Democratic party: For or Against the invasion/occupation of Iraq?

- There seems to be a lot of 'mixed signals' here on DU about Iraq. Some say that we need to 'finish the job'...but they're vague about what the job is and what it will take to finish it. Others say that nothing good can come from the fruit of the poisoned tree and we should leave Iraq immediately, pay restitution and put Iraqis to work rebuilding their own country.

- The public perception is that the Democratic party supports the 'war' in Iraq...the only objection being the way Bush* is handling it. This makes it even more difficult for those who object to the 'war' to make any headway when their own party supports what amounts to an illegal invasion and war of aggression.

- Let's stop beating around the bush...so to speak. Are you for or against the continued occupation of Iraq? If so...could you please explain what you think could be accomplished by remaining? Should the Democratic party renounce Bush's* war on the Iraqi people or go along to get along?

It is impossible for the US to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Anything and everything we do will create more animosity. It is doubtful that any Western nation would be welcome now, either.

What a mess! Both options really don't great imo, pulling out while we practically destroyed their country and rebuilding it will probaly piss them off even more. I really don't know what the right move is which is why I'm lucky that I'm not in that position, I just probaly wouldn't of gone in.

...and the stated reasons for invading have been proven as outright lies. Given that at least MOST Democrats know this...why is the Party still supporting this boondoggle?

we want to Stay In, long enough to stablize, or Leave as soon as the votes are available.

leave because we will leave a lot of people to get killed. I know it's happening anyway, but it is tempered because the main enemy is us right now. We just pull out without the UN or somebody any place and all those who supported us there will be killed. I don't think there will ever be democracy in Iraq we have done unrepairable damage to that idea. But there needs to be a stable form of government.

Our reputation around the world is at stake here because of bad moves by GWB. The next president is going to have to do a remarkable job of repairing that. You might say fuck our rep, but there will come a time in the future where we are going to have to have people on our side to do what is right. We abandon Iraq, nobody will ever trust again no matter who is the president.

I know I sound conflicted, but I think all those lives loss has to be for some thing.

...so that's not much of an argument. Wouldn't it be true that if we left the level of violence would go down because there wouldn't be scores of people pointing guns at each other?

- What you seem to be saying is that we have to say until we 'get it right'. But meanwhile we're killing and getting killed for a conflict that DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

- I'm concerned that the Democratic party doesn't seem to care...or at least is willing to put the FACT that America was LIED into this war on the back burner. How can we ignore this treason and face the voters with a clear conscience in Nov.?

If the #s are anywhere near the 40% mark, that means a vast majority of Dems are against the war.

This is why only 30% of Dems are enthusiastic about Kerry. The rest are getting damned pissed at Kerry's support of Bush's positions.

Early on, I was griping about Kerry and my dad was getting really upset at me for not falling in line.

A couple of days ago, he started talking about how he couldn't believe that Kerry was not speaking up against the war.

My boss is the same way. She has ALWAYS voted Democrat but it she is having a hard time voting for Kerry. Not that she would vote for Bush, but she has a son who she will not offer up to the draft. I think she can't forgive Kerry for voting YES on the IWR.

...in Iraq. Some Dems would send more troops...others think the 'war' is justified and use the same rhetoric as Bush* to label Iraq a threat to national security. But the FACTS don't back up these assertions...sometimes making Dems look as delusional as Bush*.

- The problem remains: how to OPPOSE Bush* while at the same time supporting his illegal war in Iraq that is killing more civilians than 'terrorists'.

How can we support the Dems when they are so willing to tow the line with this Administration?

And why are they willing to do this? It just seems so implausable that they would support Bush so easily.

eom


John

Any discussion of this issue is superficial if it doesn't revolve around the question of a strategic objective. Obviously, toppling Saddam Hussein and "securing the WMD" were not it. It's easy enough to consider the possible goals as they have been variously articulated, but which of these possibilities marks the finish line for the dems?

1) Establish a permanent Middle East base of military operations for the US in Iraq.

2) Maintain a new front on the "war on terror" and fight "them" over there instead of over here. (I guess, until "they" are all gone.)

3) Secure access to Iraq's resources for American companies and freeze out those who did not support the invasion as punishment.

4) Internationalize the political and economic transfer of sovereignty while the US maintains military control to ensure that the "proper" form of government takes root.

5) Completely internationalize all aspects of the occupation and transfer with the US only playing the role assigned to it by the UN.

6) Withdraw the troops immediately, leaving Iraqis to manage themselves.

7) Play it by ear.

Bush's problem is that, when it comes to a clear strategic objective, he doesn't have one -- at least one he is willing to share. "Stay the course" is empty rhetoric. It does not articulate any goal. Kerry cannot fall into the same trap. He must not only discuss tactical differences with Bush ("more internationalization"), but he must do something he hasn't done yet, and that is to clearly state what our purpose is in Iraq and where the finish line is.

...when you say that toppling Saddam and securing WMD were not it. It seems a good portion of the American populace continue to believe that 'Getting Saddam' was worth all the death and destruction. I hear Dems say this all the time...even here at DU.

- There can be only one moral and ethical solution to an illegal invasion and war of aggression: withdrawal and payment of restitution. Anything else is simply moral relativism and rationale for an American government out of control.

It is obvious because if toppling Saddam and securing us from WMD were the only goals, we'd be gone by now. It is obvious that that is no longer our objective. (Of course, if Kerry were to say that that was our only objective and our mission is accomplished, fine.)

When you argue for withdrawal, how? Are you proposing an immeadiate pull-out to leave the Iraqis on their own? Many people have that view, but the point is, we keep dancing around any clear objective. Packing up an leaving with no regard for anything else would be easy enough, but I don't expect that to be the position of the dems. So, we are still left wondering, what is Kerry's strategic objective.

...As I've stated before...the Bushies deliberately caused such chaos in Iraq that no other country is willing to help as long as Bush* has full control. At the very least the US should pull back and stop the ugly war profiteering. Iraqis should be put in charge of their own country's reconstruction.

- The rest of the world considers Bush* as a dictator empire building in Iraq and they want no part of it as long as the US alone is calling all the shots. Once the US pulls back...many other countries would get involved to 'supervise' the reconstruction.

- Many Americans don't seem to understand that it's Bush's* arrogant policies that the Iraqis hate...not the idea of Saddam being gone. The violence would dramatically decrease once the little dictator is out of the picture.

Simply put, whether you agreed with the invasion or not (I did not) we now have a legal responsibility for the safety and well-being of all Iraqis. Under a Kerry administration, we will see to that responsibility.

- And it seems to me that the Iraqis would be 'safer' if we stopped blowing them up and killing their families.

What court has declared the occupation illegal? The UN? The Hague? Anyone except individuals with no authority to do so?

Under international law, we are responsible period. You can't invade a country, say, oooops, it was illegal so we're just gonna turn tail and leave the country in a mess and civil war. That's called being a coward. Good leaders fix really bad problems, that's what Kerry will be charged to do.

...and that is prosecute those who LIED this nation into war.

- The Bush* government refuses to recognize any court and they seem to have nothing to fear even from the Democrats. That both parties are participating in the charade doesn't make it any less of a charade.

- The thing is...we BROKE international law by invading in the first place. It's called a 'war of aggression...something for which the Nazis were put on trial.

- In my mind...a 'coward' is someone that can't admit their mistakes and continues to make the same mistakes over and over again. Neither the right or the left party can't seem to admit that we're killing more innocents than 'terrorists' and that too is against international laws..including the Geneva convention.

- "Good Leaders" should recognize that some 'problems' can't be fixed unless they understand the larger picture. The picture in this case is that Bush* broke national and international laws to wage a war that didn't need to happen. Killing more Iraqis under the guise of fighting the 'war on terror' would be the biggest mistake of all.

Occupying powers, at least the Geneva Convention type, are subject to laws...or...at least they used to be.

Continued US occupation only increases our responsibilities daily.

The cost of the occupation continues to escalate. The Administration is ordering top-shelf technology from U.S. corporations for Iraq, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. This is precisely what corrupts the Administration's reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and U.S. taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the U.S. invasion, including compensation for its victims.

We need to help rebuild Iraq to the extent that we destroyed it, pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians and noncombatants who have lost their lives, help to rebuild Iraq, help to pay for a UN peacekeeping mission, and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

Like the bumper sticker says, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Time to go.

The Democrats should denounce the invasion as illegal and/or immoral, but they don't have the backbone to stand up to Bush* and be the opposition. The republicans had no problem with that in the Balkans in 1998.

Unfortunately we can't just leave a huge, destroyed, broke country to sit there.

It might actually heal some old wounds between the two countries.

...trust those 'who broke it' to fix it?

i am more a "flip flop" kinda dudette

prior to invasion, i was against

when i saw we were going in i was all for going in getting sadam out giving them an election and leaving

when bushie allowed the looting, i was all for staying and bringing back order. stopping the crime and rapes and kidnaps and protecting the citizen

when contractors took the jobs and insurgents started and our troops were dieing with the iraqi people and the abuses where happening, threw up hands and said, not a single choice of integrity we are doomed, need to get out

and now that the pictures are out and the world sees our ugliness and there will be no cooperation, i say

tails between the legs, admit defeat and unfortunately leave to the iraqi people to figure..........

and this isnt a good choice for the iraqi's, who knows maybe left to their own they will make some good choice. but we arent going to be effective we have done every step in greed and dishonesty

my point is, it has not been black and white, have to solve a problem from the now of a situation, and we had opportunity to accomplish but bush just is not capable of making good decisions

...of where and how our tax dollars have already been spent in Iraq before they allocate another 25 billion or so? This is...after all...their job as outlined in the Constitution.

- Will Democrats insist the Bush* stop bombing residential neighborhoods and slaughtering civilians in his crusade to hunt down Iraqis that may or may not be terrorists?

- The Bushies have intentionally caused CHAOS in Iraq and are now using it as a justification for escalation. They used shock and awe to cause the most possible destruction and then send in their defense/energy industry buddies to clean up the mess at our expense.

- Nothing good can EVER come from staying in Iraq. The Bushies know that and simply don't care. They're there for 'other' reasons. Democrats shouldn't be part of this insult to humanity.

- This morning on Democracy Now, McDermott (D-Washington) admitted he couldn't understand why anyone voted for the "Iraq war resolution" when there was so much evidence (at the time) that Bush* was lying and exaggerating about the necessity for an unprovoked attack.

- It seems that how the nominee and party wants to handle Bush's* war and quagmire will be a big issue at the National Convention. From what I can see...there's only a handful of Democrats that will admit that invading Iraq was wrong.

- McDermott also opposes the vote for Negroponte and calls him the man the 'neocons rounded' up to do their dirty work in Iraq. He goes on to mention Negroponte's involvement in Iran/Contra, Honduras and other atrocities.

- Dems need to get their shit together on the issues of war and why so many Dems are voting for Bush* appointed fascists.

We broke it, now we gotta do the best we can to fix it and then get the hell out of there.

If I recall correctly, the polls are showing that most of the Dems were against the initial invasion. Now most of the country feels the invasion was not worth the cost.

And look at us. We have a pro-war nominee for an anti-war party, running in a (slightly) anti-war country.

And now the war has taken over as the top issue of the campaign. Where did we go wrong?

BRING THEM HOME!

We must work to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, not through destruction, but through constructive action worldwide. America, with the international community, can help negotiate a resolution with Iraq that encompasses unfettered inspections, the end of sanctions, and the cessation of the regime-change policy. America can do this. We have the power to do this. We must have the will to do this. It must be the will of the American people expressed through the direct action of peaceful insistence.

We have to get out of there asap. Bring in the international community, patch together something presentable and then get out.

...shouldn't be 'trusted' to fix it. This begs the question: why did they BREAK IT in the first place when the invasion and occupation was unncessary?

- We'll go nowhere with this issue unless we can muster up enough honesty to admit that invading/occupying/destroying Iraq was wrong in the first place.

but our nominee does not.

I intend to convince as many people as possible that this mess was illegal, unecessary and stupid. But I feel a little weird promoting Kerry at the same time.

The continued US occupation is not consistent with establishing security in the region or at home; it simply begets more hatred, violence and death. The Democratic party needs to wake up, but may be gone too far down the path of denial and wishful thinking.

...because neither party could admit that they had made a mistake and 'miscalculated'.

- There is no 'waking up' until the Dem party separates itself from the Bush* Doctrine of aggressive war and empire.

Every day we are there, we make things worse for the Iraqis. Let them sort it out. It's their country. If they succeed on their own, the can be proud that they did it themselves. If they fuck it up, its theirs to fuck up. If we do it for them, they can have no pride, because they didn't do it, it was imposed.

Its a lose lose the longer we stay. Its a sick, silly, naive, neo-con wet dream to go out and "create" these Israel-friendly regimes. Its nothing but occuapation, conquest, and empire building, its illegal, and no amount of "good intentions" cleans up the fact that it is craven stupidity, madness of first order, illegal, immoral, and should end NOW.