of all the misery left behind that will just generate the next wave of radical Islam for the world to deal with." - Chief Chaos So could I CC, plus some others and the ripple effect would be amazing to witness in its extent, not least in the USA. Oh and if you think the price of a barrel of oil is high now, just wait. "Okay let's pull them all out now. .....Nice idea Fantasma, it just isn't a real world solution." The not being a real world solution - I couldn't agree more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 14 May 08 - 07:08 AM Well then, T-Bird... Would you be in support of Obama's plan??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 14 May 08 - 07:26 AM They could easily be out in about ten weeks. They would destroy a lot of military equipment, precisely so it wouldn't fall into the hands of the insurgents, just as we did in Vietnam. We would abandon the infrastructure, because it can't be moved anyway, so you would never bring it back with you anyway. Much could be removed in six weeks time, considering much of the equipment doesn't "belong" to the US, it "belongs" to the contractors. The contractors would be on their own to get out. The End. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 14 May 08 - 07:32 AM And BTW, why should the American or Iraqi people be forced to suffer any more, when it is the government's fault, both Republicans and Democrats, for invading a country with no exit strategy? Even Colin Powell was flat out honest about that, even though all he would ever say was the lack of an exit strategy troubled him. No, the intent here with the Bush invasion was not to have an exit strategy, because they were planning to be welcomed with open arms, and to maintain a permanent "peace time" occupation force, because the mission was accomplished as soon as they sacked Baghdad and bagged Saddam. In other words, the plan was always to stay in the region with a huge military presence, to "guard our nation's interests" in the region's oil. I guess nobody ever told them there had never been a successful occupation of this part of the world. So who'd a thunk it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: artbrooks Date: 14 May 08 - 07:44 AM Actually, the Arab occupation of what we call the Middle East has been pretty successful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 14 May 08 - 07:46 AM And the British and French have done so well there too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 14 May 08 - 07:51 AM And also notice that nearly every other nation that sent troops to Iraq to form the "coalition" (spit) has now withdrawn. Nobody supports the occupation, and the entire world is holding it's collective breath, hoping some sanity might return to the US government by next January. But if you are looking at the two likely candidates for the gig, sanity prevailing in US policy in the Middle East isn't looking too good. In fact, more and more each day BOTH candidates keep moving closer and closer to the Bush administration's positions on nearly every issue regarding the Middle East, including Iraq. Withdraw in 16 months is not a realistic plan. Staying for a 100 years is not a realistic plan. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is the only viable option for the US and it's allies, yet it is the one option the presidential candidates refuse to consider. That is known as a political stalemate. In the case of Iraq, it is a virtual gridlock. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 14 May 08 - 08:56 AM Do you mean Obama actually HAS a plan Bobert?? What is it?? "Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is the only viable option for the US and it's allies," - Guest Fantasma Recipe for disaster in epic proportions actually and it's high time some on this Forum started to address that prospect before coming out with the likes of: "They could easily be out in about ten weeks. They would destroy a lot of military equipment, precisely so it wouldn't fall into the hands of the insurgents, just as we did in Vietnam. We would abandon the infrastructure, because it can't be moved anyway, so you would never bring it back with you anyway. Much could be removed in six weeks time, considering much of the equipment doesn't "belong" to the US, it "belongs" to the contractors. The contractors would be on their own to get out. The End." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 14 May 08 - 09:31 AM T, You aren't keeping up, ol' son... Google up Obama and find out for yourself... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 14 May 08 - 09:51 AM Oh? You mean this from the Obama '08 Site: "Bringing Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. Press Iraq's Leaders to Reconcile The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. Regional Diplomacy Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction. Humanitarian Initiative Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." That is a Plan??? Rather short on detail and analysis isn't it Bobert? Reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square roof of f**k-all to me. Reading stuff like that convinces me more and more that Barak Obama is as clueless as "Peanut" Carter and a hundred times more dangerous. Good luck America you're going to need every ounce of it if this clown is going to be your next President. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 14 May 08 - 09:53 AM Apologies, correction that should've read: "Reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square root of f**k-all to me." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 14 May 08 - 12:38 PM Yse, it ***is*** a plan... You have a better plan, T??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Convidado Date: 14 May 08 - 06:57 PM What sorts of apocalyptic events do you expect to occur in the wake of an immediate withdrawal, Teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: artbrooks Date: 14 May 08 - 08:07 PM Come-on, Terebus...were you expecting his site to say something like "on 17 March 2009 the 2d Bde. Combat Team of the 2d ID will commence a tactical roadmarch from its current location to Kuwait along Route Blue"? Presidents...and wannabes...give broad directions and their subordinates staff out the details. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Bobert Date: 14 May 08 - 09:06 PM Heck, what Obama has proposed isn't even an "immediate" withdraw of all troops... It's a 16 month disengagement... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 15 May 08 - 01:29 AM Fully realise that Artbrooks. What I said however, was that what was stated on the site was "Rather short on detail and analysis isn't it" and I was not talking about Movement Orders: from the Obama '08 Site: "Bringing Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." Let's take a look at this in detail, could do the same for the others they all fall down in the same way. - "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." This states clearly that withdrawal begins immediately irrespective of conditions on the ground, or on advice or requirements of commanders in the field - Not such a wise move is it Artbrooks? or maybe you disagree. - "He will remove one to two combat brigades each month," Now unless things have altered a great deal in the way the US goes to war, the biggest logistical problem in complying with Obama's intention would be the staged draw down of support units so that those that are left can be supplied and supported adequately (Give you an idea - 4/5ths of your troops in Vietnam were support units not combat troops). - "Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq" That's awfully nice of him. Mind you it was never written within the terms of the UN mandate that the MNF currently operates under that any permanent bases were to be built in Iraq. Bilateral agreements between the USA and the Government of Iraq are different, so this statement could apply to any discussion of permanent bases based on such bilateral agreements. - "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;" Now to do this he will have to keep troops in Iraq? Sort of like those US Marines in Beirut? Won't they need a permanent secure base in Iraq? Which is sort of at odds with what he's just said isn't it? - "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda" Just to make sure that we all understand what the man is proposing here. He again says that he is going to keep troops in Iraq (In which case they require a permanent base, which he says he is not going to build), or he keeps the troops elsewhere in the region (Now this would imply a US Marine Assault Group plus all supporting elements permanently cruising the waters of the Northern Persian Gulf - OR - It means another state in the area playing host to a permanent US base on their soil. The uptake to fulfil this role by states in the region of course will be massive, the US having just been seen to have been as comprehensively defeated politically and militarily as it was in Vietnam). And these troops whether ashore wherever, or afloat are there to "carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"? Is Obama saying that he intends attacking an independent sovereign state as the whim takes him. Sort of like that Delta Force Op that "Peanut" Carter gave the go ahead to. In all of this where is the intel coming from? You get it now because you are there and there in force, withdraw and all that disappears. Sorry Art & Bobert that is not a plan. It's fuzzy, it's muddled, it lacks clarity, it "reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square roof of f**k-all to me". With signals like this coming out of the campaign HQ of someone who at present is the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States of America at the election in November, no wonder the Shia population of Iraq are restive and looking to Iran - It's history repeating itself, you guys have left them in the lurch once before, haven't you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 15 May 08 - 07:19 AM As Teribus points out, the Obama plan is really just a plan to keep US troops in Iraq and the region, just "redeployed" and--I actually agree with Teribus on this point, likely in a weakened position. That isn't the solution I'm talking about. I am talking about all troops--US military & the private contractor/paramilitaries out of Iraq, and back in the states, period. I'm talking about taking US troops out of the world, and closing bases that sustain them, and ending the US military empire for good. That is what I am talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 15 May 08 - 11:47 AM "I am talking about all troops--US military & the private contractor/paramilitaries out of Iraq, and back in the states, period. I'm talking about taking US troops out of the world, and closing bases that sustain them, and ending the US military empire for good. That is what I am talking about." - Guest Fantasma Okay Guest Fantasma and what would be the result of this "world-wide" withdrawal? Or like the massed "Get-them-out-NOW-crowd" have ye no thocht o' that yet?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 15 May 08 - 05:36 PM I have. I've been thinking about it for decades, actually. I would expect the results would be pretty complex, but it wouldn't endanger us. Unless you believe Mexico and Canada are big threats to our sovereignty, of course. I am against empires and their imperial wars. Even the US one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 15 May 08 - 08:13 PM Oh I see Guest Fantasma - in that case you haven't really thought it through at all. By the bye, nineteen people recently illustrated that you, all cozied up there in the good old US of A are as vulnerable as anybody else. And just by wrapping up and going home does not diminish the threat one iota. Now then Guest Fantasma go away and think about that and then think about what advice you would give to your President because he will be the one who is actually responsible for your well-being and your security. The guy who has been doing that job for the last eight years has, believe it or not, not done such a bad job, at least a damn sight better job than the guy who had the job before him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it From: Teribus Date: 15 May 08 - 08:14 PM Well wa' hae chouff 100 |
