What will Kerry do if the doodoo hits the fan?

[eridani]

KERRY AND THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO EXPLICITLY DISAVOW THE GOAL OF A PERMANENT LARGE-SCALE MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

This is completely separate from the question of how to get Iraq stable enough to remove outside forces. It ought to be plain to anyone by now that removal of WMDs, and even removal of Saddam, was never the administration goal. They tell the truth among themselves, though they rarely disseminate it in the teevee prolefeed put out for popular consumption.

The American goal in Iraq happens to be a large permanent military presence in Iraq. It absolutely cannot be achieved, other than by locking down the population with methods that would make Saddam Hussein look like Mother Teresa. What will the Democratic Party platform have to say about this?

The goal, direct from the horses’ mouths--

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17923

Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East.”

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Houston, we have a problem. This is what the most influential leader of 60% of the Iraqi population (the 60% that has been relatively quiet about the occupation so far, by the way) thinks about that. It is pretty clear that the ‘coaling station’ goal is absolutely unacceptable to him and the people he speaks for.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5757.htm

Iraqi Shiite Leader Seyyid Ali Al-Sistani yesterday warned that he would call for an intifada (uprising) if American soldiers stayed in Iraq after the handover of power on June 30, 2004. He also insisted that there should be a significant role for the Shiite in the future administration of the country, as they make up the majority of the population.

Sistani spoke to the German magazine Der Spiegel and said: "The U.S. presence in Iraq should not be prolonged. The Iraqi public knows how to act. If the U.S. presence is drawn out longer than necessary, I will call for an intifada." The necessary posters reportedly have already been printed and are awaiting distribution to every corner of the country.

Even if someone can negotiate with Sistani to postpone this, it is clear that the occupation cannot stand in the long run. What are the plans if the situation blows up before the election, if any? If it comes to a head in the first year of a Kerry administration, then what? If unauditable voting machines put Bush in again, what will the Democratic leadership do? What will happen to our troops over there if the situation blows sky-high?

Start thinking, now, everyone. Let’s not get caught by surprise.

[NV1962]

1. Why ask for Kerry's response?

I mean, the deadline is next June 30 - way before Kerry can be inaugurated. If he is, he'll face a given situation that he can respond to, with ample preparation time.

Instead, I wonder if this current administration isn't preparing a deliberate disaster in Iraq... One that “can only be remedied” by sending in more troops.

And that means the draft.

Don't worry about Kerry in November - fear Bush now.

[eridani]

2. Because he'll have to say something about it on the campaign trail?

Is there some reason for NOT stating right now that a permanent military presence is strictly off the agenda?

[Mairead]

3. "Is there some reason for NOT stating right now"

Sure, and we both know what that reason is: it's ON their agendas. Bush's PNAC agenda and Kerry's PPI agenda. No matter who 'wins', we lose.

[eridani]

4. Which is why we need to get Kucinich delegates to the convention

No one else wants to call the Dems on this bullshit.

[Mairead]

7. Exactly. I really hate looking around me and realising I'm one

of the few who aren't complacent about people being killed and maimed at the behest of our government. I start having very elitist feelings, and I don't like them.

I wonder whether even DK can make a significant difference. :( :( :(

[sangha]

10. Boy, is that sanctimonious

I really hate looking around me and realising I'm one of the few who aren't complacent about people being killed ...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Some people are just better than the rest of us, and know it.

[Jacobin]

5. The bases will obviously be there, Kerry or Not

That and Oil are why we are there. Osama ran bush out of Saudi Arabia.

The military industrial complex wants it and they will get it. book it.

[eridani]

6. Even if 60% of the heretofore quiet part of the population rebels?

How are they planning to lock down the whole country?

[eridani]

8. Not a single answer from a Kerry supporter?

You don't care if this perhaps blows up in the middle of the Dem convention?

[eridani]

9. Still waiting

What are Kerry's plans for this contingency?

[sangha]

11. Trying to catch our breath

from laughing too hard.

[KoKo]

13. That about sums up what you get for answers....Sangha's laugh....

I guess that means it's ridiculous to ask, because they have no answer, so they laugh. :shrug:

Seems kind of weird to me, but....there it is..