i still call for an immediate withdrawl, which can be done if planned for and excecuted properly... neither of which will happen while the president has veto power, which he used... the dems put forward, and voted for withdrawl... the republican president veto'd it and the dems could not get enough republicans or lieberman to cross the aisle...
so they keep at it and DON'T vote to give Bush more money. That makes no sense, if you truly wish to end this war, to keep giving him money to keep it going. Is it that much to ask for our Congress to take a stand? Do you think Kucinich should have voted along with the rest of them against what he believes in?
folks really need to ease up on thier Obama fixation
Why should I? In all likelihood, he'll be our next president and I disagree with a lot that he has done and where he is going. When are you going to drop your Bush/Cheney/McCain fixation? Don't expect my views on Obama to go away anytime soon...they're probably just going to get louder
fucking cheney basicly said fuck the people the other day live in an interview... yet some people are now shifting thier glare and blame to the ones voting to end the war and the candidate opposed to it from jump street... it is beginning to feel like bizarro world to me... as if people forgot the fucking reason we are where we are :rolleyes:
I'm not excusing the crimes of either group of fuckwit politicians....
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
well you are going on the BIG assumption that the UN will do it.....and be successful at it.
I really don't think they would do either (go in after us and be successful)
You're going on an assumption thinking the US troops will be able to stabilize the region when all signs point to more chaos.
It's the UN's job to handle these things and they wouldn't be seen as an occupying force who has destroyed their country. That alone will quiet some of the hostility.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You're going on an assumption thinking the US troops will be able to stabilize the region when all signs point to more chaos.
chaos?? things have been improving in recent months. you really can't deny the improvements that have taken place. sure its still a war zone and not a safe place, but improvements have taken place.
It's the UN's job to handle these things and they wouldn't be seen as an occupying force who has destroyed their country. That alone will quiet some of the hostility.
so you do want troops in the country, just not american troops. I have no idea what makes u think Iraqis would welcome an armed force such as UN troops. are you Iraqi? I mean really how do you know? judging from the current attitudes of Iraqis, they would see any soldiers not their own as occupiers. US troops, in some areas and circles, have built trust with Iraqis. 5 years they have been working side by side, training, fighting, dying.
now you think the best thing to do is throw in a group of soldiers who do not know the land, the people, police, army.......anyone...
I just don't see that as the best option. you clearly want troops there, so why not have the ones who will best do the job?
chaos?? things have been improving in recent months. you really can't deny the improvements that have taken place. sure its still a war zone and not a safe place, but improvements have taken place.
so you do want troops in the country, just not american troops. I have no idea what makes u think Iraqis would welcome an armed force such as UN troops. are you Iraqi? I mean really how do you know? judging from the current attitudes of Iraqis, they would see any soldiers not their own as occupiers. US troops, in some areas and circles, have built trust with Iraqis. 5 years they have been working side by side, training, fighting, dying.
now you think the best thing to do is throw in a group of soldiers who do not know the land, the people, police, army.......anyone...
I just don't see that as the best option. you clearly want troops there, so why not have the ones who will best do the job?
I know how to use google too. there are an equal amount of links to show a counterpoint for all the links you posted. I was trying to debate with you, not google.
I know how to use google too. there are an equal amount of links to show a counterpoint for all the links you posted. I was trying to debate with you, not google.
I recall you noting that my previous replies were assumptions and opinions thus I posted some links for you. I do believe UN peacekeeping forces would be a much welcomed change in Iraq...one that the Iraqis would welcome. I base this on what I've read of the situation.
Post all the links you'd like saying otherwise. I'd be interested in seeing what's shaped your opinion on this, as well.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I recall you noting that my previous replies were assumptions and opinions thus I posted some links for you. I do believe UN peacekeeping forces would be a much welcomed change in Iraq...one that the Iraqis would welcome. I base this on what I've read of the situation.
Post all the links you'd like saying otherwise. I'd be interested in seeing what's shaped your opinion on this, as well.
none of your links mention anything about Iraiqs "welcoming" an armed UN force.
and secondly, 2 of 4 of your links are well over a year old. ALOT has changed since then.
I actually base my opinion on polls such as the ones you posted. Iraqis dont want an occupying force. thats exactly what a UN force would be.
Peacing keeping troops are not the same thing as an attacking then occupying country's troops. I think that is clear.
no its not clear. "peace keeping troops" that is the biggest oxy moron ever. they still have guns, they are "western" looking. and most importantly, they are not Iraqis. they are foreigners with guns trying to keep peace. they are would be seen as no different to the average Iraqi.
by the very definition they are occupiers, it makes no difference what uniform they wear. they arent Iraqi.
Secondly, I trust Amnesty International's assessment of the situation over the corporate owned ABC network's but that's just me.
the article from amnesty posted has no opinions from Iraqis. its a short essay/interview with Malcolm Smart. so what?
the abc study shows several sources and very in-depth, on the ground analysis of the situation. it polls actually Iraqis from around the entire country. and you are going to automatically dismiss it because its "corporately" owned? you seem to be smarter then that. and also sad that you probably didn't even read it.
no its not clear. "peace keeping troops" that is the biggest oxy moron ever. they still have guns, they are "western" looking. and most importantly, they are not Iraqis. they are foreigners with guns trying to keep peace. they are would be seen as no different to the average Iraqi.
by the very definition they are occupiers, it makes no difference what uniform they wear. they arent Iraqi.
the article from amnesty posted has no opinions from Iraqis. its a short essay/interview with Malcolm Smart. so what?
the abc study shows several sources and very in-depth, on the ground analysis of the situation. it polls actually Iraqis from around the entire country. and you are going to automatically dismiss it because its "corporately" owned? you seem to be smarter then that. and also sad that you probably didn't even read it.
If you seriously believe there is no difference between UN peacekeeping forces and an attacking/occupying country that holds thousands of Iraqis prisoner without trial, tortures and humiliates them whilst being held and is responsible for the total destruction of Iraq also the deaths of uncountable Iraqis...then I really don't know where this is going to go from here. There is a HUGE difference. One is there to aid and stabilize, the other is there for power and control of resources not belonging to them and the welfare of the Iraqis has never been their top priority....not even close.
And yes, I view AI as an unbiased source with no agenda other than humanitarian concerns. I don't automatically dismiss ABC but I think major news networks are full of shit by nature and do have a corporate agenda.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
“When will the American people actually vote to give to the world more than bombs and missiles, sweatshops, dubious science, frankenfood, poverty and misery?” Cynthia McKinney, the presidential candidate in the Green Party primaries, told me. “Not only do we need an immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, we need an end to the militarism that has placed U.S. troops on the soil of over 100 countries. A true peace agenda means a complete redefinition of security. I remain convinced that if people in Haiti, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua can vote a peace and justice agenda into power, then so too can we.”
Examine the proposals on Iraq offered by Clinton and Obama. They talk about withdrawing some troops, but they also talk about leaving behind forces to protect U.S. bases in Iraq, assigning troops to train the Iraqi army and continuing the fight against “terrorism.” Clinton and Obama do not throw out numbers, but a rough estimate would be 40,000 or 50,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq. Obama, his advisers say, will also not rule out continuing to use private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The war would not end under a Democratic administration. It would drag on until the mission collapsed and the U.S. retreated in humiliation. And when pressed, the Democratic candidates have admitted as much. Tim Russert in the New Hampshire debate asked the Democratic candidates to guarantee that all U.S. troops in Iraq would be home by 2013. No one, including John Edwards, was prepared to make such a commitment. Dennis Kucinich, the only Democratic candidate who opposed a continuation of the war, had been excluded from the debate. When the question was asked he was standing outside the hall in the snow with supporters to protest his exclusion.
But the lust for militarism by Clinton and Obama does not end with Iraq. The two remaining Democratic candidates back the occupation of Afghanistan. They defend Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon, which killed hundreds of Lebanese, destroyed huge parts of Lebanon’s infrastructure and left U.S.-manufactured cluster bombs littered over southern Lebanon. Clinton and Obama praise the right-wing government in Jerusalem and callously blame the Palestinian victims for the suffering inflicted on them by Israel. They support, in open defiance of international law, the 40-year Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the draconian siege of Gaza, dismissing the grim humanitarian crisis it has unleashed on the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison.
The Democrats, who took control of the Congress in midterm elections largely because of public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, have continued to fund the war, ignoring anti-war voters. The party, as a result, has sunk even lower in public opinion polls than the president, to a 19 percent approval rating, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Clinton and Obama dutifully lined up with most other Democratic legislators to cast ballots in favor of squandering more than $300 billion in taxpayer money on a war that should never have been fought. And, if either is elected, he or she will spend billions more on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will skip the rest of the mediocre voting records of Obama and Clinton, which include pandering to corporate interests, failing to back a universal single-payer health care system, refusing to call for the slashing of the bloated military budget, not urging repeal of NAFTA and the Taft-Hartley Act, which cripples the ability of unions to organize, and not seeking an end to nuclear power as an energy resource. Let’s stick with the war. It is depressing enough.
The anti-war movement bears much of the blame. It sold us out to the Democratic Party. The decision by anti-war activists to accept a moratorium on demonstrations in 2004 in order to support John Kerry ended our chance to build a widespread, grass-roots movement against the war. Kerry, in return for this support, ridiculed and humiliated those of us who opposed the war. He called for more troops in Iraq. He mouthed thought-terminating patriotic slogans to out-Bush Bush. He promised victory in Iraq. He assured voters that he, unlike George W. Bush, would never have pulled out of Fallujah. Anti-war voters stood passively behind him as they were humiliated and abused. And the anti-war movement has never recovered. The groundswell of popular revulsion that led hundreds of thousands to take to the streets before 2006 collapsed. The five-year anniversary of the war was marked with tepid protests that were sparsely attended. Why not? If the anti-war movement gutlessly backs pro-war candidates, what credibility does it have? If it fails to support those candidates on the margins of the political spectrum who stand with it against the war, what is the movement worth? Why not be cynical and go home?
“It is a virus,” Nader said in a phone interview. “It is self-defeating. What are they doing this for if they can’t push it into the political arena? Is it all theater?”
“The strategy of the Democratic Party is to beat the Republicans by becoming more like them,” Nader said. “How can they get away with that? If they become more like the Republic Party they start eating into the Republican vote. This usually would inflict a price on them. They would lose the left’s vote, but since the left signaled to the Democrats that their vote can be taken for granted because the Republicans are too horrible to contemplate, they get both. As a result, when you put this cocktail together, becoming more Republican to get Republican votes and hanging on to the left because they have nowhere to go, you set up a tug in the direction of the corporations. There is no discernable end to this strategy by the left. When you ask the left they say not this year, sometime later. But when? If it is not now, if it is sometime in the future, when? What is their breaking point? If you do not have a breaking point you are a slave.”
The energy and idealism are out there. Nader, in a March 13-14 Zogby poll, took 5 to 6 percent in a race between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. Nader, among voters under 30 and among independents, polled 12 to 15 percent. If the anti-war movement gets behind him and McKinney, if it stands behind its principles, it could begin to shake the foundations of the Democratic Party. It could re-energize itself. It might even force Democrats to offer voters a concrete plan to withdraw from Iraq.
War is not an abstraction to me. I know its evil. It is time, if we care about the state of the nation, to take an unequivocal stand against the war. If Clinton and Obama do not want to join us, so be it. I support those candidates and organizations that fight back. We should, in solidarity, strike with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union on May 1 against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should support Code Pink’s refusal to pay the portion of our taxes that go to funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But most of all, we should refuse to be suckered by Democratic candidates who use fuzzy language and will not commit to a total withdrawal from Iraq. We owe it to the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured. We owe to those Iraqis and Americans who will die in the coming days, weeks and months. We owe it to ourselves so, at the very least, we can salvage our integrity.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If you seriously believe there is no difference between UN peacekeeping forces and an attacking/occupying country that holds thousands of Iraqis prisoner without trial, tortures and humiliates them whilst being held and is responsible for the total destruction of Iraq also the deaths of uncountable Iraqis...then I really don't know where this is going to go from here. There is a HUGE difference. One is there to aid and stabilize, the other is there for power and control of resources not belonging to them and the welfare of the Iraqis has never been their top priority....not even close.
but this is the difference as you see, not the average Iraqi. Iraqis don't want foreigners with guns on their soil, period. and as much as you seem to think americans are only there for power and control, they are very much doing things to aid and stabilize. so there really isnt much of a difference. The bottom line is Iraqis dont want foreigners there.
And yes, I view AI as an unbiased source with no agenda other than humanitarian concerns. I don't automatically dismiss ABC but I think major news networks are full of shit by nature and do have a corporate agenda.
but you just said it, AI is baised towards only showing humanitarian concerns. thats their only agenda. thats not a bad thing, those reports are needed and helpful, but they won't report on improvements or any "good" things. they show only the "concerns".....so did you read the study from ABC? are you ignoring the statistics that show improvement?
but this is the difference as you see, not the average Iraqi. Iraqis don't want foreigners with guns on their soil, period. and as much as you seem to think americans are only there for power and control, they are very much doing things to aid and stabilize. so there really isnt much of a difference. The bottom line is Iraqis dont want foreigners there.
The difference, and this is huge, is in the way they conduct themselves there.
ok, so do you acknowledge their has been improvement in recent months?
According to the ABC piece, there has been. Does that mean I think we should stay over there? Absolutely not. If you're here to argue that we need to stay the course in Iraq then you might want to start a thread about that. This thread is discussing leaving Iraq and how we should go about it. Most here don't want this war prolonged and only disagree with how we go about ending it. We're kinda past justifying our continued occupation of Iraq.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Democrats have left themselves plenty of wiggle room. In a debate Sept. 26 in New Hampshire, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama refused to promise that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of her or his first term.
What they said
Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office (and) if there's no timetable (for withdrawal), then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there."
Clinton: "It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. ... I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated. ... (There) may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces, or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out."
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
ok, great. that piece you read is straight from Iraqis. actually Iraqis voicing their opinions. it shows improvement over a period of time and thats encouraging.
Does that mean I think we should stay over there? Absolutely not. If you're here to argue that we need to stay the course in Iraq then you might want to start a thread about that. This thread is discussing leaving Iraq and how we should go about it.
huh? this thread is about Obama and why he keeps funding the war.
and I'm not sure what you're arguing. you want troops to be in Iraq, just not american troops.
Most here don't want this war prolonged and only disagree with how we go about ending it. We're kinda past justifying our continued occupation of Iraq.
what is "here" ? this board? honestly, I could care less what everybody else wants. I'm here voicing an opinion. and I don't want this war prolonged. I want whats best for americans and iraqis. I don't think pulling out all our troops today and replacing them with other ones is the right thing to do, which is what you are making a case for.
how do you know? they will still be seen as foreign occupiers. that one is easy enough to grasp as well.
ok, great. that piece you read is straight from Iraqis. actually Iraqis voicing their opinions. it shows improvement over a period of time and thats encouraging.
huh? this thread is about Obama and why he keeps funding the war.
and I'm not sure what you're arguing. you want troops to be in Iraq, just not american troops.
what is "here" ? this board? honestly, I could care less what everybody else wants. I'm here voicing an opinion. and I don't want this war prolonged. I want whats best for americans and iraqis. I don't think pulling out all our troops today and replacing them with other ones is the right thing to do, which is what you are making a case for.
I think UN forces will be a huge improvement to the situation in Iraq as opposed to a continued occupation of Iraq with US forces in charge...you don't. This thread is about funding the US occupation of Iraq. You seem to think what's best for the Iraqis is for US troops to stay in Iraq...I don't.
I said nothing about pulling all of the troops out 'today'.
Where we go from here, I really don't know. I don't think Iraqis would view UN peacekeeping troops in the same light as US occupying troops....I have no crystal ball...it's just an opinion based on what they US has done in Iraq and what the UN peacekeeping troops do in these kind of situations. They are not the same. They are both foreign....I hear you. But they are not the same in multiple other ways.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i heard others say he is the only person who ran who had the leadership skills to sway ppl on this issue...i guess not
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Your question is, "Why isn't Barack Obama throwing our soldiers under the bus by cutting off the funding while they are over there?"
I guess it's morals. They are serving so pricks like you and I don't have to. They got put into a bad situation that they didn't deserve. Why throw them under the bus?
uhhh....did you even read it!? how will it throw the soldiers under the bus???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well you are going on the BIG assumption that the UN will do it.....and be successful at it.
I really don't think they would do either (go in after us and be successful)
can we do it??? nearly half of iraq supports attacks against us soldiers!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
chaos?? things have been improving in recent months. you really can't deny the improvements that have taken place. sure its still a war zone and not a safe place, but improvements have taken place.
so you do want troops in the country, just not american troops. I have no idea what makes u think Iraqis would welcome an armed force such as UN troops. are you Iraqi? I mean really how do you know? judging from the current attitudes of Iraqis, they would see any soldiers not their own as occupiers. US troops, in some areas and circles, have built trust with Iraqis. 5 years they have been working side by side, training, fighting, dying.
now you think the best thing to do is throw in a group of soldiers who do not know the land, the people, police, army.......anyone...
I just don't see that as the best option. you clearly want troops there, so why not have the ones who will best do the job?
80% of iraqis think we don't plan on ever leaving and over 3/4 think we'd refuse to leave if the iraqi government asked us to leave within 6 months...
also look into the hydrocarbon act that would make iraq 'the only country in the Middle East that does not maintain government control of its own oil industry.' ie; iraq would control 17 out of its 80 oil fields
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The US is now financing Al-qaeda to walk around carrying guns in the streets. Iraq will become one gigantic welfare state financed by the US that will eventually hate the US in the future even more than it does now.
Generations of people living and dying... the place is still in shambles. Saddam is considered the good old days by comparison.
Trillions?...yes dozens of those T's...and years as well
Shock and Awe....yeah...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I think UN forces will be a huge improvement to the situation in Iraq as opposed to a continued occupation of Iraq with US forces in charge...you don't. This thread is about funding the US occupation of Iraq. You seem to think what's best for the Iraqis is for US troops to stay in Iraq...I don't.
I said nothing about pulling all of the troops out 'today'.
and you seem to think Iraqis will welcome a different foreign armed force. ok you said nothing about "today", I apologize. when would you like to see troops out?
Where we go from here, I really don't know. I don't think Iraqis would view UN peacekeeping troops in the same light as US occupying troops....I have no crystal ball...it's just an opinion based on what they US has done in Iraq and what the UN peacekeeping troops do in these kind of situations. They are not the same. They are both foreign....I hear you. But they are not the same in multiple other ways.
fair enough. and my opinion is based on what Iraiqs have been saying since the beginning. they do not want foreign troops on their soil. It really doesnt matter if they come barring fruit and baskets of candy. they still have guns and will still have to use them if shit hits the fan. and in a war zone, it usually does.
also look into the hydrocarbon act that would make iraq 'the only country in the Middle East that does not maintain government control of its own oil industry.' ie; iraq would control 17 out of its 80 oil fields
i heard others say he is the only person who ran who had the leadership skills to sway ppl on this issue...i guess not
But people are being swayed. Constituents, not politicians, need to be swayed first - then politicians will be put in the position to end it or be voted out (or vice versa, depending on the regional constituency).
And besides, by your rational, neither Kucinich or Nader has shown the necessary leadership, either.
But people are being swayed. Constituents, not politicians, need to be swayed first - then politicians will be put in the position to end it or be voted out (or vice versa, depending on the regional constituency).
And besides, by your rational, neither Kucinich or Nader has shown the necessary leadership, either.
Kucinich has tried, bless his heart and remains true to what he says.
Nader has proven he can get things done and sway people...he has a long list to prove it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
so they keep at it and DON'T vote to give Bush more money. That makes no sense, if you truly wish to end this war, to keep giving him money to keep it going. Is it that much to ask for our Congress to take a stand? Do you think Kucinich should have voted along with the rest of them against what he believes in?
Why should I? In all likelihood, he'll be our next president and I disagree with a lot that he has done and where he is going. When are you going to drop your Bush/Cheney/McCain fixation? Don't expect my views on Obama to go away anytime soon...they're probably just going to get louder
I'm not excusing the crimes of either group of fuckwit politicians....
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You're going on an assumption thinking the US troops will be able to stabilize the region when all signs point to more chaos.
It's the UN's job to handle these things and they wouldn't be seen as an occupying force who has destroyed their country. That alone will quiet some of the hostility.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
ya know it
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
chaos?? things have been improving in recent months. you really can't deny the improvements that have taken place. sure its still a war zone and not a safe place, but improvements have taken place.
so you do want troops in the country, just not american troops. I have no idea what makes u think Iraqis would welcome an armed force such as UN troops. are you Iraqi? I mean really how do you know? judging from the current attitudes of Iraqis, they would see any soldiers not their own as occupiers. US troops, in some areas and circles, have built trust with Iraqis. 5 years they have been working side by side, training, fighting, dying.
now you think the best thing to do is throw in a group of soldiers who do not know the land, the people, police, army.......anyone...
I just don't see that as the best option. you clearly want troops there, so why not have the ones who will best do the job?
Don't take my word for it...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/iraq-five-years-carnage-and-despair-20080317
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/27/72-us-soldiers-in-iraq-t_n_16489.html
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I know how to use google too. there are an equal amount of links to show a counterpoint for all the links you posted. I was trying to debate with you, not google.
I recall you noting that my previous replies were assumptions and opinions thus I posted some links for you. I do believe UN peacekeeping forces would be a much welcomed change in Iraq...one that the Iraqis would welcome. I base this on what I've read of the situation.
Post all the links you'd like saying otherwise. I'd be interested in seeing what's shaped your opinion on this, as well.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
none of your links mention anything about Iraiqs "welcoming" an armed UN force.
and secondly, 2 of 4 of your links are well over a year old. ALOT has changed since then.
I actually base my opinion on polls such as the ones you posted. Iraqis dont want an occupying force. thats exactly what a UN force would be.
here is a study that was done recently. the numbers speak for themselves.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf
Peacing keeping troops are not the same thing as an attacking then occupying country's troops. I think that is clear.
Secondly, I trust Amnesty International's assessment of the situation over the corporate owned ABC network's but that's just me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
no its not clear. "peace keeping troops" that is the biggest oxy moron ever. they still have guns, they are "western" looking. and most importantly, they are not Iraqis. they are foreigners with guns trying to keep peace. they are would be seen as no different to the average Iraqi.
by the very definition they are occupiers, it makes no difference what uniform they wear. they arent Iraqi.
the article from amnesty posted has no opinions from Iraqis. its a short essay/interview with Malcolm Smart. so what?
the abc study shows several sources and very in-depth, on the ground analysis of the situation. it polls actually Iraqis from around the entire country. and you are going to automatically dismiss it because its "corporately" owned? you seem to be smarter then that. and also sad that you probably didn't even read it.
If you seriously believe there is no difference between UN peacekeeping forces and an attacking/occupying country that holds thousands of Iraqis prisoner without trial, tortures and humiliates them whilst being held and is responsible for the total destruction of Iraq also the deaths of uncountable Iraqis...then I really don't know where this is going to go from here. There is a HUGE difference. One is there to aid and stabilize, the other is there for power and control of resources not belonging to them and the welfare of the Iraqis has never been their top priority....not even close.
And yes, I view AI as an unbiased source with no agenda other than humanitarian concerns. I don't automatically dismiss ABC but I think major news networks are full of shit by nature and do have a corporate agenda.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
A Conscientious Objection
Posted on Mar 23, 2008
By Chris Hedges
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.
“When will the American people actually vote to give to the world more than bombs and missiles, sweatshops, dubious science, frankenfood, poverty and misery?” Cynthia McKinney, the presidential candidate in the Green Party primaries, told me. “Not only do we need an immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, we need an end to the militarism that has placed U.S. troops on the soil of over 100 countries. A true peace agenda means a complete redefinition of security. I remain convinced that if people in Haiti, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua can vote a peace and justice agenda into power, then so too can we.”
Examine the proposals on Iraq offered by Clinton and Obama. They talk about withdrawing some troops, but they also talk about leaving behind forces to protect U.S. bases in Iraq, assigning troops to train the Iraqi army and continuing the fight against “terrorism.” Clinton and Obama do not throw out numbers, but a rough estimate would be 40,000 or 50,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq. Obama, his advisers say, will also not rule out continuing to use private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The war would not end under a Democratic administration. It would drag on until the mission collapsed and the U.S. retreated in humiliation. And when pressed, the Democratic candidates have admitted as much. Tim Russert in the New Hampshire debate asked the Democratic candidates to guarantee that all U.S. troops in Iraq would be home by 2013. No one, including John Edwards, was prepared to make such a commitment. Dennis Kucinich, the only Democratic candidate who opposed a continuation of the war, had been excluded from the debate. When the question was asked he was standing outside the hall in the snow with supporters to protest his exclusion.
But the lust for militarism by Clinton and Obama does not end with Iraq. The two remaining Democratic candidates back the occupation of Afghanistan. They defend Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon, which killed hundreds of Lebanese, destroyed huge parts of Lebanon’s infrastructure and left U.S.-manufactured cluster bombs littered over southern Lebanon. Clinton and Obama praise the right-wing government in Jerusalem and callously blame the Palestinian victims for the suffering inflicted on them by Israel. They support, in open defiance of international law, the 40-year Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the draconian siege of Gaza, dismissing the grim humanitarian crisis it has unleashed on the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison.
The Democrats, who took control of the Congress in midterm elections largely because of public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war, have continued to fund the war, ignoring anti-war voters. The party, as a result, has sunk even lower in public opinion polls than the president, to a 19 percent approval rating, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Clinton and Obama dutifully lined up with most other Democratic legislators to cast ballots in favor of squandering more than $300 billion in taxpayer money on a war that should never have been fought. And, if either is elected, he or she will spend billions more on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will skip the rest of the mediocre voting records of Obama and Clinton, which include pandering to corporate interests, failing to back a universal single-payer health care system, refusing to call for the slashing of the bloated military budget, not urging repeal of NAFTA and the Taft-Hartley Act, which cripples the ability of unions to organize, and not seeking an end to nuclear power as an energy resource. Let’s stick with the war. It is depressing enough.
The anti-war movement bears much of the blame. It sold us out to the Democratic Party. The decision by anti-war activists to accept a moratorium on demonstrations in 2004 in order to support John Kerry ended our chance to build a widespread, grass-roots movement against the war. Kerry, in return for this support, ridiculed and humiliated those of us who opposed the war. He called for more troops in Iraq. He mouthed thought-terminating patriotic slogans to out-Bush Bush. He promised victory in Iraq. He assured voters that he, unlike George W. Bush, would never have pulled out of Fallujah. Anti-war voters stood passively behind him as they were humiliated and abused. And the anti-war movement has never recovered. The groundswell of popular revulsion that led hundreds of thousands to take to the streets before 2006 collapsed. The five-year anniversary of the war was marked with tepid protests that were sparsely attended. Why not? If the anti-war movement gutlessly backs pro-war candidates, what credibility does it have? If it fails to support those candidates on the margins of the political spectrum who stand with it against the war, what is the movement worth? Why not be cynical and go home?
“It is a virus,” Nader said in a phone interview. “It is self-defeating. What are they doing this for if they can’t push it into the political arena? Is it all theater?”
“The strategy of the Democratic Party is to beat the Republicans by becoming more like them,” Nader said. “How can they get away with that? If they become more like the Republic Party they start eating into the Republican vote. This usually would inflict a price on them. They would lose the left’s vote, but since the left signaled to the Democrats that their vote can be taken for granted because the Republicans are too horrible to contemplate, they get both. As a result, when you put this cocktail together, becoming more Republican to get Republican votes and hanging on to the left because they have nowhere to go, you set up a tug in the direction of the corporations. There is no discernable end to this strategy by the left. When you ask the left they say not this year, sometime later. But when? If it is not now, if it is sometime in the future, when? What is their breaking point? If you do not have a breaking point you are a slave.”
The energy and idealism are out there. Nader, in a March 13-14 Zogby poll, took 5 to 6 percent in a race between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. Nader, among voters under 30 and among independents, polled 12 to 15 percent. If the anti-war movement gets behind him and McKinney, if it stands behind its principles, it could begin to shake the foundations of the Democratic Party. It could re-energize itself. It might even force Democrats to offer voters a concrete plan to withdraw from Iraq.
War is not an abstraction to me. I know its evil. It is time, if we care about the state of the nation, to take an unequivocal stand against the war. If Clinton and Obama do not want to join us, so be it. I support those candidates and organizations that fight back. We should, in solidarity, strike with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union on May 1 against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should support Code Pink’s refusal to pay the portion of our taxes that go to funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But most of all, we should refuse to be suckered by Democratic candidates who use fuzzy language and will not commit to a total withdrawal from Iraq. We owe it to the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured. We owe to those Iraqis and Americans who will die in the coming days, weeks and months. We owe it to ourselves so, at the very least, we can salvage our integrity.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
but this is the difference as you see, not the average Iraqi. Iraqis don't want foreigners with guns on their soil, period. and as much as you seem to think americans are only there for power and control, they are very much doing things to aid and stabilize. so there really isnt much of a difference. The bottom line is Iraqis dont want foreigners there.
but you just said it, AI is baised towards only showing humanitarian concerns. thats their only agenda. thats not a bad thing, those reports are needed and helpful, but they won't report on improvements or any "good" things. they show only the "concerns".....so did you read the study from ABC? are you ignoring the statistics that show improvement?
The difference, and this is huge, is in the way they conduct themselves there.
Yes, I read over it. I think there will be MORE improvement with us out of the picture.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
fact remains, Iraqis still do not want foreigners with guns on their soil.
ok, so do you acknowledge their has been improvement in recent months?
It is very much relevant. The Iraqis will respond better to people who will treat them better. That one is easy enough to grasp.
According to the ABC piece, there has been. Does that mean I think we should stay over there? Absolutely not. If you're here to argue that we need to stay the course in Iraq then you might want to start a thread about that. This thread is discussing leaving Iraq and how we should go about it. Most here don't want this war prolonged and only disagree with how we go about ending it. We're kinda past justifying our continued occupation of Iraq.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What they said
Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office (and) if there's no timetable (for withdrawal), then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there."
Clinton: "It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. ... I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated. ... (There) may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces, or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out."
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
ok, great. that piece you read is straight from Iraqis. actually Iraqis voicing their opinions. it shows improvement over a period of time and thats encouraging.
huh? this thread is about Obama and why he keeps funding the war.
and I'm not sure what you're arguing. you want troops to be in Iraq, just not american troops.
what is "here" ? this board? honestly, I could care less what everybody else wants. I'm here voicing an opinion. and I don't want this war prolonged. I want whats best for americans and iraqis. I don't think pulling out all our troops today and replacing them with other ones is the right thing to do, which is what you are making a case for.
I think UN forces will be a huge improvement to the situation in Iraq as opposed to a continued occupation of Iraq with US forces in charge...you don't. This thread is about funding the US occupation of Iraq. You seem to think what's best for the Iraqis is for US troops to stay in Iraq...I don't.
I said nothing about pulling all of the troops out 'today'.
Where we go from here, I really don't know. I don't think Iraqis would view UN peacekeeping troops in the same light as US occupying troops....I have no crystal ball...it's just an opinion based on what they US has done in Iraq and what the UN peacekeeping troops do in these kind of situations. They are not the same. They are both foreign....I hear you. But they are not the same in multiple other ways.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i heard others say he is the only person who ran who had the leadership skills to sway ppl on this issue...i guess not
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
uhhh....did you even read it!? how will it throw the soldiers under the bus???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
can we do it??? nearly half of iraq supports attacks against us soldiers!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
80% of iraqis think we don't plan on ever leaving and over 3/4 think we'd refuse to leave if the iraqi government asked us to leave within 6 months...
also look into the hydrocarbon act that would make iraq 'the only country in the Middle East that does not maintain government control of its own oil industry.' ie; iraq would control 17 out of its 80 oil fields
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=65965
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
download and watch this...
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/3007/Iraq-The-Betrayal-2008-03-17-Ch-4-Dispatches-avi
The US is now financing Al-qaeda to walk around carrying guns in the streets. Iraq will become one gigantic welfare state financed by the US that will eventually hate the US in the future even more than it does now.
Generations of people living and dying... the place is still in shambles. Saddam is considered the good old days by comparison.
Trillions?...yes dozens of those T's...and years as well
Shock and Awe....yeah...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and you seem to think Iraqis will welcome a different foreign armed force. ok you said nothing about "today", I apologize. when would you like to see troops out?
fair enough. and my opinion is based on what Iraiqs have been saying since the beginning. they do not want foreign troops on their soil. It really doesnt matter if they come barring fruit and baskets of candy. they still have guns and will still have to use them if shit hits the fan. and in a war zone, it usually does.
ok, thats one stat. of course Iraqis are skeptical of us leaving, we're been there 5 long years. not sure of you point here
did you read any of the stats I posted?
this is interesting, I've read about this before.
you know why they support attacks on US soldiers? because we are a foreign occupying force......
which is exactly what the UN army would be.
And besides, by your rational, neither Kucinich or Nader has shown the necessary leadership, either.
Kucinich has tried, bless his heart and remains true to what he says.
Nader has proven he can get things done and sway people...he has a long list to prove it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde