When are the uber leftists going to wake up

I'm uber leftist, in my mind. Everything would be so perfect if my imagination was reality. Certainly I'm no Leiberman DLC supporter, but I am a Clinton DLC supporter. Name me a Democratic President or major leader elected 1980 to now who wasn't named Clinton. I recognize campaigns. I recognize swing voters. I say F you to ideological purity... as long as you're being honest with yourself and weighing the difference.

So, ALL of us said this war would be hell. All of us said we would be in a world of hell.

So, for once, I demand that my fellow members of DU put aside their partisan beating stick (nothing wrong with it) and start to post about how they WOULD attempt to fix the problem. No matter how much people try to deny it, unfortunately, we are still now INTERNATIONALLY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A SECURE IRAQ. Do you agree with Kerry's plan, spelled out on his website, that focuses on NATO? No? What are your thougts?

One thing though. I've had enough of the uber lefties, determined to ignore reason, and no different than the uber righties. Our way or the highway. You know what? F all of you. This is about our country, the future of our country, and if you want EVERYTHING just the way YOU think it should be...... you are no different than Bush. NONE. NADA. ZERO. Completely worthless to American society. Our democracy as a whole depends on open dialogue between multipe viewpoints. I'm sick of the partisan bullsit, from both sides (even though our side is definetely more competant). It is only the radicals that hurt our chances of getting rid of Bush. Time and again. Just like Nixon.

Thoughts? And if you hurl insults you're part of the problem, I'm trying for a real discussion.

has gone too far.

you might try toning you're own rhetoric down a notch or two. You don't start a discussion by insulting people and putting them on the defensive.

Took the words right off my keyboard.

"I want a fucking reasoned discussion, you motherfuckers!"

I wonder if I should change my tact, after all not everybody can talk to hand implements and make it work



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000ASA13/002-4064158-2801616?v=glance&n=3489201&s=merchant&m=A363XKZVKSMVX

--IMM

Thoughts? And if you hurl insults you're part of the problem, I'm trying for a real discussion.

Well then I guess you are part of the problem. Posting such a heated post won't bring debate, but rather flames.

..I dream things that never were and ask, why not?"

The only thing that has ever changed the course of history are people who were labeled "radicals" at the time. And every radical who has ever affected the course of history was told at some point by someone somewhere "well that's nice, but in the "real" world..."

Radicals played a large part in ending slavery. Radicals gave women the right to vote. Without radicals there would have been no civil rights movement. Radicals played the largest part in finally ending the Vietnam war. Radicals have been at the center of every step labor progress achieved in this country (though clearly most of that progress has been and is being undone). You want change without new ideas. Albert Einstein said, "if at first and idea is not absurd, there is no hope in it." He was right.

Part of the problem in the United States is that the scope of discussion is so unspeakably narrow. People are labeled "extreme" leftists for having the most tame of views. In this country we don't have any kind of honest-to-god progressive presence. What we have is the extreme fascist right (current republicans), the far right (center democrats) and the right (so-called leftist liberals). Until that fundamental problem is rectified, I don't believe there is any hope for meaningful substantial positive change.

I did have to laugh at this:

Our democracy as a whole depends on open dialogue between multipe viewpoints.

In conjunction with this:

You know what? F all of you.

and this:

you are no different than Bush. NONE. NADA. ZERO. Completely worthless to American society.

and this:

I'm sick of the partisan bullsit(sic)

I'm curious as to how you define "open dialog between multiple viewpoints" and reconcile that with telling people with a different viewpoint than yours "F all of you."

Aside from all of this, there is still one overarching reason to stand by progressive principles and fight for radical change: because it is fundamentally right. Fanatical neo-conservatives want to change America in the direction of great and unspeakable evil and injustice. So-called liberal, lefty, progressives what to change American in the direction of greater and richer equality and justice. Moderates just want to maintain the status quo. That's fine I guess, if you believe the status quo is acceptable. I do not.

May I just add that the only way to win in this situation is to insist on talking about the idea itself and not the person.
And never taking the comments personally or being hurt by not having your ideas approved of.
Eventually they will come around and be looking for answers when their welfare is threatened.

I'm glad to see someone take this on in a way that cuts to the point without being flaming. Great!

I was going to ignore this tripe and let it sink but I thank you for saying what I was thinking.

Peace

Kidding of course.

"...if you hurl insults you're part of the problem, I'm trying for a real discussion."

---

"F all of you."


"I've had enough of the uber lefties, determined to ignore reason, and no different than the uber righties."


".... you are no different than Bush. NONE. NADA. ZERO. Completely worthless to American society."






:eyes:

Oh, I forgot the Goldwater quote...damn it's early...

I agree with the message, but not the tone. I'm looking at two pictures. One that ends November 2nd, the second starts immediately thereafter.

Currently we have a regime that's out of control and heading us for more ruin and despair. It must be removed, as must as many of its sources of power as possible...Congress, Judicial, Military and so on. There has to be a halt to the divisions that emenate directly from the Repugnican party. I don't think there's a Democrat, Liberal, Progressive or anyone else on DU who wouldn't agree with that first objective.

We've disagreed on who would be our messenger and certain parts of the message, but on the whole we know our candidate is the best salvation this nation has and with Kerry elected, we can start repairing the massive damage that's been done. That's where things here on DU get sticky.

The downside of winning is everyone feels they have something coming for it. For GLBT, it'll be codifying their civil rights, woman's groups will speak out for more abortion-right safeguards to prevent any more challenges to Roe v Wade, Sierra Clubbers will want clamps put on environmental changes...and so on. The disussion we need to have here will be some semblence of a realistic agenda.

Let's grant objective one is ending this invasion and a safe and "honorable" way out as soon as possible. Then it's rolling back those attrocious tax cuts and breaks for the rich (I propose a one month payroll tax holiday instead) and restoring some civility to the face of this nation.

Should we emulate the Repugnicans and be lemmings? Hell no! Diversity makes us strong and the voices of all must be heard, it's just deciding what major changes have to be undertaken first that set the underpinnings for the other changes are various special interests seek. I know this is dreaming, but I'll take whatever I can.

And none of these post Nov. 2 scenarios work very well with a Congress still under the thumb of DeLay, Hastert and the Reich Wingers. That has to be something Democrats really take a strong look at and put a real effort in retaking.

<off soapbox...passing on to next ranter>...Thank you and cheers!

Colors will change as the election season progresses. The ultimate goal...TOTALLY BURNT!

Cheers!

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…

where does it say that the US is 'INTERNATIONALLY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A SECURE IRAQ?'








oh, by the way, F you too! :hi:

Because the USA is signator to the Geneva Conventions, they are "the law of the land." Hence, we are legally obligated to adequately rebuild or replace the medical, legal and political infrastructure we demolished.

cf http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/ihlfaqoccupation.htm for example or google "geneva convention occupation obligation" for many more.

This uber-leftist appreciates the Geneva Conventions and thinks they are generally a "good thing". Any reasonable leader would think at least twice about the kind of responsibility incurred by invading and occupying another nation; the requirements are not trivial. Unfortunately, we are tasked with an unreasonable leader who has no qualms about flagrant violations of various parts of the Geneva Conventions -- e.g., war profiteering. Since these violations are, technically, breaches of our own "law of the land", they are themselves impeachable offenses. Not that anything would come of it, but it's worth noting anyway. Next time a freeper tells you bush hasn't broken any laws, slap 'em around with the Geneva Conventions.

i was wondering if the thread starter would accually back up his assertions, once he got done with his insults and insinuations.

besides, the US has basically decided the geneva conv. doesn't apply to their 'war on terror'. the geneva conv. shouldn't be invoked or ingnored at the signatories convenience.

Seriously, read the FAQ.

It's beside the point if "the US has basically decided the geneva conv. doesn't apply", because it still matters. That's like saying "Joe Sixpack decided the felony murder laws didn't apply to his ex-wife."

Our duly elected representatives signed the Geneva Conventions. They are now the law of the land. We are obligated to them, whether we like it or not. They are not to be ignored as a matter of convenience; to do so likely results in direct violations of law.

Our military forces are now, by definition, an occupying army. As such, they (and their civilian overseers) have responsibilities to the people of Iraq. If those responsibilities are shirked, it is a crime.

Hello Organism,

I think there is some confusion between our responsibilities and what actions are necessitated by those responsibilities. While it is our legal responsibility to replace facilities and infrastructure that we destroyed during our invasion, there is not a clear mandate in the Geneva Convention on how, exactly, such reparations are to be affected.

I think what KG, and others, protest is the nature of how we are to accomplish this task. Frankly, we are incapable of it. We are, in our attempts to do so, making things worse, not better. I think we can all agree on this.

Would it not also satisfy our obligations to remove ourselves from Iraq and simply provide the funding (through the UN) to rebuild Iraq?

Here we are bellyaching about what we should do to clean up our mess in Iraq with minimal damage, but the Iraqi people are sending us a clear message: GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS COUNTRY.

There are plenty of other things we can do to help, but it must be on their terms. Here are the major challenges facing a new Iraq: Do you split Iraq into 2 or 3 territories, or do you keep it unified & risk civil war? How do you avoid another Baathist regime or theocracy?

Our occupation is like putting a square peg in a round hole. We haven't even considered a three-state solution, which would avoid civil war and ethnic strife - at least for time enough for them to get some governments organized. So the Turks wouldn't like it? BFD. The Kurds would.

And suppose one of these three countries reject Democracy - or elect a fundie fanatic? BFD. Not our choice.

Look at all the damage we're doing because of our fears if we actually leave those two decisions up to the Iraqis. So the solution is to GET THE FUCK OUT. Go through the UN and say "How can we help?" Then pick up the tab.

And what makes everybody think that NATO is a less threatening Western Coalition force than our current Western coalation force? And why NOT the UN?

I'm beginning to think that France & Germany opposed our invasion only because they weren't going to get to carve up the map with us.

it's americas world now, the US decides whats best for EVERYBODY! :eyes:

The majority of Iraqis may wish to have an Islamic state and kill all Kurds and treat women like garbage. It matters but isn't dispositive.

I heard someone on TV use the Pottery Barn slogan - "You break it: You own it." Iraq is in shambles. It's a mess. It's a mess because we went in there with only one plan - Get rid of Saddam! There was no continegency for "What if the people resis being 'liberarated'." We created this mess, and now we own it. As much as I would like us just to pull our soldiers out, this would be irresponsible of us. I believe we must go to our current and former European allies and the UN with some major mea culpa. We have to being willing to tell the world community that we were wrong - we screwed up. We cannot fix this mess in Iraq on our own. It is obvious that our presence there is only making matters worse. We need to look at historical plans for reconstruction of nations after a war and draw on them, but making allowances for the fact that this is a different culture - with complex social and religious tensions. We need to hand over major decision making for what is going to happen in Iraq to a multinational coalition - not a figurative multinational coalition with us making all the decisions, but a REAL multinational coalition (the UN, NATO, or a special World Coalition on Iraq). We need to be a member of the coalition, but with no more say than any other nations. It must be a joint effort.

LOL...projecting much are ya? anyways, I will keep my opinion of centrists to myself...

centrist = uber leftists in thier minds.

yo, jb :hi:

zzzzzzzzzz... snrf...zzzzzzzz... snxxxx... snrrk. hhhuh. blink. mumblemumble... goddamn commies... road to utopia, bollix up everything... where'd I put my gun? goddamn kiddies, get my hands on them muggawuggamumble...mumble...snrrrxx... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZ...

the Iraqi people would really have to blow it to do any worse than we have. The Iraqi general that took control of Fallujah has worked wonders and presents a better model of placation than any constructed by us since the invasion.

I believe it little more than hubris and racism to think that these little brown people, as the CIC calls them, could not take care of stabilizing their nation and selecting what sort of government they want. After all, democracy does not start by imposing a framework on a people and pretending that they came up with it through democratic means.

This was no more than a mugging writ large and while the mugging went well initially, it is not going so well now. The first step, if you want stability in the mugging victim, is to STOP MUGGING THEM.

BAGHDAD (AP) — An expanded Governing Council should appoint and oversee the work of a caretaker government due to take over from the U.S.-led occupation June 30, the U.S.-picked body said Saturday.
The statement by the council was the clearest sign yet of significant differences between the Iraqi administration and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi over the best way to establish a transitional government to take power June 30 until elections the following January.

Brahimi, who arrived Thursday to help set up the new government, had proposed an administration with limited powers and made up of Iraqis without ties to established parties. Brhaimi's plan would eliminate key members of the 25-member council.

Several council members have privately said that the body was divided over the best way forward, pointing out that those who wished to see the council still in existence beyond June 30 represented one of several factions.

Last month, Brahimi proposed dissolving the council and naming a caretaker government of "men and women known for their honesty, integrity and competence" to serve from June 30, when limited sovereignty will be restored to Iraqis, until a general election held by Jan. 31. He also suggested a prime minister, a president and two vice presidents be appointed.
<s>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-08-iraqi-council_x.htm

US presses UN to change Iraq's transitional govt plan
PTI< SUNDAY, MAY 09, 2004 11:15:13 AM >

NEW YORK: The Bush administration is pressing the United Nations envoy for Iraq to change his proposal for a transitional Iraqi government once self-rule is returned on June 30, officials said.

Instead of a government that is non-political, the administration is now pushing for one that gives prominent roles to people with ties to political parties, Iraqi and US officials told the New York Times.

The officials said the new thinking in Washington reflected doubts that a transitional government of technocrats would be strong enough.

Leading Kurdish and Shiite political figures, many of them members of the American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, have pressed for the change, administration officials said. These figures are clamoring to hold on to power after the council is dissolved June 30, the Times said.
<s>
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/666069.cms

I remember they pulled this "technocrat" crap in Afghanistan as well, I recall endless droning talk about "technocrat Doctor Abdullah Abdullah" as the foreign minister or whatnot...

Boy, they really got Democracy going there too!

BAGHDAD: UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, charged with helping form an interim Iraqi government, rejected on Saturday the criticism from members of the US-appointed Governing Council, who accused him of not consulting them on his plans.

Brahimi told them the ideas he had submitted to the UN Security Council on the creation of the new transitional body were not drawn up by him or the United Nations. "What we have done is explain the ideas that we have submitted to the Security Council, underlining the fact that these were not a plan from the United Nations or me personally but our reading of what we heard from a very, very large number of Iraqis," Brahimi said.

Brahimi said his role is only to advise and proposed changes to previous plans drawn up by Washington and the Council stressing competence, rather than party affiliations. "I have explained to the Governing Council that I have never used the word technocrats," Brahimi told reporters.

Brahimi said, "I think that much of this criticism is unfounded, that they are saying that I am coming with a pre-cooked package in my briefcase, a list of names that will take over Iraq when the time comes. I believe he (Chalabi) addressed many of their concerns, legitimate concerns some of them, due to misinterpretation or misreporting."
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en64032&F_catID=&f_type=source

I actually think what they're saying now, is that rather than a government of managerial or administrative positions, the US is now pressuring the UN to choose based on political affiliation. IIUC, a technocrat would remove the emotional charge of choosing political sides. They would be there to GET THE JOB DONE, rather than advance their own political agendas. The US standard policy, from what I can observe, is VERY much into playing politics in EVERY SITUATION.

I've had enough of the uber lefties...

You know what? F all of you.

you are no different than Bush. NONE. NADA. ZERO. Completely worthless to American society.

And if you hurl insults you're part of the problem, I'm trying for a real discussion.

:silly: Anyway...

Do you agree with Kerry's plan, spelled out on his website, that focuses on NATO? No? What are your thougts?

No. NATO is a strategic alliance, not an instrument of peace. We need to turn the entire thing over to the UN.

:D

I'm uber leftist, in my mind. Everything would be so perfect if my imagination was reality. Certainly I'm no Leiberman DLC supporter, but I am a Clinton DLC supporter. Name me a Democratic President or major leader elected 1980 to now who wasn't named Clinton. I recognize campaigns. I recognize swing voters. I say F you to ideological purity... as long as you're being honest with yourself and weighing the difference.

I'm certainly a uber-leftist, and I don't at all insist on ideological purity...

But Clinton DLC go considerably too far. They're certainly the lesser evil, yet the Democratic Party seems capable of moving considerably to the Left without losing too many votes.

So, ALL of us said this war would be hell. All of us said we would be in a world of hell.

So, for once, I demand that my fellow members of DU put aside their partisan beating stick (nothing wrong with it) and start to post about how they WOULD attempt to fix the problem. No matter how much people try to deny it, unfortunately, we are still now INTERNATIONALLY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A SECURE IRAQ. Do you agree with Kerry's plan, spelled out on his website, that focuses on NATO? No? What are your thougts?

Part of the problem is the idea that the US CAN fix the problem.

It CAN'T, because the US is part of the problem.

The people of Iraq, for the most part, no longer trust the US, because "we" have bombed them for the past twelve years, and before that supported their brutal dictator.

ANY US military presence in Iraq will likely result in a bloodbath for this reason, quite like what is occuring now.

At this point, it no longer matters how benevolent US intentions are, how flowery the US government's statements are - it's too late.

The smart thing to do is to leave the place before the whole thing collapses on top of the US forces there, even more so than it has so far. Not only will it spare US forces, but it will also spare Iraqis who might otherwise be slaughtered in brutal US "pacification" efforts.

One thing though. I've had enough of the uber lefties, determined to ignore reason, and no different than the uber righties. Our way or the highway. You know what? F all of you. This is about our country, the future of our country, and if you want EVERYTHING just the way YOU think it should be...... you are no different than Bush. NONE. NADA. ZERO. Completely worthless to American society. Our democracy as a whole depends on open dialogue between multipe viewpoints. I'm sick of the partisan bullsit, from both sides (even though our side is definetely more competant). It is only the radicals that hurt our chances of getting rid of Bush. Time and again. Just like Nixon.

Thoughts? And if you hurl insults you're part of the problem, I'm trying for a real discussion.

"Hurl insults"?

This from someone who, in the very post he is requesting comments on, says "F all of you" to a group of people, claims that they are "no different from Bush", and calls them "completely worthless to American society"...

I raised some questions yesterday along these lines and was called a rapist. Almost made me abandon DU.

Hope you receive better treatment

You can't build a house on a foundation that is in shambles.

At the moment, both of our foundations are in shambles. Now, the Republican foundation is built on the side of a cliff -- a nuclear, Armageddon size cliff. And if we don't get rid of the BFEE, we may not have a future.

A Democratic president will hopefully buy us time..we may have a 'kinder, friendlier empire'..but corruption runs deep on both sides of the aisle. Doesn't our nation need to begin building a better foundation?

A Democratic president could buy us much more time IF he is forced to work (or supported in his work, if you prefer) at fixing the foundation by an active, conscious public.

We need to be certain that we are not simply changing the puppets with each election, and leaving the puppeteers unexamined.

Debating "Kerry's Plan" is less relevant to the disastrous situation we are in.

are saying this. Maybe DK DID have something to do with that.

I, personally don't want to have to be endlessly involved in watch-dogging our political system. Folks who LOVE politics can have that station. I want the built-in checks and balances RESTORED and integrity to the electoral process ENSURED.

And, then, YES, I would like to see the Greatness of the American People unleashed to co-create a peaceful, prosperous planet. No one MAN is the solution to our future. We battle not against flesh and blood, but against powers of boundless greed. Those who would pursue wealth and power at any price, must be dealt with according to universal principles and the safeguards built into our Democratic powers. Instead, their self-destructive greed is running amok and dragging the entire world down with them.

Maybe if you'd stood up for your convictions we wouldn't have gotten into this damn war in the first place! Yeah, I know that doesn't matter for Iraq now, but it sure as hell will matter in the future when the next extremely ill advised plan is posed and carried through while you sit around and hem and haw.

Oh, and you insulted me, so I am damn well going to hurl insults in return.

Bush was selected.

because that's the only place where one could legitimately claim to be an "uber-leftist" and a "Clinton DLC supporter" at the same time. :eyes: Newsflash...Clinton was not a leftist.

they think the rest of us bought the charade ;)

I agree, by the Geneva Convention, as an occupying army we are now legally obligated to restore and maintain order until a soverign government can again take on this responsibility in Iraq. The steps I would take (off the top of my head)...

(1) Vote Bush* Out. And by a wide margin. This is the necessary first step for Americans to regain credibility in the world again. It would show that we wholly reject the detour that the Bush regime has taken. If this does not happen, everything else is moot.

(2) Loudly Repudiate the Bush Doctrine. Rewrite the National Security Strategy of the United States (the NSS, posted on whitehouse gov), completely eliminating the delusions of grandeur behind our unilateral claim to pre-emptive action and our threat to attack any nation that attempts to become militarilly competitive with us. Repudiate the passages that suggest we would work to thwart democratic peoples that choose high marginal tax rates to fund social programs and instead announce that we will always support the free decisions of pluralities and majorities everywhere. Back off the silly claim that our values and our structure of government are right for everyone, everywhere, and for all time. Repudiate the racist Wilsonian "white man's burden" this implies.

(3) Reverse Bad Decisions. Apologize to Iraq and the world for violating international and American law when lying our way into the Iraq war. Give up all claims to national interest in Iraq and transition to a coalition (NATO or the UN) to secure the peace. Acknowledge the possibility of the creation of three states in Iraq, or even an Islamist state -- make clear that we respect the right of Iraqi citizens to decide for themselves. Create a War Reparations Tax in the U.S. on the top 2% of incomes, and on corporate profits in the military/media war-complicit industries, to pay down the debts accumulated to date and the bills that will continue to come in over the next 5 to 10 years.

(4) Reverse and Repudiate the Patriot ACT. Restore the protections that were established after we learned of the abuses by the FBI and CIA in the fifties and sixties. Restore FOID to its full power. Fire Ashcroft immediately.

(5) Eliminate the FISA Court and all Cloaks of Invisibility. No secret courts approving investigations of American citizens. No power without transparant accountability.

(6) Launch a Special Counsel to Investigate. Thoroughly investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Meyers, Scalia and the SCOTUS, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perl, Armitage, Negroponte, Bolton, et al. Send the guilty to prison. Strip them of their pensions and their reputations. Include in scope Enron and the Energy Task Force, the Medicare giveaway to the pharmacuetical industry, 9-11, the 9-11 coverup, the lies leading to the illegal invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, misappropriation of funds meant for Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. Ars longa, vita brevis est -- so get busy!

(7) Close Guantanamo. Charge and try the prisoners; release those found innocent.

(8) Restore Habeus Corpus. Charge, try, and accept the conclusions of Padilla and Hamdhi.

(9) Restore the Fairness Doctrine and the Rule of Sevens. Reverse the near monopolozation of the major media and ensure that all voices have a fair opportunity to be heard.

(10) Close Bases. Do we really need 800 or so major military bases peppered around the globe?

(11) Speak Truth to Power. Always.

There, that's a start. I'm sure I've forgotten broad areas that need to be addressed. Note that I believe the way out of Iraq requires a complete overhaul of our national institutions and values and leaders.

Radical means to get to the root of the problem. Real solutions are radical. (Except when they're not.)

I expect all leftists to be pragmatic, not doctrinaire. A doctrinaire liberal would be an oxymoron, or maybe just a moron.

OK, this is a really funny post.

--IMM

<searches for middle finger salute>

I would have agreed with your point. Now, I don't see it working. Any NATO operation is going to be largly US and British since both France and Germany want no part of such an operation. They will let the others do it if that is what they wish to do but they won't do it themselves. Now the US and British are both implicated in the torture of Iraqis. I fail to see the Iraqis buying this. All the options are bad but the only thing I can see doing now is breaking up the country into Kurdistan, a Shiite state, and a Sunni state. Get some moderate Arab countries to police the border and hope for the best.

If you hurl insults, you're part of the problem. We can't have a real discussion that way.

One thing though. I've had enough of the uber lefties, determined to ignore reason, and no different than the uber righties. Our way or the highway. You know what? F all of you. This is about our country, the future of our country, and if you want EVERYTHING just the way YOU think it should be...... you are no different than Bush. NONE. NADA. ZERO. Completely worthless to American society. Our democracy as a whole depends on open dialogue between multipe viewpoints. I'm sick of the partisan bullsit, from both sides (even though our side is definetely more competant). It is only the radicals that hurt our chances of getting rid of Bush. Time and again. Just like Nixon.

How many "real discussions" have I ever had with someone who "demanded" that I obey their command? None. And I probably won't start here.

For the record, I support this plan. It's been publicly available for almost a year:

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

<snip>

The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President that will quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq.


1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.

"I will work tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action, bring all U.S. troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the UN community to participate. Such a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan."

...having a reasoned discussion on this forum is always a noble (if practically hopeless) cause and i salute you :beer:

That said there are many well reasoned, tolerant people on this board both Radicals, Liberals and Moderates... the sad fact is that the intolerant zealots dominate most discussion and that’s a shame...

As for Iraq... well its a mess... we should never have really gone in, we don’t have sufficient troops on the ground and are failing to build up sufficient support for a new democratic government…

To be honest I don’t believe that we have sufficient knowledge to make any truly informed suggestions concerning US strategy…

I just do not see an alternative to staying put both in terms of the future of Iraq and US power and prestige the United States cannot withdraw however we attempt to gloss it over… withdrawal now would leave Iraq a lawless and leaderless nation that would almost instantaneously descend into anarchy with the only force powerful enough to forge a national government being the Clerics and their private armies and the Kurds and their forces in the north.


…I will get back to this in a bit, but actually attempting to figure out a solution is really really difficult and I must admit that I feel sorry for the guys who need to sort out this mess….

But anyone else dealing in insults somehow isn't?

If you're interested in a "real discussion", you sure have a funny way of going about it. Judging by the majority of your post, I would surmise that you're really not at all interested in hearing points of view from the "uber left", other than for the purpose of immediately shouting them down for the purpose of satifsying your own ego.

But, in the spirit of being open to the possibility of misjudgment, I'll tell you why I don't think Kerry's plan will work.

First, Iraqis care little about the political party of the figurehead of the pro big business US government. The reputation of the United States has been completely compromised for the vast majority of them. Nor do they have overly positive feelings for any sort of Europeans, given the legacy of England, France and the US in the Middle East. The fact is that as long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil, they will be seen as an occupying force and treated as such. Adding other NATO troops to the mix will honestly not help.

Second, the US involvement via the CGA and IGC has only served to stifle democratic governance. The Iraqis have to find their own way to democracy, and any attempts of the US to try and "teach" it to them will be destined for ultimate failure.

Third, the US is correctly seen as a bunch of carpetbagging war profiteers. Regular Iraqis have been little involved in the actual reconstruction of the country. Honestly, reconstruction will not be able to reasonably continue until all the contracts are cancelled and new ones issued on the basis of actually enabling Iraqis rather than seeking to milk as much profit as possible.

I've posted on this numerous times before. The question is, are you truly interested in listening to my thoughts? Or, are you more interested in shouting me down as an "uber leftist" for the sole purpose of disagreeing with Kerry's plan?

Seriously, in order to secure Iraq we must have international help. We cannot have international help so long as Bush* holds the executive branch of our governement, ergo, the only way to fix Iraq is to dump Bush* in favor of ANYBODY ELSE!!!

n/t

"I'm trying for a real discussion."

OK, turn down the music, get off of DU, and see if your school offers some good communication classes. You should probably start with 101.

Stephanie

The US is responsible for security in Iraq for as long as the occupation continues. Nowhere in international law is it however stated that once you occupy a country you can't end the occupation. So in fact, the US responsibility properly extends to the payment of war reparations, and that is it. I repeat - strange as this may seem, international law does not force you to continue an illegal occupation resulting from an illegal war until some magical time when the country you have just raped and pillaged is deemed to have been 'fixed'.

I expect, however, that they will flame you.

but if you're looking for some serious discussion, saying stuff like "F all of you" won't help you make your case.

I just thought you should know that.

I just hate it when people label members of their own party with tags like "uber leftists". What the hell is an uber leftist anyway? I really would like an answer to that question. Why don't you just come right out and say it, most of us know exactly who you're talking about. I'm sure I fall into that category in your world of name tagging and categorizing, but somehow I think I'd be just fine with that, flattered and proud even.

Wake up my ass. I've been awake, in fact I stay alert to all the bullshit being propagated by the rightwing and some of the crap that comes from the people that "label" themselves "moderate dems". They can be a pretty scary bunch themselves, in fact I think they are the ones asleep at the wheel these days.