Get the U.S. OUT of the middle east, who's with me?

[Philosoraptor]

Enough of the war on terror started by the maniacs from the bush/cheney cabal, enough war and terror and death already.

Bring our troops home and get them out of harm's way and fuck all of them over there, we have important business to take care of here at home.

Call me an isolationist I guess. Or a peace freak, or just fed up, but enough is enough.

We can't change them, and they don't want us there, and I'm tired of all the excuses and explanations and the endless wars, and the wars coming on the horizon.

Let's concentrate on OUR OWN DAMN PROBLEMS for once.

How did things ever get this stupid?

[Marrah_G]

1. I would pull out all our troops, money and embassy staff

It's a losing proposition to stay there.

I would also pull all aid from Israel.

There is no need to have people on the ground there or to spend our money there.

If there is a threat to the US our military can handle that threat without having to have people living there.

The money (Trillions) we have wasted in the middle east could have gone to improve our own country.

[onenote]

4. Let's go with your plan and consider the consequences.

The President goes on TV tomorrow and announces that while just a week or so ago he told the nation that the US will have Israel's back, he's changed his mind and he now is calling for the end of all aid, military or otherwise to Israel.

What do you think the President's prospects for election would be the next day, keeping in mind that polls consistently show that a significant majority of the American people -- not just American Jews -- agrees with with policy of supporting Israel.

[Marrah_G]

12. I'm not talking about what plays well in elections

I am talking about doing what is right. The two rarely cross paths and I know that what I think we should do is something that will never happen. We will destroy ourselves in the quest to rule the planet.

[Bake]

64. How do you KNOW that's "what's right?"

Leaving a total vacuum in the Middle East ... someone else WILL step in.

Bake

[Marrah_G]

66. We all have our opinions on what is right.

That is mine. You might think the right thing is something different.

[woo me with science]

20. How utterly predictable.

DU is Third Way neocon central now.

[onenote]

23. If you are referring to your own post, I agree

If you have a substantive response to what you think the electoral consequences of dropping support for Israel would be, I'm interested.

[woo me with science]

26. Oh please.

Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:30 PM - Edit history (6)

"Substantive response," my ass. You took my specific, accurate description of what we are doing....crossing sovereign borders of countries where we are not even at war and slaughtering human beings without judicial process, labeling them as "militants" based on their having been slaughtered....and you shamelessly slapped a neocon label on it, "justified military conflicts" with no justification whatsoever.

You have not given an argument here. You are dispensing Third Way, neocon talking points....as always.

This "electoral consequences" argument is perhaps the height of Third Way duplicity. Our *real* problem is that we now have TWO parties spreading corporate/right-wing propaganda through all forms of media. We saw it in the debt ceiling debate, when Obama had the chance to correct twelve years of Republican lies about the economy and what is needed to fix it, but instead chose to give speeches about pea eating and austerity, and to cement the Republican, now Third Way, narrative. And we see the very same thing happening with every other issue related to economics, war, or the police state. We see it with education and unions. Instead of correcting the despicable right-wing narrative that has justified bashing unions, lengthening work hours, and slashing benefits and vacation time for Americans all across this country while the rich get richer, Obama remains silent with his friend Rahm as unions are trashed all over the media, and we are fed the outrageous LIE that standing up for American workers would be damaging in the election.

And we are now, from BOTH parties, fed daily corporate propaganda trying to paint this outrageous, utterly unjustifiable slaughter and warmongering in the Middle East as merely "support for Israel." What utter neocon garbage. Americans endure the daily sucking of our tax dollars from schools and bridges and libraries and social safety nets into drones and police state infrastructure and the metastasizing military industrial complex, and we are continually fed the right-wing/Republican/Third Way propaganda to justify it, as though there were no other sane or responsible choice. Conflating our history of alliance with Israel with the neocon atrocities that are being committed in our name, and threatening electoral suicide if we dare to stand up and speak honestly about what our government is doing, is textbook neocon/Republican/Third Way bullshit.

[onenote]

34. Have you lost your mind or just your ability to read

Where in this thread did I discuss anything you suggest I discussed? All I did is reflect on and ask about the likely political reaction if President Obama announced a change of policy away from support of Israel.

How any of your comments, including your utterly uncalled for suggestion that always spout "neocon" talking points -- there's a search feature, so I invite you to provide a single example -- have anything to do with what i posted is undoubtedly clear to you, but would would confound anyone else.

[malokvale77]

35. Since when does support mean feeding bad habits?

[onenote]

36. It doesn't and it shouldn't

But that's still not addressing the question I posed: what would be the electoral consequences if the President heeded the OP's call for the US to get out of the Mideast now.

[malokvale77]

41. The OP doesn't say now or before the election.

[onenote]

43. Fair enough. It just sounded to me like he was urging immediate action.

Since he didn't specify before or after, I guess we can agree that it would be a really bad idea to change our policy before. Now, turning to after: what would be the consequences for the Democratic party if the president, after getting reelected, abandoned his pledge to have Israel's back? I think first of all that it would be an ineffectual move, as the House and Senate would block it. And I think it would split the party in ways that would be very damaging going forward.

[malokvale77]

45. Once again...

You can have someone's back without feeding their bad habits.

[onenote]

49. And once again, I agree

That's why there are progressive members of Congress like Steve Cohen, Barney Frank, and Jan Schakowsky that are supporters of Israel and opponents of military action, and who work (with groups like J Street) to maintain support for Israel while encouraging Israel to adopt policies that will facilitate a peace process rather than hinder it.

[malokvale77]

54. True...

but they don't adopt these peaceful processes, yet we still send our own to die and our tax dollars to burn.

[amandabeech]

52. I don't want to cave in to Christian Dominionists who are trying to stir things up in the Middle E.

in order to hasten the Revelations prophecy (*ha*) of the second coming of Christ.

That's the bulk of Christians who are supporting, without question, whatever the Likudniks are pushing.

I don't want the US government being pushed around by either group, and that's what's happening.

[hifiguy]

47. Leave the embassies, phase everything else out.

No more money to anyone there, no US military there, become involved in diplomacy if asked. Fuck all of them.

[Odin2005]

2. Let them all riot themselves to death, all I care.

[el_bryanto]

3. Remind me again - are we still largely dependent on Petroleum?

If so, it might be hard to get out of there. Not to mention our long relationship (right or wrong) with Israel.

Bryant

[Philosoraptor]

7. As always the voice of reason pipes in

I know you are not being argumentative, but there is always a long list provided as to why we NEED to be there, and they're all very tiresome to hear.

[tama]

13. True

Addiction to cannabis would be much better than addiction to oil.

[el_bryanto]

16. The only downside is that cars running on Cannabis have a top speed of 15 miles per hour

Cars running on Amphetamines have a minimum speed of 94 miles an hour. Both are problematic.

Bryant

[tama]

17. What's the hurry?

Any case sooner or later we all die.

[SomethingFishy]

37. Yeah but after inhaling the exhaust

15 is as fast as you want to go anyway

[KansDem]

61. "The only downside is that cars running on Cannabis ..."

And they'll be wanting to stop at every pizza palor they pass!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. And what are we doing to wean ourselves from petroleum?

Almost nothing, compared to other countries.

[Zalatix]

67. You mean our dependency on the stuff that's killing life on Earth?

All the more reason to leave the Middle East - we need to move to something beyond fossil fuels. Like YESTERDAY.

[Biafran]

5. Noooooo!

US presence is needed there to keep zealots and dictators in check.
US presence is needed for intelligence gathering
US presence is needed for fast response to any nonsense like their murders of last night.

[RC]

28. Bull shit!

Who put most, if not all those zealots and dictators in power in the first place? Answer: WE DID!

We don't need a US presence anywhere for intelligence gathering. There are plenty of reasonable trustworthy people living in the area, willing to do a good job of spying for us - for a price. We just pay different people, that's all.

Who the hell appointed us, U.S., world police and said we could invade any country we want to intervene in conflicts that most likely we instigated? Again, the answer is: WE DID!

</war>

Use the money and resources saved by stopping our perceptual wars, to rebuild our crumbling into 3rd world status country back into a 1st rate country again.

[L0oniX]

46. Enjoy your short stay. The pizza is good too.

[HughBeaumont]

6. Yes.

Nothing really more beyond that.

[piratefish08]

8. we will ALWAYS be mired in shit in the middle east.

always.



Religion and Oil guarantee this.

[OLDMDDEM]

9. Get the U.S. out of the middle east

I am 110% behind what you say. I'm tired of us being the policeman of the world. We need to take care of ourselves first.

[woo me with science]

22. We are not the policemen of the world

We are the corporate mass murderers and looters of the world.

[RC]

29. What's the difference?

We have a "police force" run by corrupted officials. It have been getting worse year by year since 1953.

[woo me with science]

33. +10000

[ellisonz]

10. "and they don't want us there"

And I'm sure you've checked with everyone in the Middle East, right?

[woo me with science]

11. Unfortunately, bothcorporate-funded parties think we should be there.

Until we get Third Way corporatists out of control of our party, there will be no serious opposition to right-wing policies in the Middle East and a great deal of collusion and propaganda to expand our presence there.

[onenote]

18. and what about the significant majority of the public that favors support for Israel?

How do you get them out of the way?

[woo me with science]

19. How do you feel about proxy drone wars? Kill lists and extrajudicial assassinations?

Indefinite detention? We don't take prisoners anymore. We just kill people.

Hmm.

By wide margins, Americans support protecting Social Security and Medicare and curtailing the military budget and American empire building in the Middle East. It is the lowest form of neocon bullshit rhetoric to attempt to twist invasion, crossing of multiple sovereign borders to slaughter human beings in countries with whom we are not even at war, into a rah rah "support for Israel" argument...and, as you know, the corporatist Neocons in both parties have a vast and well-paid corporate media to spread patriotic right-wing garbage on TV, in print media, and on internet discussion forums...

[onenote]

24. I guess you don't have an answer to my question.

But I'll give you answers to yours: I think the use of proxy drones in a justifiable military conflict are okay. That doesn't mean I think the current military conflict in Afghanistan is justifiable. I oppose indefinite detention.

Your turn.

[woo me with science]

25. I gave you your answer. You didn't like it,

because it pointed out the utter nonsense of your Third Way "support Israel" rhetoric.

'Proxy drones in a justifiable military conflict" is Third Way, neocon garbagespeak for crossing sovereign borders in countries where we are not at war, and slaughtering human beings at the extrajudicial whim of those at the button.

What you rah rah now, Democrats roundly deplored under Bush. But the neocons and the corporatists are now firmly ensconced in the Democratic Party and busily spreading their propaganda at every gathering place for Democrats.

Persistent dispensing of right-wing and neocon garbage used to be grounds for expulsion from DU, but like the party, DU is a corporate entity now. Wading through Third Way propaganda is part of the new DU experience.

[RC]

30. Good answer!

Persistent dispensing of right-wing and neocon garbage used to be grounds for expulsion from DU, but like the party, DU is a corporate entity now. Wading through Third Way propaganda is part of the new DU experience.

[onenote]

48. So that there can be no question about where I stand:

My first priority, above all others, is getting President Obama re-elected so that we don't have a white house inhabited by someone who will start a war with Iran at the earliest opportunity and who will seek at every turn (including through the appointment of supreme court justices) to roll back roe v. wade and to scale back individual liberties (particularly the rights of women, gays, and minorities.)

My second priority is to make sure the Senate stays in Democratic hands to further limit the ability of the repubs to engage in warmongering, attack individual liberties

My third priority, is to get as many other Democrats elected in hopes that the President can have some success in carrying out an agenda that protects those who need protection and begins to reverse the two-tiered society we now have. If that means supporting blue dogs against repubs in general elections, it means supporting blue dogs.

Now, I happen to think that sticking with the President's pledge to "have Israel's back) will help achieve those priorities. You may disagree and that's fine. But if everyone who thinks that supporting Israel is good politics and that its possible to have a policy that supports Israel and supports peace (and supports efforts to get Israel to act in a way that facilitates a peace process rather than hinders it) is a neocon then, presumably, folks like Steve Cohen, Barney Frank, and Jan Schakowsky are all necons in your eyes.

[onenote]

39. You can label it all you want. All I said was that if our nation is in a justifiable

military conflict -- and I don't think we're in one now -- I don't have a problem with using proxy drones as an alternative to sending troops into harm's way. I don't know that you prefer putting troops in the line of fire. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't. Maybe you don't think the nation has ever been or will ever again be in a justifiable military conflict. While I opposed (and oppose) both the Iraq and Afghan wars, the answer to your question about what I think about proxy drones is exactly what i said: I don't have a problem with them as a tool of war in a justifiable military conflict.

How that has anything to do with situations where we are not at war or in conflicts that I agree are not justifiable conflicts in which we should be engaged is something i invite you to address calmly rather than by labeling me a "neocon" -- one of the more ludicrous and ridiculous assertions I've seen on this board, unless of course you think anyone who supports US support for Israel as being a neocon (in which case you have a big problem since by that definition, there probably a lot of neocons in the Democratic party, including all of the elected Democratic senators and members of the House.

[woo me with science]

62. "and I don't think we're in one now"

And that is the crux of the problem, isn't it. What an utterly stunning caveat you make there, in your sea of justifications. No, we're not in one now, even though our drones cross borders to slaughter human beings in multiple countries now, without judicial oversight and even though we are not at war with them. It's not just one area in which we don't have a "justifiable military conflict"; it's a veritable list. And that list will continue to grow for as long as corporate profiteers purchase Washington policy, and for as long as corporate-bought politicians and their mouthpieces justify the unjustifiable.

If you truly believe that we aren't in a justifiable military conflict right now, you would do well to spend your time raising awareness and activism about that, rather than engaging in this sort of bland, disingenuous defense of the indefensible through carefully worded, nonsensical caveats.

All the rest of your post is predictable right-wing spin: setting up a false choice between having troops on the ground and the unconscionable drone proxy wars we have now, accusing me of not being "calm" because I point out the fact that you are defending neocon policies just as surely as Republicans defended them under Bush, appealing to "defense of Israel" as an excuse for the policies I have described multiple times here but you can't justify, and, predictably, making the ludicrous argument that these policies could not possibly be neoconservative, because *Democrats* now pursue them. Good grief.

You will come back with more of the same, I am sure. DU is thick with it now. I am finished here, but it's important to label this sort of oh-so-familiar right-wing, neocon propaganda for what it is, whether it comes from corporate Republicans or corporate Third Way Democrats

[RevStPatrick]

14. That's a great idea!

Unfortunately, here in reality, things are not that simple...

[quinnox]

15. How will they have world war 3/armageddon if we don't come?

simple as that. Go ahead and blow each other up down there, its none of our business! K&R

[Zax2me]

21. Well, this al-Qaeda-style Sunni Islamist group that attacked in Cairo for sure.

They made it very clear.

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, let Israel handle the whole situation

I'm sure they're up to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Three reasons why not

1- Oil

2- Trade routes (support of Israel is about that, this little trade route goes to the neolithic and it's strategic)

3- Control of sea lanes, you can blame Mahan for that one. It's over a hundred years old.

[Zorra]

32. We can't. The US military is the private global police force for the 1% and their corporate

interests and holdings around the world.

We, the people, have no say in the matter.

[link:http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-23.htm|Published on Thursday, March 17, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil
by Greg Palast]

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

Big Oil's Scorecard in Iraq

Meanwhile, to protect the oil giants from dissent and protest, trade union offices have been raided, computers seized and equipment smashed, leaders arrested and prosecuted. And that's just in the oil-rich southern part of the country.

In Kurdistan in the north, the regional government awards contracts on land outside its jurisdiction, contracts which permit the government to transfer its stake in the oil projects—up to 25%—to private companies of its choice. Fuel is smuggled across the border to the tune of hundreds of tankers a day.

In Kurdistan, at least the approach is deliberate: the two ruling families of the region, the Barzanis and Talabanis, know that they can do whatever they like, since their Peshmerga militia control the territory. In contrast, the Iraqi federal government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little control over anything. As a result, in the rest of the country the oil industry operates, gold-rush-style, in an almost complete absence of oversight or regulation.

Oil companies differ as to which of these two Iraqs they prefer to operate in. BP and Shell have opted to rush for black gold in the super-giant oilfields of southern Iraq. Exxon has hedged its bets by investing in both options. This summer, Chevron and the French oil company Total voted for the Kurdish approach, trading smaller oil fields for better terms and a bit more stability.

[link:http://seekingalpha.com/article/613891-royal-dutch-shell-15-upside-likely-by-2013|Royal Dutch Shell: 15% Upside Likely By 2013
May 24, 2012 ]

Iraq surpasses Iran in oil exports and reserves

?

[randome]

38. "World, you're on your own!"

I agree we have little need for the massive amount of troops we have scattered across the globe. But there are other reasons for having embassies in other countries, same as most other countries have them.

It's called rapprochement. Or 'non-isolationism'.

Screw the oil, the money-making, the belligerence. We still don't abandon the world because of some religious fanatics.

[rachel1]

40. I doubt that most citizens in any country would welcome a

permanent foreign military presence in their country.

Just do some on how people feel about the US military presence in Japan, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Philippines, etc.

I can assure you all that it's mostly negative and it shouldn't be surprising at all.

[NCTraveler]

42. I think we should have a heavy presence there.

I just think our knowledge and tactics must change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Yes. Let them come to us with their oil.

Oddly enough, most of the rest of the industrialized world doesn't see the need to interfere in Middle East to get their oil. We are one of their biggest buyers and it is highly unlikely they'll impoverish themselves to please the fanatics.

Just sayin'.

[The2ndWheel]

51. The US military is pretty much the

industrialized world's military at this point, it just doesn't answer to the rest of it, or get funded by the rest of it. The US military just does its dirty work. Most of the rest of the industrialized world doesn't try to get us out of the Middle East either.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. And, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.

It's well past time to get the hell out and let the oil producers come to us and look after themselves. After the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Libya, Yemen) the military is doing absolutely no good there and is, in fact, doing harm.

All we've managed to do is to piss off everybody in the region and all we're offered is more of the same.

[The2ndWheel]

58. Prisoners of history

It takes a lot to break out, and it usually doesn't come cheap.

[woo me with science]

63. Yup. But as you know,

the US is not just after their oil. The one percent seek opportunity from war in countless ways. Demolished, war-torn, and overthrown countries need to be rebuilt and/or restructured, and that is done in a way to maximize both corporate profit and political power.

Blood, suffering, and upheaval create all sorts of corporate opportunities beyond the immediate benefits to the banks and companies specifically dedicated to war.

[flyguyjake]

50. Damned if we do and ... Damned if we dont!

[Zorra]

55. kick

[Mad-in-Mo]

57. I'm with you.

nt

[Green_Lantern]

59. I don't think we can completely leave....

What about the non-military things we do...like education and medical relief.

I agree we should lessen our military occupation footprint but completely leaving the ME would screw a lot of people.

[Hab Habit]

60. To do that....

....you'll first have to get Israel (read: AIPAC) out of America.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

65. Remember yesterday?

September 11? You really think that pulling out of the Middle East is going to prevent bad things from happening? Because here's the thing: They know where we live.

[Care Acutely]

68. 'Broa I been with you since the 70's.

I was just a little kid, watching the news talk about "Day XX of the hostage crisis" and I thought to myself, even then - we should just leave.

I've heard no worthwhile argument to the contrary since.

[Generic Brad]

69. Isolationism does not necessarily lead to peace

The same people who are angry with us for being there would also be angry at us for turning our backs on them. The same threats would still exist except it would be harder for us to anticipate them.

[Auntie Bush]

70. Get the hell out NOW! We don't

have to be there to buy their oil.

[jp11]

71. Then what?

We leave, we pull out of all arab countries, and go home.

Now what do we do about Israel? Do we still support them or let them stand on their own?

Do we fightback against terrorists that attack our embassies in other countries like Spain, England, or Africa?

How about our Navy, say we are attacked again while running a mission for another country or rendering aide to Italy or someplace that puts us somewhere near an arab country?

Should we just say 'my bad' we shouldn't have gotten so close to your country or 'sorry about existing' when there is a terrorist attack on our soil?

What if there is a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis in an arab country and they ask for our help do we ignore it?

What happens when agents of a terrorist organization attack us, do we demand the arab country deal with it, do nothing, what?

Packing up and leaving solves some simple problems but not all of them and we live on the same fucking planet, we have countries right next to those you say we should avoid, we have allies who have countries right next to those countries, we have communications technology that reaches those countries. We can't just close a door and not have to ever deal with those countries again, the world doesn't work like that.

Isolationism only works so long as you are willing to hide in your room and ignore whatever those looking to start shit with you are willing to do. No surprise if you don't react there will always be someone who'll keep pushing the envelope and go farther in the hopes they'll either get a reaction out of your or get away with doing something even worse that you'll just let them get away with cause you've shown them you won't do anything about X,Y, & Z already.

[Zorra]

72. Kick