Cindy Sheehan For Congress?
Who says the Democratic Party is a lost cause in the battle for freedom? Not us! Dennis Kucinich introduces articles of impeachment; and a Rockefeller releases an intelligence report establishing that our Iraq War adventure was grounded on a pack of lies (as if we didn't know). Better late than never, and these are actually quite significant steps coming from a party that has so severely lost its way. We applaud this resurgance of antiwar tradition among our Democrat friends, and do you remember Gene McCarthy? He was the hero of his time-- and maybe, just maybe, McCarthy's antiwar principles have not been entirely abandoned by our colleagues from the left. I know I'm saying hopeful things-- but I'm feeling that way because Cindy Sheehan is running for Congress in San Francisco against Nancy Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi, you may recall, has served as our failed Speaker of the House since 2006, and she also authored those immortal words: "impeachment is off the table.'' Nancy Pelosi has pretty much done everything possible to keep the two-- party "Democrat versus Republican" scam alive in our nation's capital, and one could make a reasonably good case that we owe to her a sizable chunk of the credit for building and maintaining a pathetic 11% approval rating currently enjoyed by our Democrat-- controlled Congress. She was, after all, elevated to the Speaker's chair on a mandate to end the war, and she hasn't even tried. Nancy Pelosi, truly, is one of them-- an establishment party hack enjoying so very much the perquisites of her (temporary) political power. She needs to be fired.
So here's the good news for our Democrat friends in the city by the bay. Good news for all of us, in point of fact. An American heroine is running against our failed Speaker, and the race for Ms.Pelosi's seat is heating up. We look at this race and say: come to your senses, antiwar Democrats! Look at the failure-- and act. Reject Nancy Pelosi, and all that she stands for. Elect Cindy Sheehan to Congress!
Cindy Sheehan, you might be interested to learn, is a great fan of Ron Paul. Sheehan and Paul don't agree on every issue, but then again, who does? There are certain things that matter most-- the war; the hubris of our Washington culture; the ignored wishes of the American people-- and on these core value issues Cindy Sheehan and Ron Paul find common ground. Of course they're both hated equally by the Hannitys and O'Reillys of the world, and that, in itself, tells us much of what we need to know.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress-- an intriguing thought. She lost her son in this failed, foolish war, and she's been speaking the truth about Iraq ever since. Cindy Sheehan has not bowed down-- not to George Bush, not to Nancy Pelosi, and not to the tainted money of our war profiteers and banksters. Indeed, we like it-- send Nancy Pelosi home, and elect Cindy Sheehan in her place.
- Rick Williams's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 901 reads
****
Claire said, "There is every reason to suppose that the terrorists there will take full advantage of the lack of security, and will step up the slaughter."
You said, "I see no reason to believe that at all. I think it would work itself out just fine."
and
"They'll do fine on their own, like so many countries."
I understood you to be saying there is no reason to suppose anything other than violence will cease in Iraq and it will become a nation at peace.
I think that given the history between Sunni, Shia and Kurds they will return to the tribal warfare that was characteristic of this part of the world. But whether they do or not has no bearing on the fact that we should get our troops out of there asap.
Given that there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between what you want and what I want regarding American troops, your hostility to my notion that peace in Iraq isn't a foregone conclusion is a tad disturbing. You're so eager to be enemies with someone who agrees with you, do you think this attitude is conducive to being able to work together to bring about change?
so here we have claire offering nothing but the grimmest of outlooks after withdrawal. predicting nothing short of "slaughter". i counter that argument saying that's unsubstantiated claims, and it'll work itself out just fine, like in so many other countries. this case you present as a case for this comment of yours:
> I brought up the possibility that Iraq could lapse into tribal war because other people in this thread had stated that if America leaves, Iraq will become peaceful.
you have not defended this line still. my comment was already a counter argument to claire's and it was hardly making any predictions. it's far from predicting peace and love.
> I understood you to be saying there is no reason to suppose anything other than violence will cease in Iraq and it will become a nation at peace.
once again. i was countering a statement that predicted nothing but the worst would occur after pullout. an unsubstantiated claim in every way, given the history of such situations before iraq. you read way too much into my "just fine" claim. it was so vague that claire in fact asked for clarification, and this is what she got:
"whatever they do on their land is their business. so by 'just fine' i mean whatever happens there is fine as long as they're the ones responsible for it. if they decide not to farm and die of starvation, then that's just fine. if they decide to kill themselves off in a power struggle, that's just fine. if they decide to trade with their neighbours, that's fine."
so as you can plainly see, i'm predicting nothing as far as the immediate outcome is concerned.
> I think that given the history between Sunni, Shia and Kurds they will return to the tribal warfare that was characteristic of this part of the world.
i cannot make any statements about sunni, shia and kurds like you do because i know nothing about them. in fact, before the invasion i never even knew these groups existed. could it have been that they weren't fighting with each other? so i can't say if them fighting is characteristic of anything. i'm sure cnn implies that though.
> But whether they do or not has no bearing on the fact that we should get our troops out of there asap.
so why mention it at all? why sneak it in there at all? what was your point for including the sunni, shia, kurds line in this comment? we're discussing ending the occupation. those groups have nothing to do with what we're discussing.
> your hostility to my notion that peace in Iraq isn't a foregone conclusion is a tad disturbing.
> You're so eager to be enemies with someone who agrees with you
but i've already mentioned what bugs me about your statements. you keep offering a prediction as to what 'could' happen after withdrawal. you tried to argue that your prediction is a counter argument to overly optimistic views, but we've established here that there was nothing to counter. i'm arguing your prediction and the fact that you even offered it in the first place. that's what bugs me. to say that the troops should be brought back home, but we have to think about what happens to the iraqis right after, is misguided. it cannot be known, thus, considering all the possible outcomes, you will never be for withdrawal. it'll come down to: do you want the iraqis to slaughter each other? do you? well? that's bullcrap at best. a lie and misinformation at worst.
if you truly are for ending the occupation, them that is all that you will state. no strings. no small print. no grim predictions. end occupation, now. that's all.
Cindy Sheehan's anti-war double talk
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=75984
"if you mean that infighting is the problem, then who are we to solve it? it's their problem. if they can't get along with each other then they'll deal with the consequences. why would you even care?"
Why would I care if a malicious and evil minority is raping and slaughtering a kind, honest majority?
Ummm... because I am a human being, and they are human beings.
A "border" does not separate me from caring for fellow human beings.
fair enough.
i may have phrased my rhetorical 'why would you even care' a little better.
let me take another shot at it:
'why would you even care to do anything about it'
"none of them are. they aren't terrorists, they are fighting to fend off an invading army. i'm originally from a country that has had to go through this type of deal a couple of times in its history. every single time, the foreign army was invading in order to make a 'better country' of it, and 'help and liberate its people'. people will never, ever, ever, accept an outsider meddling in their affairs. this is a fact proven by history."
Ummm.... never say never... Germany AND Japan were forced to accept an outsider (or two) due to their defeat and humiliation, and in both cases, the acceptance was taken in mouthfuls, and swallowed hard.
The situation in Iraq is not a binary one. There are far too many legs of the equation to make simple statements of right and wrong.
Religion, once again, is at the bottom of this barrel of fun. What are we fearing about leaving? Religous bloodbathing. What is the problem with staying? Religious resentment and national pride.
Leaving doesn't solve the problem, it just removes our variable in the equation. We will simply not be a present factor in a country whose religious and social structure is far different and far more violent than we are able to comprehend.
> Germany AND Japan were forced to accept an outsider
that's a pretty obvious exception though.
germany and japan were the losers of the wars they started.
iraq is a country that just happened to have oil.
so i would say that the people of germany and japan were in a different state of mind. they all knew they started massive wars and they lost. they were defeated and they accepted defeat. that's a pretty big difference between what i'm stating in that quote there.
> The situation in Iraq is not a binary one. There are far too many legs of the equation to make simple statements of right and wrong.
i disagree. there is a clear right. there is no authority anyone had to invade that country as it was not doing anything to anyone at the time. there is no authority for any foreign forces to occupy it. none.
> What are we fearing about leaving? Religous bloodbathing. What is the problem with staying? Religious resentment and national pride.
i'd say national pride is when your country wins something at the olympics. fighting off an invading army is far beyond national pride. it is in fact, just basic dignity that's at stake. i don't know about you but i know exactly how i would respond when sipping on a beverage on my street, in my town, in my country, while an armed foreign soldier walked by. he would not get hugs and kisses from me. in this, i'm no different from any other man my age.
> Leaving doesn't solve the problem,
question is, what problem?
if you mean that infighting is the problem, then who are we to solve it? it's their problem. if they can't get along with each other then they'll deal with the consequences. why would you even care?
while being slandered in the press
That is more than any representative has done in recent memory
California Congressional District 8
2004 Presidential Vote . . . Kerry - 84.55% . . . Bush - 14.05%
2006 Election Results . . . . Pelosi - 80.4% . . . . DeNunzio - 10.8% . . Keefer (Green) - 7.4% . . . Berg (LIB) - 1.4%
Voter Registration As at 23/10/06
Dem - 186,821 (54.96%)
Rep - 34,545 (10.16%)
Other - 118,566 (34.88%)
Am I missing something here? Is there a realistic chance of replacing Ms. Nancy with someone who is more than a quarter of step away from the Democrat Party? How much advantage would there be in replacing her with "neocon" Republican Dana Walsh? Perhaps if the Libertarian candidate can raise several million dollars for his campaign, then things will happen. Just watch out for the flying pigs coming out of the exit end of your digestive tract.
There seems to have been a fair amount of patella activity in the comments here. It would be good to take a closer look at what we can best hope for in the District 8 race. Maybe Cindy can at least soundly trounce the warmongering Republican and lop off 20% or better from Pelosi's vote total. It would be great if the Libertarian candidate were to win, but if he is lucky he might break 2% this time.
Among my top priorities are ending the war and seeing the members of the Bush Gang held accountable for their crimes. The District 8 race does not offer much toward these priorities outside of a strong showing for Cindy Sheehan. The divided and ruled approach to matters has no appeal to me. Either we recognize the situations where there are possibilities of making advances on certain issues and take what advantage we can, or run the risk of never gaining any ground on anything.
One of things the Ron Paul Revolution has accomplished, so far, was to get some people to rethink their political philosophies. Several of the Ron Paul supports I heard from said they had always assumed they were "liberal" Democrats until they heard Ron Paul speak. It seems there are good solid reasons to work with those who think differently about various matters than most of us do when there are opportunities to join with them to work toward common goals. We not only stand a better chance of achieving those goals, but we also gain an opportunity of winning them over on some points. If we have solid confidence in and knowledge about our positions and show proper respect for others, our contact with them can be very rewarding. I like to think of libertarianism (the rejection of the initiation of force as an acceptable means of accomplishing social and political goals) as the point where idealism, morality and pragmatism intersect. Perhaps, with a little gentle guidance, "progressives" will start to see "progressivism" as the authoritarianism with a humanitarian facade it is.
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
I gave this a lot of thought last night while waiting around for Ron Paul to come on for his address. While I stand by everything I've posted here, and will continually remind people that it is welfare - not warfare - that is really destroying us economically, you are correct to point out that you cannot take an all or nothing stance on every candidate. Socialism didn't steal our liberty away in one fell swoop, although the New Deal was quite a head start. Our liberties have been eroded bit by bit, and we may have to take it back that way, or at least in chunks.
If Cindy were to get in, and though she is only one vote, it represented a vote for welfare but not warfare, that certainly IS better than a vote for welfare AND warfare.
Let's welcome those Democrats that want in into the revolution - and let us constantly remind them that liberty will never be achieved until the conditioned allegiance to social programs - which harm the recipients of the benefits more than anyone else - finally fades away in face of reason and TRUE altruism.
Thank you for making a convincing argument and shifting my thinking.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Unless there is a libertarian running in that district who ACTUALLY HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING, Cindy is the best chance of electing somebody for that district who wants to end the war. If it's a choice between warfare and welfare, I choose welfare. Unless I'm missing something, the Libertarian party has been around for over 30 years and they haven't elected a single person to congress.
I stand corrected - she is an independent. I was taking my cue from the (Democrat) next to her name in the post. My bad.
However, here are some quotes from her Issues page:
"Instead of extending unemployment or food stamp benefits to help Americans who are the neediest, of course, the mortgage bankers who made irresponsible loans will be getting bailed out to the tune of billions of your tax dollars and where do you think your check came from anyway? It's your money you are getting back and we are supposed to get teary eyed with gratitude and forget that the reason we are in this economic mess is because of our nation's grossly bloated Military Industrial Complex (which deserves capital letters for its prominence in all aspects of our lives) and its tools in the White House and Congress who keep it morbidly obese."
"I want everyone to be able to be covered by universal, single-payer health care. I know these things are attainable because many countries all over the world have achieved them."
"There are many fantastic Democrats in this city and area that are worthy of support, but in my opinion, Nancy Pelosi is not one of them. I may not have a capital D after my name, but I am more democratic than she. I want everyone in this district to have the same comfort, security and prosperity that are now consolidated at the top."
Translation: I want to end the war in Iraq and trim military spending (Good Cindy!) and use those funds to increase the already gargantuan welfare programs we are already running (Bad Cindy!), therefore continuing the insidious practice of looting productive people at gunpoint of a large percentage of their incomes, siphoning off 70% in administrative costs via a government bureaucracy, and doling out a miserable pittance to the poor and elderly, who are supposed to be grateful for the "benefits" that will no longer even fill their gas tanks to go job hunting.
Can't we say "no" to Bush, Nancy, and Cindy?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
What is Cindy Sheehan's position on universal healthcare and other entitlement programs? Until I am assured that she is against universal healthcare and will work to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, and is in general against government enforced wealth redistribution, I can't support her-- and I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a libertarian could.
In general, if I had to choose between someone who advocates continuing to fight the criminals who target civilians in Iraq (which, admittedly, shouldn't be our job), and someone who will get us mired even further in the entitlement mentality that is slowly choking us at home-- I would choose the former. A future administration can end the war in Iraq any time. Entitlement programs, once established, are much harder to take away.
. . . about the entitlement programs, but isn't the endless war a higher priority? The entitlement programs can be addressed with economics, while the war seems (to me at least) to be much more poisonous in the moral fabric at the core of our country. And at least Sheehan is proposing SOMETHING positive. The other candidates offer nothing at all. R
I agree that this war is tearing our moral fabric. That is partly because we shouldn't be there in the first place, but also because we are trying to convince ourselves in very bad faith that immediate withdrawal will benefit everyone involved. On the contrary, it seems likely to me that if we withdraw all of our troops now we will leave behind a huge wake of violence. Many US soldiers will be spared from injury and death, but many more Iraqui civilians, now defenseless against their sectarian aggressors, will suffer and die. There is every reason to suppose that the terrorists there will take full advantage of the lack of security, and will step up the slaughter.
I think this becomes a bit less immoral if we are willing to acknowledge it for what it is, to face up to the likely consequences of what we are proposing to do-- in other words, not to view it as something unequivocally positive. We can argue that it is not our responsibility to save these people (although we caused this mess in the first place)-- fine. But we shouldn't pretend that everything will be better for them when we leave. If nothing else, at least we owe them that shred of respect.
> but also because we are trying to convince ourselves in very bad faith that immediate withdrawal will benefit everyone involved.
it's not in bad faith and it will benefit everyone involved. take a page from RP's book and put yourself in an iraqi civilian's place, how much time would you be willing to spend living with a foreign army walking your streets in full combat gear? these are not terrorists shooting at the American soldiers, they are civilians. you'd grab a gun too if another country invaded yours.
> Many US soldiers will be spared from injury and death, but many more Iraqui civilians, now defenseless against their sectarian aggressors, will suffer and die.
my suggestion is, worry only about your own backyard, people around the world would love it that way. worry about yours and yours only and everyone will be fine.
> There is every reason to suppose that the terrorists there will take full advantage of the lack of security, and will step up the slaughter.
not really. i see no reason to believe that at all. i think it would work itself out just fine. take foreign soldiers out of a country and they'll rebuild on their own. this is nothing new. refugees that had to escape the violence will be able to go back in and live their lives in their own country again.
> We can argue that it is not our responsibility to save these people
yes! it isn't our responsibility to save anyone. they'll do fine on their own like so many other countries.
i loved your comments so far but this one is way off. way off. decisions completely based on morals and emotions.
>>these are not terrorists shooting at the American soldiers
Some of them are, maybe some of them aren't. I was talking about the people who set off car bombs in busy streets, and abduct and kill innocent people to gain political power by creating terror. If that's not a terrorist, I don't know what is. These are the people our soldiers are trying to apprehend and bring to justice.
>>i think it would work itself out just fine
Depends what you mean by "just fine". I happen to think it will lead to many unnecessary deaths. Let's look at the numbers. How many collateral deaths in comparison to deaths from sectarian violence? Taking away the US army will reduce collateral deaths to zero. What will be the effect on the sectarian death count when the terrorists know that now they can do what they want without fear of punishment?
Why can't we just admit that we value the lives of our soldiers far more than those of the Iraquis? Why do we have to pretend that this is what is best for them? Why can't we just admit that we believe it is not our responsibility to do what is best for the Iraquis even though we got them into this mess in the first place? That is exactly what I mean by "bad faith": this desire to hide from the truth so we can feel good about what we want to do.
> Some of them are, maybe some of them aren't.
none of them are. they aren't terrorists, they are fighting to fend off an invading army. i'm originally from a country that has had to go through this type of deal a couple of times in its history. every single time, the foreign army was invading in order to make a 'better country' of it, and 'help and liberate its people'. people will never, ever, ever, accept an outsider meddling in their affairs. this is a fact proven by history. another fact proven by history is that the invaders have ALWAYS called the resistance fighters 'terrorists' or 'insurgents'. common people will pick up guns, knives, rocks, what have you, and try to repel the invader.
> I was talking about the people who set off car bombs in busy streets, and abduct and kill innocent people to gain political power by creating terror. If that's not a terrorist, I don't know what is.
i don't remember the blackwater crew that indiscriminately fired automatic weapons at civilians (i'm sure you're seen this on tv a few months back) having been apprehended and tried as terrorists. in fact, i've heard a discussion on Democracy Now! about how the iraqi government attempted to charge them, since they have slaughtered civilians, and they were denied this right by the invading force. so, who's really killing innocent people there? now imagine if that bit took place in your neighbourhood and, your neighbour's whole family was killed, except for the man of the house. what do you think this man would do, knowing that the murderers will go back home to live their lives in peace? he will become, in your eyes, a 'terrorist'. in my eyes he will become a fighter of the resistance. simple difference of point of view between us.
> These are the people our soldiers are trying to apprehend and bring to justice.
these are people that are doing everything they can to force the invading army out of their land. it's demeaning to have an outsider come onto your land and dictate how you should live.
> Depends what you mean by "just fine".
whatever they do on their land is their business. so by 'just fine' i mean whatever happens there is fine as long as they're the ones responsible for it. if they decide not to farm and die of starvation, then that's just fine. if they decide to kill themselves off in a power struggle, that's just fine. if they decide to trade with their neighbours, that's fine. it shouldn't matter to you what they do or how they live and die. you and i are not to decide what an acceptable outcome for iraq is.
> I happen to think it will lead to many unnecessary deaths. Let's look at the numbers. How many collateral deaths in comparison to deaths from sectarian violence?
this is a bogus statement. last i heard, there's no official body count of iraqis, so you cannot know how many civilian iraqis have been killed by the foreign forces. given that, your opinion here is based on nothing, thus, void.
> Taking away the US army will reduce collateral deaths to zero. What will be the effect on the sectarian death count when the terrorists know that now they can do what they want without fear of punishment?
where are you coming up with these 'terrorists'? these are iraqi civilians fighting an invading force. as far as what the effect on violence would be: it's not your business. it's as simple as that. it's none of your business what happens in another country. people are starving in africa right now, do you suppose we should do something to stop it? if not, why not? do you not care about the dying africans? if so, then why? who do you take from to give to them? so once again: it's not for you to concern yourself with how violent it might or might not get.
> Why can't we just admit that we value the lives of our soldiers far more than those of the Iraqis?
this is already implicitly admitted by not keeping an official body count of iraqi deaths while keeping the count on US soldier's deaths. nobody's disputing this.
> Why do we have to pretend that this is what is best for them?
you seem to try to twist the reasons people have for pulling the troops out. it's not pretending. people are in favour of pulling out because they'd like to leave iraqis alone already. the war was sold on a 'good cause' of 'liberation', now that it's apparent to everyone that forcing liberty on people doesn't work, it's a good idea to leave them to themselves. they'll do a much better job without having to deal with an invading army. how much longer do the iraqis have to shoot at US forces for you to get that point. usually people will shoot at you because they don't want you in their space or they want to take over your space. this is a simple concept.
> Why can't we just admit that we believe it is not our responsibility to do what is best for the Iraquis even though we got them into this mess in the first place? That is exactly what I mean by "bad faith": this desire to hide from the truth so we can feel good about what we want to do.
it looks it like you're being guided by emotions and feelings. let me propose something that will fix that whole situation without involving any feelings: foreign army leaves, as quickly as possible. there! no more situation! you don't have to care what they do, you don't have to tell them what and how to do anything. and i guarantee you that there would be rejoicing in the streets for weeks after the pullout, both in America and iraq. no more situation. can it get any simpler?
>>they aren't terrorists, they are fighting to fend off an invading army.
You are saying that the violence in Iraq is neither terrorism nor civil war, but the result of resistance against the US. How can that be true, since most of the victims of violence in Iraq were neither killed by the US military, nor have anything to do with the US military. Every week we hear about yet more civilians being slaughtered by your friendly neighborhood "freedom fighters".
I wish you were right about the focus of the violence being US troops, because that would mean that when we leave the violence should stop (and yes, I do care whether it does or doesn't, because I feel we are implicated in this by our prior actions). But if our immediate withdrawal were to be followed by months of escalating chaos and violence on the streets of Iraqui cities, how would you explain that?
>>i guarantee you that there would be rejoicing in the streets for weeks after the pullout, both in America and iraq. no more situation. can it get any simpler?
I will believe this rosy picture of Iraq after we withdraw when I see it. In the mean time it is with mixed feelings that I support troop withdrawal, and I would like to see improvements in the state of Iraqui security before that happens. I certainly won't be dancing in the streets when the troops withdraw, at least not until I have ascertained that the bloodbath I had feared will not come to pass. Thanks for the guarantee, but I'm sorry, I can't take your word for it. We'll just have to see, I guess.
2008: We can't leave Iraq now!
2010: We can't leave Iraq now!
2013: We can't leave Iraq now!
20xx: We can't leave Iraq now!
There will always be some rational as to why we cannot leave Iraq. Have we left Germany? Have we left Japan or Korea?
I think the biggest flaw in the "we can't leave now argument" is the assumption that the Bush administration is acting in good faith. Was the Administration acting in good faith when it launched the attack on Iraq? Was it acting in good faith immediately following the invasion when looters were unimpeded by US forces? I believe this list of questions could become quite long, but the point is that this Administration is highly unlikely to be operating in good faith at this time. The good faith issue should bring into question as to whether or not the US's remaining in Iraq is or will be of any real benefit to the Iraqis. Remaining in Iraq is definitely of no benefit to Americans.
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
THis is so right on. Our government will never leave. Ron Paul keeps calling attention to the fact that we're building an embassy the size of the Vatican there. Bush and company (including McCain) have no intention of EVER leaving Iraq. They are emboldened by the fact that they were able to peddle such nonsense to enough Americans to let them get away with going in. They still have some support, although no longer a majority. However, that doesn't matter, because we're there now, and it's much harder to get a politician to take responsibility to take us out - and risk being blamed for the consequences. Ron Paul said, "We marched right in there, we can march right out." Here, here.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
How's that for inflammatory:0)
1. There are no guarantees Iraqis will be better off when we leave.
2. They had a brutal dictator that killed a half million of his own people- of course some Iraqis were happy America got rid of him.
3. When we leave, why wouldn't Shia and Sunnis get back to the really important business of slaughtering each other?
4. Ron Paul is still right to get us out asap. Bush was wrong to start this war, Iraq will have peace and rule of law when they've earned it, not a minute before.
> 1. There are no guarantees Iraqis will be better off when we leave.
who has the authority to give that guarantee? you ask for an impossible requirement.
> 2. They had a brutal dictator that killed a half million of his own people- of course some Iraqis were happy America got rid of him.
that brutal dictator used weapons supplied by America. also, they may be happy he's gone, but i wouldn't claim that they're happy that America got rid of him.
> 3. When we leave, why wouldn't Shia and Sunnis get back to the really important business of slaughtering each other?
why is this an issue? people are being killed right now and that's ok? if they had only each other to shoot at that is somehow unacceptable?
> 4. Ron Paul is still right to get us out asap. Bush was wrong to start this war, Iraq will have peace and rule of law when they've earned it, not a minute before.
how do they 'earn' peace and rule of law? i would argue that successfully repelling a foreign occupation force is the first step towards peace and rule of law. what is your take on that?
1 I don't ask for a guarantee, I'm pointing out others on this thread are stating as if it's a fact Iraqis will be better off.
2 agreed
3 I say this to refute the notion that when America leaves, Iraq's troubles will be behind it. That's not a reason not to get out, again I'm pointing out to those who are saying with certainty Iraqi's will be better off, there is reason to believe Iraq will continue to be a bloody mess, but so what? Our military has no business being deployed there.
4 They earn peace and rule of law the way the west did- a long bloody struggle that continued until enough people agreed to live in a civilized fashion. I don't think this can be imposed on a population. They have to embrace the idea themselves, then they will make it happen.
In short America needs to get out now, but don't be surprised if Iran steps in, or the Shia and Sunni get back to the business of killing each other. I hope they choose sanity, I've just learned not to expect it.
> 1 I don't ask for a guarantee, I'm pointing out others on this thread are stating as if it's a fact Iraqis will be better off.
your country occupied by foreign forces.
your country not occupied by foreign forces.
in your case, which will be better off for your country?
apply your answer to the iraqis and this issue is resolved.
how they will function after they're left to themselves is a nonissue in this discussion.
the only people that do bring this up as an issue are the ones that want to continue this occupation.
this issue is brought up only as a reason not to withdraw.
> 3 I say this to refute the notion that when America leaves, Iraq's troubles will be behind it.
who's issue is this? who told you that iraq will be trouble free after the end of the occupation? you're refuting phantom points that you make up yourself.
> That's not a reason not to get out
the only reason to leave is because it's wrong, in every single sense of the word, to be there.
> but don't be surprised if Iran steps in, or the Shia and Sunni get back to the business of killing each other. I hope they choose sanity, I've just learned not to expect it.
these points have absolutely no place in this discussion.
you can go on and on listing countries that might do this or that, groups or clans that might fight and pillage for ages. this is nonsense. you're trying to instill fear by listing all the worst possible case scenarios.
have you in your comment mentioned even once that maybe there might be peace there really quickly after withdrawal? not once did this possibility cross your mind.
... you don't understand that my point is that regardless of whether Iraqis go back to tribal warfare or not, we should get the hell out. We have no business being there. I brought up the possibility that Iraq could lapse into tribal war because other people in this thread had stated that if America leaves, Iraq will become peaceful. Not might, but will as if this is predestined. It isn't. Now how is that trying to instill fear? Is only marching along lockstep with awesomo allowed? Is any non-adherence to your orthodoxy not to be tolerated?
Who are you to decide what points have a place in the discussion? If you don't like the points I make, don't respond to them.
> I brought up the possibility that Iraq could lapse into tribal war because other people in this thread had stated that if America leaves, Iraq will become peaceful. Not might, but will as if this is predestined.
point me to the comment in this thread that you're eluding to here. i just reread most of them (admittedly it's late and i must have missed it) but i didn't see anyone here state that iraq will become peaceful after withdrawal. there is no such claim made here. you invented it to 'show the other side'. that's sneaky at best.
> Now how is that trying to instill fear? Is only marching along lockstep with awesomo allowed?
you're not offering a counter argument (as we have established that no statements that you claim to counter have been made), thus you're trying to instill fear and doubt in people by offering a grim outlook.
> Is any non-adherence to your orthodoxy not to be tolerated?
nothing i state here is orthodox or new. it's pretty simple really. this is the difference between your statements and mine:
me > stop occupation. get out.
you > stop occupation. get out. but don't say it'll all be well. don't be surprised if there's bloodshed and tribal war.
i hope you see how this doesn't sit right with me.
>>Ron Paul said, "We marched right in there, we can march right out." Here, here.
Funny. It was that glib remark of Dr. Paul's that got me mad in the first place. Anyway, I've said my piece. Don't want to drag this out forever.
>>it's much harder to get a politician to take responsibility to take us out - and risk being blamed for the consequences.
At least someone here is willing to admit that there might be negative consequences. That's really all I was asking for, actually. An admission.
You want to know what the best indication is? Go back and look at those "victory celebrations" by the Iraqui people when the U.S. troops "liberated them." Most of the dancing in the street shots were from street level so that you could only see 20 or 30 people in the shot. Were there tens of thousands more, or were there really 100 people there total? When you see the footage of them dragging the statue of Hussein through the street, there are obviously several hundred people celebrating.
There's only one problem: Iraq is a city of over 7 million inhabitants. Where were the rest of the rejoicing liberated? Where have they been since? Even if all 2 million displaced Iraquis were citizens of Baghdad (which they weren't), where are the other 5 million? Can we see a shot of even 5,000 celebrating American "liberation?"
No, the Iraquis will rejoice when we leave. They are living in stoneage desolation right now - they can't depend on electricity, running water, or personal safety. They are questioned and abused by the stormtroopers in a REAL police state - a nightmare that the poorest Americans can't even imagine.
Those killing Americans there are not terrorists. They're resistance fighters. In Paris during WWII they were called heroes. In Boston in 1776 they were called heroes. We are on the wrong side on this one, and shame on us for putting our brave soldiers in this position. We should come home immediately. You'd be surprised how quickly a nation can rebuild when it has rid itself of an oppressive occupier. Just look at Viet Nam.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Only a member of congress with his retirement invested in a prolonged war has any reason to spout such nonsense!
"apprehend and bring to justice" I think I'm gonna puke!
You sound like a robot that watched too many Westerns!