the arrogance of republican and Democratic Iraq plans

[welshTerrier2]

Who should determine whether the US remains in occupation in Iraq for even one more day? Should this decision be made by arrogant American Senators, both Democratic and republican, who think the call is theirs? Should other potential '08 hopefuls have the right to voice their support for continued US military presence inside Iraq?

Who should make the call? HOW ABOUT LETTING THE IRAQI PEOPLE !!!!!

it is outrageous arrogance on the part of far too many Democrats and republicans to call for continued occupation ... IT IS NOT THEIR CALL TO MAKE ...

and we're given all these plans from all these American geniuses about how to "win" or "succeed" in Iraq ... TAKE A HINT: THE IRAQIS WANT US TO GET OUT ...

any plan that does not call for a referendum of the Iraqi people on this issue is arrogant, elitist, imperialistic bullshit ... if you would like to defend any of the plans on the table, please explain why the decision to remain in Iraq, even for one more day, should be a decision made by any American ...

i don't expect republicans to make this point; apparently most prominent Democrats are no better ... it's disgraceful ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1128-32.htm

What is missing from the debate over withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq? Any discussion of what the Iraqi people themselves want. The opinions of those most affected by the war count most. So a nationwide referendum should be conducted in Iraq on the question of whether U.S. troops should stay or go, in which every Iraqi can vote directly on this question. Some polls have asked Iraqis specifically about the presence of U.S. troops, and guess what: They want us to leave.

A nationwide poll taken by Iraqi university researchers for the British government found that 82 percent of all Iraqis surveyed in August are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops and 67 percent feel less secure because of the occupation, the Sunday Telegraph of London reported last month.

But an opinion poll does not carry the weight of a referendum, in which all Iraqis could clearly and definitively vote on whether or not U.S. troops should remain in their country.

It appears that we as a nation are so self-absorbed that both the hawks and the doves among us have forgotten to ask what those most affected by the war, the Iraqi people, desire. Let us remedy this situation by supporting a referendum and then abiding by the results. Let the Iraqi people decide.

[still_one]

1. I just got a donation request from hillary for her 2006 senate campaign

took me less than 3 seconds to put it in the recycle bin

[montanacowboy]

3. You should express your displeasure

on it in whatever strong terms you desire and then make them pay for the return postage

I cannot print here my reply to these requests for $ from the DLCers

[still_one]

4. You are probably right, but I have called her office

and written her enough times, that my displeasure with many of her positions I have made known to her office

[ProSense]

2. Didn't Murtha and other Democrats agree we should get out? n/t

[welshTerrier2]

5. the only plans that do are Murtha's and McGovern's

Murtha's plan calls for an "over the horizon" redeployment which may suggest he believes we have a right to return ... we have no such right without the support of the Iraqi people ... still, his call for removal of US troops from Iraq is a huge step in the right direction ...

McGovern's plan, supported by many in the House, calls for a cut-off of funds for offensive operations in Iraq (my words - you'll have to look up his plan for details) ... McGovern's plan calls for the fastest withdrawal of US troops that their safety allows ...

But plans or statements from Biden, Clark, Clinton, Dean, Bayh, and Warner and far too many other Democrats refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Iraqi people ... it is not the decision to make ... every Democrat should demand that the Iraqi people are offered a referendum on continued US presence ... if they fail to do that, and they continue to "share THEIR vision", they are imperialists ...

LET THE IRAQI PEOPLE DECIDE !!

[ProSense]

6. That's my point

The Democratic plans aren't arrogant.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "far too many Democrats"

i did not state that every single Democratic plan for Iraq is arrogant ... the arrogance i referred to is coming from "far too many Democrats" ... i provided a partial list of names ... i specifically singled out plans emerging from the Senate and from potential '08 candidates ...

i like McGovern's plan and i give Murtha great credit for being the only Democrat seemingly able to focus the nation's attention on this critical issue ...

[ProSense]

10. I agree

Murtha did wake up the nation to what a number of other Democrats have been saying.

[welshTerrier2]

11. "a number of other Democrats" ?

Murtha called for the removal of US troops as fast as their safety would allow ... McGovern's plan is similar in that sense ...

are there other plans you're aware of that did not base withdrawal of US troops on the achievement of future goals ???

the other plans and statements i'm familiar with were burdened with conditions ... Murtha's plan was effective because it was not wishy-washy ... it recognized that the mission in Iraq had failed and it was time to get out ... other than McCGovern and his co-sponsors, i'm not aware that Murtha's position was what "a number of other Democrats have been saying."

[ProSense]

14. My issue is

the Republicans are only pretending to call for withdrawal. They intend to occupy Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

16. yes, on that we agree ...

that is one of my key objections to many of the Democratic plans ... bush has no intention to leave Iraq ... he might even make huge withdrawals of troops to appease his critics and buffer republican chances in next year's US elections ...

but the ultimate goal will be to retain permanent bases and to leave a substantial US footprint in place to guard Halliburton's oil pipelines ... i see the Democratic plans that call for any continued US presence as playing right into that scenario ...

the issue is that we have no right to be there ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. If Republicans stay in power, they will attempt that. Yes.

And while they remain in power they will not completely withdraw from Iraq because of pressure on them coming from inside America. I'm sorry, that is just the way I see it. At least not within 3 years. Certainly not before the mid term elections in 2006. Nixon was elected in 1968 and we were inside Viet Nam until, what was it, 1974? I was part of those anti war protests, we brought unbelievable pressure to bear on Nixon's Administration. I think it mattered that we did, and it was worth doing, but I am just telling it like I see it. Republicans will first try to reduce American casualties In Iraq via a draw down of American troop levels before the 2006 vote. If we regain control of Congress I will revisit my opinion on this "political reality" then.

So efforts to, for example, strengthen the hand of the Arab League inside Iraq right now are still timely under the circumstances I believe. And efforts to force this Administration to go clearly on record that under no circumstances will we have bases in Iraq several years from now, for example, I think can be effective in framing the debate to their disadvantage now, helping us get them out of power for everyone's sake.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. You are over stretching. You are usually more careful than this:

"But plans or statements from Biden, Clark, Clinton, Dean, Bayh, and Warner and far too many other Democrats refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Iraqi people ... it is not the decision to make ... "

At least some of those Democrats if not all of them fully acknowledge the sovereignty of the Iraq people, they just place that sovereignty in the hands of "the elected Iraq Government". The current Iraq government has asked the United States to remain in Iraq for at least one more year. That was stated by the Iraq government to the United Nations.

I am not trying to debate the legitimacy of that government or the one that will be elected in two weeks to replace it, I am just saying that you are being unfair to conclude that the above Democrats refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Iraq people because they haven't embraced and run with your proposal for a specific referendum. For the sake of discussion, by your logic demand for such a referendum should originate in Iraq also, not be forced on Iraq by Americans.

[welshTerrier2]

18. perhaps so ...

this is a compromise position for me in that i think we need to get out of Iraq now regardless of what the Iraqis say ...

and as for their government, i do think it's bullshit ... any government that has Chalabi as a Deputy Prime Minister has got to be viewed suspiciously ... as you pointed out, there would be huge problems with a referendum ... if we can't trust our own elections, we certainly can't trust those in a country we are occupying ...

and the arrogance i ascribe to many American elites goes beyond just their failure to call for a referendum in Iraq ... i believe the American people support an immediate end to the war ... i don't see their views being represented by the people they elected ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I can understand these postitions. Truly, I can.

I was just taking very specific issue with you on your original wording.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry's clearly called for getting out - but in a 12-15 month period

but he also calls for an immediate change in mission - having Iraqis police Iraqis and Iraqis doing search and destroy. The US would be in the rear and would leave on a sector by sector basis. The political solution he sees as necessary is Iraqi and Arab based - not created by us.

So why, is Kerry not included with Murtha who talks of redeploying over a 6 month period. Kerry is, if anything, more concerned with the sovereignty issues than Murtha. Murtha seems motivated by the fact that this is destroying the US army. (I haven't read all his comments, but I've seen none approaching it from the Iraqi POV.) I think it's great that he has this plan because as a Conservative hawk, he has the ability to win over people that McGovern never could.

[welshTerrier2]

19. Kerry's plan is conditional ...

his 12 - 15 months is CONTINGENT on a plan he wants bush to prepare and bush to implement ... Kerry clearly has no confidence in bush's handling of the war and yet he called on bush to make the plan on which withdrawal would be based ...

if we take Kerry's medicine, we'll still be in Iraq ten years from now ...

the reason Murtha got the reaction he did is because his plan was clear and concise ... Kerry tried to "walk down the middle" and his plan drew no attention from a public who has had more than enough of the war ...

if Kerry's ideas are so similar to Murtha's, it's about time Kerry called for the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq ... unconditional, of course, excluding the safety of the troops during the withdrawal ... but Kerry won't do that ... you know he won't and i know he won't ... he still calls his plan "a plan to succeed" or something like that ... Murtha's plan is NOT a plan to succeed; it's a plan to get the hell out of Iraq ...

there's a huge difference ...

[ProSense]

22. Kerry's plan

is not redeployment, it's full withdrawal. Murtha's plan leave American troops in the region indefinitely, to potentially reenter Iraq if circumstances warrant.

[welshTerrier2]

23. full withdrawal based on contingencies

i don't like the "over the horizon" aspect of Murtha's plan at all ...

the problem with Kerry's plan, as i said above, is that it is based on contingencies ... Kerry wants bush to define the benchmarks on which withdrawal will be based ... do you feel comfortable with that? i sure don't ...

and then, when bush fails to meet the benchmarks that he made up in the first place, US troops remain in Iraq ... that's the main problem with Kerry's plan: he calls on bush to make the benchmarks, bush to achieve the benchmarks, and troops to be withdrawn (with the exception of the first 20,000), only when the benchmarks are met ... no thanks ...

i agree with Kerry's comments about bush ... he called bush duplicitous and something else i can't remember ... what sense does it make to give bush more time to further entrench his Halliburton soldiers for another 12 to 15 months??? clearly bush has no intention of leaving Iraq ... Murtha's strong and clear position has brought national political pressure on bush; Kerry's middle-of-the-road plan did not ...

[ProSense]

24. Do you know

what the contingency for returning to Iraq is after the troops have been redeployed?

There are so many contingencies it's frightening. Here's a scary one: Republicans get to decide.

IMO, Kerry's call for full withdrawal is best.

[LSdemocrat]

7. Is this different from Bush's we'll leave when the Iraqi gov tells us to?

I really don't see the difference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I would support a referendum, but I think it has become moot

It would have been a good idea to include that with the Iraq Constitution vote. Now the Iraq Parliament vote is about two weeks away, and if you have any trust in voting in Iraq, a newly elected government will represent Iraq in determining the future of an American presence there. And if you don't have trust in Iraq's voting system, than there really would be no point in holding that referendum anyway. If the votes are rigged the result would be predetermined and used to provide legitimacy to the predetermined position.

I am suspicious about the voting system in Iraq, but then again I am suspicious about the system here also. I would love to see an honest vote there on this matter, but how the proposition were worded would matter a lot. At the very minimum there are three main options. America to remain as long as it takes to restore security, America to start handing over responsibility to Iraq forces and pull out within a clearly prescribed time table, and Americans to pull out immediately or as close to that as humanly possible.

The thing about polling, responding to a poll doesn't carry direct consequences. A person who might answer "Americans out Now!" might change his/her position to "Americans out within 12 months" if Ayatollah Sistani were to come out favoring such an option, and it is entirely possible that he would. Also there is such justifiable distrust inside Iraq over possible U.S. intentions to stay there forever that if I were an Iraqi and someone came to my home to poll me, I would give them the strongest message possible that Americans had to leave my nation. However if presented with a firm American commitment to either be out of Iraq completely within 18 months or within 30 days, it is possible I might choose the former.

[NoFederales]

13. It IS the Iraquis right to say when, and I believe they have said it

already--politicians aren't listening to anybody but themselves--that does make them arrogant. Great point.

NoFederales

[karynnj]

15. Maybe if this were done in conjunction with the Arab League

Before Thanksgiving, there were articles about the Cario meeting of the Arab League which seemed to be working with the various factions on a political solution. The article said this item will be a topic at the February meeting.

They also said that "terrorist" should apply only to those who hurt civilians. (not coalition troops). They wanted the US soldiers in the rear and felt that they could be gone totally in a year.

This is not identical to any Dem or Rep plan. It sounds closest to Kerry's, which likely relects that Kerry spoke to Iraqis (as he said he did). Ignoring that, I'm surprised that no one has recommended that when the Arab League plan is finished we, at minimum, try to see how we could fit it with that plan. I assume the reason no Democrat has suggest that they (the Democrats) actually work with the Arab League is that only the President has the power to do that.

[Mass]

25. Most American people could not care less what the Iraqis want

The change in how they see this war is linked to costs in US human lives and in dollars (they are not wrong about that). But many of the people who object to the war now have no interest in what the Iraqi people want.

Why do you want the pols to care and particularly to express it even if they care? I think you are expecting too much here.

[Mass]

26. any plan that does not call for a referendum of the Iraqi people on this

issue is arrogant, elitist, imperialistic bullshit ..

How true -

Now, how many plans include that? (whether they plan for American troops to withdraw or to stay in Iraq). Because it is as arrogant that we know what they want in either case.

[welshTerrier2]

27. here's how i think the process should work ...

i don't think the Iraqis should be able to compel the Americans to remain if the American people choose not to do so ... they have a right to either request our help or demand that we leave ...

if they want us gone, we should leave ...

if they want us to remain, then the decision passes to the American people ... if they American people, with Iraqi consent, choose to keep American troops in Iraq, then that's what we should do (although i completely disagree with that policy) ...

but if the Iraqi people want us to remain but the American people do not, we should leave ...

plans that call for a rapid withdrawal of American troops are not "imperialistic"; they seek to put an end to our exploitation of a sovereign nation ...

[Zhade]

28. K/R

NT!