BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 09:08 AM

Actually, he is a lame duck whose mother is a wounded dog.


A

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 08:33 AM

Yeah, LH, this concerns me...

As I have pointed out in another thread the Bush people have changed their tune on Iran... They used to be on Iran because they considered it's nuclear program dangerous... Problem is that before they could attack, invade and or bomb Iran they would have had to go to Congress for approval...

The new tune goes like this: Iran is arming the bad guys in Iraq and therefore a fair target under the existing resoultion... No Congressional approval needed with this line of thought...

Yes, one must remember that a wounded dog is a dangerous dog and Bush is very much a wounded dog...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 11:22 PM

Oh...and it will become that untenable. But I'm not sure just how soon. It might yet become a considerably bigger war before it becomes utterly untenable. One way to distract people from a war that is going absolutely nowhere useful is to enlarge it by opening a brand new spanking campaign on another front. New campaigns always have that heady smell of "victory" about them for awhile...

I call this the "Hitler technique of achieving 'total victory'" by enlarging the existing problem exponentially. (ha ha)

Watch for it. Bush still has over a year in which to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 11:11 PM

The Democrats and Republicans are indeed run by the same corporate masters, and that is why you will not see the Democrats doing anything decisive as a party to end that war (in my opinion). What you will see, though, is some political maneuvering on their part to try and get votes in the next election...any way they can. And you'll see the same sort of thing by the Republicans. That's how the game works.

The day after the election, however, their respective promises to the voters will mean nothing. The coup over the public by the $ySStem will have been achieved for at least another 2 years, regardless of who wins the election.

Kucinich would have the principles and the will to oppose that and end the war. And that is why I expect the Democratic Party will not choose Kucinich as their candidate for president...nor will they choose anyone who is truly set on ending the war.

They'll choose someone who just sort of vaguely sounds like s(he) might make some significant changes in direction, that's all. That'll be enough to get the desired votes. Once the votes are got, the cat is back in the bag pretty much for another 4 years.

The only thing that will end that war is if it simply becomes utterly untenable and unsustainable for a large variety of reasons...as happened eventually with the Vietnam War. And then the American occupational forces will finally leave, while the politicians make some feeble excuses as best they can for what happened under their command.

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 08:31 PM

Trouble is, very few care what their govt gets up to.

Here in the UK Blair was forced out of office by his own party....they saw themselves as un-electable with Blair in charge.
Now, Iraq is no longer an "issue" in the UK. "Blair's War" died when Blair left office, so now we can all carry on as if nothing happened, our consciences are clear.......all the dead mean fuck all.

At least you in America can still see the faces of the guilty. There has been no "cleansing" process.
You can still do something radical, something which will shake the corporate system to its core.

Break the mould!!.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 08:15 PM

The Dems could stop this war any time they want to...

About 3 years ago the Repubs threatened to change the rules and allow a simple majority to send a bill to the White House... Proble was that when the Repubs were threatening to do it it was over legislation which meant nuthin' one way or another to the iistroy of our country... It was pure politics...

The dems could with 51 votes, which they have, susupend stupid rules and allow the will of the people prevail...

(But, bobert, that would mean bringing out the "nuclear option"...)

Oh??? What, is Bush gonna call up nuclear air strikes against Congress???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:38 PM

I wish I could take credit, Amos, but I can't. I put that in quotes. It's from the site I linked to in the opening post. The last line is mine, though.

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:33 PM

Well writ, Carol!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:03 PM

Actually, the Democrats seem to have the same corporate masters that the Republicans have. A third party is probably the best workable option.

Subject: BS: How to end the US occupation of Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 02:20 PM

This is how easy it would be to end the "war" (US occupation) in Iraq...


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_071010_only_one_congress_me.htm

"For almost a year Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been saying that the Democratic leadership in Congress should end the occupation of Iraq by not bringing up for a vote any more bills to fund it. For all these months, he has been the only member of Congress willing to say this...

...A recent poll offered people a choice of spending another $200 billion without conditions (13 percent of the country supported this), spending $200 billion but requiring that all troops be home within a year (19 percent), spending $50 billion and requiring that all troops be home in six months (14 percent), or requiring Bush to use existing funds to bring all troops home in six months (40 percent)...

...On Wednesday, Kucinich released a statement demanding that the Democratic leadership require Bush to use existing funds to end the occupation. "If they don't, then they're just as responsible as the President for continuing this illegal and immoral war," said Kucinich, "and open to accusations of fraud upon the American people for promising during last year's elections that Democratic control of the Congress would mean an end to the war. Instead of ending the war, the leadership has knuckled under time and time again and given the President every dollar he's asked for to continue it."...

...At an event I attended Wednesday evening (see photo album), Congressman Jim Moran gave a speech in which he claimed that the Democrats could not end the occupation without 60 senators. This is crazy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could single-handedly refuse to bring Iraq funding bills up for votes. Or 41 senators could block any such bill. And Nancy Pelosi could single-handedly refuse to bring Iraq funding bills up for a vote. It would take 218 members signing a petition to force a vote against her will."


Maybe people need to pressure their Senators to start actually representing the people who elected them.