Will the Iraq 'war' end if a Democrat is elected?

[Q]

- Will the insane military budget be cut to exclude war profiteering and waste? Will the defense contractor's best friend "Starwars" (aka missile 'defense') be cut back or eliminated? Will the Bill of Rights killing Patriot Act(s) be repealed? Will more troops be sent to Iraq?

- Will a Democratic president continue the 'war' in Iraq and the 'war on terrorism' in general? Bush* was able to 'declare' a war on terrorism ONLY with the help of Democrats. This leads me to believe they will continue to support this 'war'...as they have done for so long with the failed 'war' on drugs. The fact that only a relatively few (brave) Democrats have publicly denounced this illegal invasion of Iraq doesn't bode well for the future. Vietnam comes to mind when one considers the reluctance of the US government to admit mistakes.

- Opinions?

[truthspeaker]

1. Unfortunately, I think you're probably right

It will be up to us rank-and-file Democrats to hold the Democratic president accountable in 2005. We should absolutely vote for the Dem nominee in November 2004, but if there are still US troops in Iraq in November 2005 we will have to do to him what they did to LBJ 35 years ago.

[dbt]

2. Probably not.

The modus operandi of the Regime seems to be to prepare for one term, as evidenced by the desperate way they are skimming millions into the pockets of a few cronies. It's all about short-term profits and fuck the planet.

Part of that skimming is, of course, The War For Profit In Iraq. In order for Halliburton, et al, to keep raking in those millions, Iraq will need to be maintained at a certain level of destruction right up until Inauguration Day 2005.

IOW, the Regime will continue actively (or covertly) to adjust the Iraq situation so that it continues to require the presence of US troops and the corporations who provide "support". Couple this with a nasty Bush family tendency to bitch-slap their successors on the way out of the Oval Office (See Daddy Bush's little Somalia gift to Clinton--and his attempt to get Whitewater started even before the election), and it's easy to see the Boy King making a BIGGER mess of things over there--just to rattle Kerry's cage.

The more it looks between now and November like bu$h will lose, the worse things will become in Iraq. Good luck to ANYBODY who inherits this mess. It will take YEARS to untangle ourselves, even if the Democrat$ should be willing.

:freak:
dbt

[waldenx]

3. Kerry apologists are now pro-war

They say its ok to kill innocents and spit on the constitution if a Democrat does it.

[bowens43]

7. I haven't seen any kerry supporters say that.

Do you have a link or a cite? I bet not.

[kher-heb]

12. you will

around early 2005.
I would bet my life on it.

[waldenx]

14. I agree

maybe sooner.

[PsychoDad]

11. Meet the new boss....

Same as the old boss.

Maybe considerably more politicly polished and savy.

As I said when it was first passed, the Patriot act empowers any regime in power.. and even though presidents come and go, along with other elected officials, many of the corporate players behind the scenes remain from administration to administration

[Loonman]

22. Whatever, guy

:eyes:

[Minstrel Boy]

4. The bogus "war on terra" goes on.

Only its pronounciation will improve.

40,000 fresh bodies will be needed, says Kerry.

It's 1968, and look: Hubert Humphrey.

[Malva Zebrina]

5. No--

I have lost faith in our system. It is irretriveably cracked and broken.

Look how many of our congress voted for this war crime. They show no remorse. No concerns that ten thousand innocent people have died becasue of their vote. There is no explanation. I am distraught to think of all that happened under this insane war criminal-and in angst to think he may get elected next time around.

If I were younger, I would join Doctors winout borders or some other that recognizes the common bond we all have as human beings.

I cannot understand how anyone can brush off those ten thousand we shocked and awed as collateral damage or think of them as human beings on a lower scale than we here or than the red necked vengeful responders who wanted to kick their ass and get their gas--these people did not choose to be born in Iraq--or Afganistan. I cannot accept it as part of a war waged by a huge hugely wealthy, superbly equipped military--there is no excuse anyone can make for it--"get your war on types' who delight in talking all about the good old boy times in the military, or in the newest copter we are using and virtually playing a video game witn real persons lives, have no argument that would justify killing these ten thousand

[greatauntoftriplets]

27. Extremely well stated, Marianne.

I also have lost faith in the system. As a friend of mine put it during the heaviest bombing in Afghanistan: "We are bombing rubble into even smaller bits of rubble."

[bowens43]

6. No, the occupation will not instantly end.

Nor should it. It's too late for that. We made the mess and now we need to stick around and clean it up. What we will see , I think, is a greater participation by UN members and a transition to UN control.

[Q]

8. "We" didn't make this mess...

...and in fact...thousands of us protested against it.

- Democrats need to call the Iraq 'war' what it is: a friggin WAR CRIME.

[truthspeaker]

9. but part of the mess is that we are unwelcome occupiers

The violence will continue in Iraq as long as US troops are there, because the Iraqi people don't want us there. We can't fix that by staying there longer.

[Disturbed]

13. Civil War

If all out Civil War breaks out in Iraq which seems to have started what use will 130K troops plus others be? Which sides of the three way war will the US fight?

[Minstrel Boy]

16. The United States has obligations to Iraq. The first of which is to leave.

It's been a year, already.

Permanent bases are being constructed. The world's largest embasssy is projected. Iraqis still have no genuine autonomy and control over their own industries, and elections are continually pushed back into the vague future.

"Cleaning up the mess we made" is code for "we broke it, we bought it", and rings as hollow as the justifications for making the mess in the first place.

[leesa]

29. "We" can't "clean it up". We are rightly despised for what

we have done and we have zero credibility in Iraq. It is sheer paternalistic hubris to think we can "clean it up" for the little children of Iraq. How arrogant!

[xchrom]

10. no, i vote democratic

but the democratic party is as much establishment or or status quo as republicans are.
if the democratic party is gong to change -- it will come from the party's roots. and it will come not because of iraq -- the american conscience washes that away easily -- but nafta, wto, jobs, economics, etc...

[foreigncorrespondent]

15. What has been worrying me lately is...

...can we expect the Bush* crime family to just give up once the dem president in in the WH? Or can we expect to see another 9/11 happen, so they can then spout how everyone should have voted for Bush*?

Regardless of what happens in Iraq, the allied forced are going to have to remain. But I am hoping that the dem president will at least hand it over to the UN to take control of.

[Q]

20. The "Bush* crime family" was in full operation...

...during the Clinton years. After that they character assassinated Gore. They will simply not allow a Democratic president to govern.

- The problem? There ARE NO 'allied forces'. That's a myth. Most of the world is against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They fully realize that the whole thing was based on a series of lies and fear mongering.

[Nlighten1]

17. Hell no it won't.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Same war, new Commander in Chief

Kerry has already said he will keep troops in Iraq until the country "stabilizes," which could be never!

Democratic frontrunner declares he will be stronger “war president” than Bush
By Patrick Martin
2 March 2004

Kerry thus embraced the Bush administration’s main pretext for its militarist foreign policy as well as its domestic attacks on democratic rights and social spending: the assertion that a state of war exists—of indefinite duration, and against largely unidentified or yet-to-be-named terrorist enemies—and that, as a “war president,” the commander in chief must be granted extraordinary powers.

In reality, there is neither a constitutional nor a legal basis for the “war on terror.” The congressional resolution adopted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was not a declaration of war and did not empower Bush to act as a “war president.” The facts surrounding the events of September 11 remain unclear—the identity of the terrorists, the means they employed, the extent of the network supporting them—in large measure because the Bush administration has resisted any serious investigation.

Kerry has said little in his campaign about the massive assault on democratic rights that has accompanied the “war on terror.” He has included a sentence or two about the performance of Attorney General John Ashcroft, and criticized abuses of power in the implementation of the USA Patriot Act, but Kerry voted for the legislation and has continued to defend that vote and praise many of its provisions.

In his Los Angeles speech, Kerry outlined a foreign policy posture hardly distinguishable from the Bush “doctrine of unilateral preemption,” as the prospective Democratic nominee termed it. He said that he would, if necessary, “order direct military action” against terrorist groups, with or without international support. “Allies give us more hands in the struggle,” he said, “but no president would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done.... As president, I pledge to you, I’ll never wait for a green light from abroad, from any other institution, if our safety and security are legitimately at stake.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/kerr-m02.shtml

[Q]

19. Interesting...

...it seems that Kerry will simply continue the same type of 'war' on terrorism. He seems to agree with the 'Bush* Doctrine' of preemptive strikes...with or without international cooperation. He also appears to think that the US doesn't need a 'permission slip'.

- Is this the view of the DLC?

[Sinistrous]

21. Seems you missed the part that says

"if our safety and security are legitimately at stake.”

That is a very narrow, correct, and justifiable exercise of unilateral force. What would you suggest that the US do in the event that "...our safety and security are legitimately at stake.”? Wait for somebody else's OK to defend ourselves?

[Q]

23. The issue is Iraq...

...not some phantom threat in the future. Isn't it obvious that the 'Bush* Doctrine' is about attacking countries that are no real threat to the US. Iraq isn't a defensive war. Kerry and others want to continue where Bush* left off...without acknowledging that the original attack on Iraq was based on lies and fraud.

- Should the US government be able to INVENT a threat and attack defenseless countries simply to carry out part of a broader policy objective?

- Bush* claimed our 'safety and security' were at threat concerning Iraq. That was a lie...that few Democrats called him on.

[Sinistrous]

26. You have created a strawman.

In the article quoted above, Kerry was obviously talking about a "threat in the future".

Your assertion that "Kerry and others want to continue where Bush* left off...without acknowledging that the original attack on Iraq was based on lies and fraud." is unsupported by the facts.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. why do we have to guess?

He "seems" to agree with Bush? I am not challenging your statement, but am frustrated with this politics playing and Kerry is and has been entrenched in it far too long. Why don't we know? Bush got away with type of obfuscation and look what we got because no one held his feet to the fire.

So he thinks it just fine and dandy, maybe, to embrace Straussian philosophy. I am sick of having to guess about my leaders--and I must consider Kerry my leader now, I guess. I don't think it OK to do so. I am now forced to vote for the taller of two war presidents.

Good luck to Kerry--

[Q]

25. I didn't intend to bring up Kerry...

...but these are issues we must consider...before and after we vote a Democrat into office in Nov.

- I'm concerned that we're going to see a contest between Kerry and Bush*...to see which can be the 'toughest' in the so-called 'war' on terrorism. This means that WAR will be the centerpiece of both campaigns.

[YNGW]

28. No

Nothing will change.