3 Steps to bring them home now

[Steeplerot]

Since the Democrats seems to be pussy-footing around about the war kow-towing to the Republicans and the Republicans have no answer even what we are doing there in the first place
How about some real ideas?



Washington, DC: Today, Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader put forward a three-step approach to rapidly remove US military forces, civilian military contractors and US corporate interests from Iraq. "Every day the US military remains in Iraq we imperil US security, drain our economy, ignore our nation's domestic needs and prevent democratic self-rule from developing in Iraq, nor does the belligerent rhetoric of the Bush regime help the cause of moderates in Iraq." Nader said.

Nader made his statement amid calls by President Bush and Senator Kerry to "stay the course" despite increasing violence against US soldiers and US military contractors. "As has been demonstrated in recent weeks, US soldiers and civilians have become magnets for an expanding insurgency against US occupation of Iraq," Nader said. "The way to save US and Iraqi lives and reverse the escalating spiral of violence is for the United States to go back home. US presence serves as fuel for the insurrection, kidnapping, terrorism and anarchy. Since the occupation is increasingly turning mainstream Iraqis against the US; announcing a withdrawal and ending the corporate takeover of the Iraqi economy and oil resources will attract their support away from the insurgents."

Nader put forward a three-step process for removal of US troops.

1.
Development of an appropriate international peace-keeping force: Under the auspices of the United Nations an international peace keeping force, from neutral nations with such experience and from Islamic countries, should be assembled immediately to replace all US troops and civilian military contractors doing many jobs the Army used to do more efficiently. "Former General Wesley Clark described the Bush administration's foreign policy as 'cowboy unilateralism that goes against everything the United States is supposed to represent to the world,' noted Nader. "It is time for the US to return to the family of nations. The US will have to underwrite a significant portion of this less expensive short-term peacekeeping force since it was George W. Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has led to this quagmire."
2.
Support Iraqi self rule and free and fair elections: Free and fair elections should be held as soon as possible under international supervision so democratic self-rule can be put in place in Iraq. This will allow Iraq to develop legitimate self-government that will be able to provide for its own security. Nader recognized: "It is a challenge to bring democracy to Iraq, a country controlled by a brutal dictator, devastated by economic sanctions and torn apart by war. The complicated culture of Iraq, the split between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds makes consensus on a new government a challenge. A suitable framework of unity with allowance for reasonable autonomy would be a proper balance. But Iraq should be able to sort out these issues more easily without the military presence of a US occupying force and the projected 14 US military bases that Iraqis see as installing a puppet government fronting for an indefinite military and oil industry occupation."
3.
The US should provide humanitarian aid to Iraq to rebuild its infrastructure: The US invasion of Iraq and the long-term US-led economic sanctions against Iraqi civilians resulted in tremendous damage to people, their children and the Iraqi infrastructure. The US has a history of supporting Saddam Hussein. "Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the Middle East. Washington also supported him to keep Iran at bay with his army. In so doing, during the 1980s under Reagan and the first George Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush later accused him of having," said Nader. "Therefore, the US has a responsibility to the Iraqi people so Iraq can become a functioning nation again. However, we should not allow US oil and other corporations to profit from the illegal invasion and occupation of their country." Control over Iraqi oil and other assets should be exercised by Iraqis.


Nader noted the caution of former General Wesley Clark, who said: "President Bush plays politics with national security. Cowboy talk. The administration is a threat to domestic liberty." Nader urged the public to "free itself from the national security fear campaign of the Bush Administration and support a humanitarian conclusion to the Iraq episode."

 

[AcidicFury]

The reason we can't get out of the war is because a) we need to save some face, and b) civil war will erupt, and resources would be destroyed, not to mention permanent instability in the region for hundreds of years. We can't just get out, because otherwise, it will show that we can't really finish a war properly.

 

[Steeplerot]

I think that point is moot since the world is more concerned with the fact that we can't keep out of a war properly.

 

[charrison]

It seems we are already doing all those things.

Any other bright ideas?

 

[chess9]

Naw. just back out through Kuwait and don't let the door hit us in the ass on the way out. There are 50 ways to leave your lover, but only one way to stop being a pimp for neocons.

Get out the back Jack.

Leave NOW.

-Robert

 

[Steeplerot]

How are we doing the 3 steps he pointed out? Did anyone read or just post?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: steeplerot
How are we doing the 3 steps he pointed out? Did anyone read or just post?

1. Some 30+ countries are involved in Iraq. The major players(France, germany,russia) seem to be quite content to not help out. If you got any idea on how you can get them to to bring in a substantial amount of troops,I am all ears. Even if they did help out, I would not expect more than 50k troops.

2. We are supporting free and fair elections in Iraq. But this just dont happen overnight. It was 6-7 years before Japan an Germany got to hold elections after WWII. IF you know of a process to speed up the development of goverment and planning of elections from scratch, I am all ears again.

3. I guess you missed the billions we are already spending there. We also worked quite hard to have their debts written off.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: steeplerot
How are we doing the 3 steps he pointed out? Did anyone read or just post?

1. Some 30+ countries are involved in Iraq. The major players(France, germany,russia) seem to be quite content to not help out. If you got any idea on how you can get them to to bring in a substantial amount of troops,I am all ears. Even if they did help out, I would not expect more than 50k troops.

He said FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES not Germany France Russia we as the west have lost any trust with the ME and others from Europe would just be more occupiers.

2. We are supporting free and fair elections in Iraq. But this just dont happen overnight. It was 6-7 years before Japan an Germany got to hold elections after WWII. IF you know of a process to speed up the development of goverment and planning of elections from scratch, I am all ears again.

We have NO buisness to say anything about how they run their own soverign nation nor will they have any interest in what we have to say even after our election

3. I guess you missed the billions we are already spending there. We also worked quite hard to have their debts written off.

He also stated that we owe it to them but should keep our fingers out of their oil. building a few token playgrounds and pumping the ground dry is not in the Iraqis best interest nor will we ever gain trust from them using them as a our pawns as we have the reputation for doing in the ME

 

[glenn1]

Nader can propose whatever he wants. The American people will show him at the ballot box what they think of his ideas. Face it, this election is going to be a referendum on Iraq and Nader's "real ideas" are going to get b!tch slapped by the voters.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: steeplerot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: steeplerot
How are we doing the 3 steps he pointed out? Did anyone read or just post?

1. Some 30+ countries are involved in Iraq. The major players(France, germany,russia) seem to be quite content to not help out. If you got any idea on how you can get them to to bring in a substantial amount of troops,I am all ears. Even if they did help out, I would not expect more than 50k troops.

He said FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES not Germany France Russia we as the west have lost any trust with the ME and others from Europe would just be more occupiers.

2. We are supporting free and fair elections in Iraq. But this just dont happen overnight. It was 6-7 years before Japan an Germany got to hold elections after WWII. IF you know of a process to speed up the development of goverment and planning of elections from scratch, I am all ears again.

We have NO buisness to say anything about how they run their own soverign nation nor will they have any interest in what we have to say even after our election

3. I guess you missed the billions we are already spending there. We also worked quite hard to have their debts written off.

He also stated that we owe it to them but should keep our fingers out of their oil. building a few token playgrounds and pumping the ground dry is not in the Iraqis best interest nor will we ever gain trust from them using them as a our pawns as we have the reputation for doing in the ME

1. That 30+ includes support from muslim countries. Once again, any ideas on how you can replace our 130k troops with a similar force from other countries, i am all ears.

2. I guess that is why the UN is helping setup elections and their goverment. But we do fully support that process.

3. Sales from the oil are going to iraqi goverment. I would not be surprised if we spent over 100B in reconstruction project in Iraq by the time this is done. There was 20B spent in reconstruction in the past year alone. Far more than a few playgrounds....

 

[Steeplerot]

130k would not be nessasary if they were not viewed as agressors having to watch their back.
The UN helping is a good first step.
Sales from the oil is going to Iraq goverment hmm we'll see if Cheney thinks so. 20B on "reconstruction"? So thats what bombs are called now

 

[SuperTool]

I hope you are voting for Kerry, cus Nader won't win, and voting for Nader is a vote for Bush.
I too think going in was a huge mistake. I also don't think that Russia or France or any other countries will commit significant forces now that it's obvious that Iraq is a big mess. It's like betting on a losing hand with all the cards showing. It's far more likely that more allies will abandon us than we'll get new ones.
I think at this point our best hope is that some banine dictator will emerge sort of like Musharaf in Pakistan, or maby less abrasive version of Saddam. I really think it's impossible for a regular democratic leader to emerge, because with all these extremists, it has to be someone with an iron fist or his life expectancy will be rather short. I think if Iraq is partitioned into 3 states, the Kurd and Shiite states may have something resembling a normal Democracy. I doubt the Sunnis will, there are too many extremists. But if Iraq is kept as a single state, I think there is no way the minorities will accept Shiite majority rule unless forced to by a strong dictator.

 

[Steeplerot]

A vote for Nader is just that/ Why would I vote for Kerry? A vote for Kerry is a vote for the same B.S.
If I did not vote for Nader I would not vote for either.
It's all about voting for who you think is capable not who everyone else is voting for. You might as well live in a communist state and let the goverment handle elections themselves.
Actually the last Soviet elections were far more Democratic then ours.
But I guess splitting a country of many diverse people into 2 backbiting factions and getting nothing done is what the typical American "Give me convience or give me death." mentality.
The people deserve another choice for Democracy every vote for Nader shows the world and the country that not all of us are just spinning our wheels and following like uninformed sheeple.

besides Nader tells it like it is and it's great thing hearing someone in power stand up for the little man as I will do for him on election day.

 

[Steeplerot]

If the goal is to defeat Bush, why not just support the Democratic Party?s nominee?

It?s really not clear that the Democratic Party can defeat George W. Bush all by itself. "Electability" is neither an agenda nor a mandate. A two-front approach may be needed and let?s look at why:
The Democratic Party is part of the problem.

* They voted for or failed to stop the Iraq war resolution turning Bush into a wartime president.
* They voted for or failed to stop the Patriot Act.
* They voted for or failed to stop John Ashcroft.
* They voted for or failed to stop Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthy.
* They voted for or failed to stop the Medicare fiasco.
* They lost the 2002 midterm elections, contrary to historical tradition.
* In 1983, the Democrats controlled 23 more state legislatures than the Republicans; today the Republicans control five more than the Democrats.
* In 1983, there were 18 more Democratic governors than Republican ones; Now there are three more. New York, Massachusetts, Kentucky, California, Florida and Texas are all Republican controlled.
* More young adults today identify themselves as Republicans than 20 years ago, while fewer identify themselves as Democrats.

At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics?

 

[Steeplerot]

For the last three years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens ? oblivious to the facts ? looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.

It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins.

That would be like asking a new start-up to make sure Microsoft or Apple has more market share.

Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.

Electoral votes are not a zero-sum game.

Historically, third parties and Independents move very important agendas.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: steeplerot
At what point do you stop relying on a party to be an opposition party and start asking what else needs to be done to put some spine into Washington politics?

Maybe when we turn that party into the ruling party by working to get them voted them in? A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, plain and simple. Thats the reality of the situation.

 

[Steeplerot]

Kerry/Bush same diffrence If Kerry is so diffrent what exactly is he challenging Bush on? The War? He was soooo anti-war in Vietnam and sold himself out now he is no different. Kerry or Bush it is still US that gets screwed. THAT is a reality. Would you rather a eat a huge steaming pile of Horsesh1t or Dogsh1t?
No thanks.
I'll just scrape that plate clean wash it off and take what meagre bits I can.
Anyhow if it was not for Nader I would not vote at all and someone else would get one of the zombies in office anyhow.
Can't hurt to stand up for what you believe in what is the worst that can happen?
He loses? You already state that he has.
Bush gets elected? Or Kerry? Do you REALLY think there is a diffrence? They are both career politicians more interested in their own agenda then the job in front of them.

 

[Summitdrinker]

what's funny is the Bush lovers say a vote for athird party is a vote for Kerry
and the kerry lovers say a vote for a third party is a vote for Bush

so which is it?

 

[Steeplerot]

They both do not want the watchdog of corprate greed up in the WH for obvious reasons so they try to marganilize him.
Nader is not playing by the good ol boy rules of career politics and don't want him pissing on their ripoff party of the American people.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
what's funny is the Bush lovers say a vote for athird party is a vote for Kerry
and the kerry lovers say a vote for a third party is a vote for Bush

so which is it?

I've never heard a "Bush lover say a vote for a third party is a vote for Kerry". Nor am I a Kerry lover. So I can't answer your question.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

steeplerot,

I agree with 90% of what Ralph Nader stands for and what he says. But I won't be voting for him for the simple reason that Bush truly is far worse than Kerry (or any other moderate, mealy mouth politician) would be, regardless of party. The stakes are far too high to vote your conscience. I'm sorry if you don't want to acknowledge the reality of the situation. I'm not going to keep going in circles with this argument.

 

[Crimson]

Even SUGGESTING that a Muslim force could be placed into Iraq successfully just shows what a crackpot this guy really is. Islam does not exactly have a history of peace among neighbors. Fact is, most of these Middle Eastern countries which would be involved hate eachother, and at one time probably attacked one another. There is no way to bring together a multinational 'Muslim' force, they simply cannot work together. If you bring in an occupying force from a single Muslim nation, you face the same problem as whats being accused with the U.S. Hussein thought Kuwait was his, Iraq and Iran have been fighting for years. Countless countries in the region have tried to invade Israel. You name the counties, and its pretty likely you will find a war between them at some point.

On a whole, the U.S.'s track record on human rights is way better than that of any Islamic country. We occupied Japan but did not take it over, we occupied Germany but did not take it over, we occupied South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, most of Western Europe.. We support freedom of religion, we support the rights of women, we support the right of the people to choose their leaders.. I suppose we could go on and on.. We need to be there because there is nobody else who can do the job.

The U.N. is a miserable failure, could someone please name one major conflict the U.N. has resolved? Thats just a joke.

 

[Steeplerot]

If it what you think is right by all means use your vote I am just pointing out the alternative Monsta.
Hopefully Kerry IS better and grows a spine if he is elected.
Who knows Bush may turn over a new leaf bwahahahahaha!

 

[Steeplerot]

And America or the West play nice with each other? We have killed far more and have far more blood on our hands then Muslims. I guess the world wars and genocide of the 19th and 20th century and don't count.
Besides they are Muslims and they are not able to handle their own futures right? And need big daddy Bush to show them "The" way his Lord showed him.
*Chourus of Angels shine down upon Iraq with Bushes benevolant gaze as the oil wells suck.*
:roll:

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: steeplerot
If it what you think is right by all means use your vote I am just pointing out the alternative Monsta.
Hopefully Kerry IS better and grows a spine if he is elected.
Who knows Bush may turn over a new leaf bwahahahahaha!

Fair enough. In my state primary on Super Tuesday, I did vote my conscience (Howard Dean) and it felt damn good to do so. Despite the fact that he wasn't my first choice (or even second or third), I'm sure my vote for Kerry come November will feel just as sweet.