| Author | Message | ||
     Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 179 Registered: 2-2003 |
South Mountain Peace Action has issued the following statement on the US occupation of Iraq: Support Our Troops in Iraq: Bring Them Home! Get the US Out and the UN In -- Now! American soldiers, Iraqis and others continue to die in Iraq because the Bush administration refuses to step aside for the United Nations, which is the appropriate body to help Iraq return to self-government and rebuild its society. We have already spent $60 billion on the war in Iraq and we continue to spend at least $1 billion per week on the occupation, while funds are cut in own country for social programs like education and for infrastructure needs, like the electricity grid. South Mountain Peace Action urges an immediate end to the US occupation of Iraq and the replacement of the US occupation administration with a UN transitional administration to restore Iraqi sovereignty. We call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops and their replacement by a UN peacekeeping force that could include former Iraqi soldiers not involved in human rights violations. This UN transitional administration should be established to facilitate the creation of an all-Iraqi adminstration that would include all Iraqi political, ethnic and religious factions, including Baath Party members not associated with prior repression of the civilian population. A transitional UN administration will hopefully coordinate support from governments in the region and provide a vehicle for international humanitarian assistance for the Iraqi people and their economic infrastructure. It is time for the United States to renounce the policy of occupation of other countries and to restore our commitment to the United Nations as the primary institution to maintain peace and stability in international relations. Support Our Troops in Iraq: Bring Them Home! Get the US Out and the UN In -- Now! | ||
| OK, it's Straw Man Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 986 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sorry Paul, We can't do so (leave) until we find Hussein. Based on this omission, it would be best if your organization retract its demands. We can't invade a nation, with the idea of removing its leader and then walk away until that leader is accounted for. Imagine leaving Germany without Hitler's head?? I don't think so. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1697 Registered: 12-2001  |
I know that most Iraqis are decent people and that not all Iraqi soldiers and Ba'ath Party members are brutal, but still, I like the following phrases in Paul's message. "...former Iraqi soldiers not involved in human rights violations." "... including Baath Party members not associated with prior repression of the civilian population." Besides that, the U.N. cannot function effectively in a hot zone. For better or for worse, Bush has ensured that this problem is ours alone. Oh, and lets not talk about the coalition. When we have 90% of the forces on the ground and 99% of the firepower, it's unilateral. | ||
| Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 180 Registered: 2-2003 |
Strawberry, When an invasion is predicated on false information and false premises, the proper course of action is to reverse course. Not one more American soldier should be killed or maimed in Iraq to uphold the lies of George Bush and his administration. Saddam Hussein -- if he ever surfaces again --will be brought to justice by his own people. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1699 Registered: 12-2001 |
Paul, We're stuck. Bush is making this a test of great power resolve just like Khe Sanh. To complete the sensation of deja vu, here is a song. How many roads must a man walk down Before you call him a man? Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail Before she sleeps in the sand? Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly Before they're forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind. How many times must a man look up Before he can see the sky? Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry? Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind. How many years can a mountain exist Before it's washed to the sea? Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist Before they're allowed to be free? Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head, Pretending he just doesn't see? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind. | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 714 Registered: 5-2001 |
The newly formed (just now) Maplewood Military Action Committee is releasing the following statement: The US occupation of Iraq will continue until a peaceful government is created and Sadam is found. End of story. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1701 Registered: 12-2001 |
whichever comes first? | ||
| Paul Surovell Citizen Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 181 Registered: 2-2003 |
Here's the latest Newsweek poll that shows the public would support a withdrawal from Iraq by 48-47%. It also shows 72% would support a greater role for the UN. And finally, nearly a majority support Pres. Bush's replacement in 2004 -- 49-44%. Some of the responses contradict these positions, but on the whole, the survey shows support for the occupation and for Bush have dropped significantly, and have approached a level where political action in the Congress to end the occupation is a viable proposition. Getting the US out of Iraq is a matter of translating public opinion into political action. http://www.newsmax.com/popunders/coulter_fight.htm Americans Concerned With Bogging Down in Iraq PRNewswire Monday, Aug. 25, 2003 NEW YORK -- Sixty-nine percent of Americans are concerned that the U.S. will be bogged down in Iraq for many years without making much progress in achieving its goals there, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. Forty percent say they're very concerned that the U.S. will become bogged down in Iraq; 29 percent say they are somewhat concerned. Less than a third (28%) are either not too concerned (15%) or not at all concerned (13%), the poll shows. A majority of Americans fear U.S. forces will be overextended if another security threat arises outside Iraq: 29 percent say they're very concerned and 30 percent are somewhat concerned that the commitment of military forces to postwar Iraq will seriously limit U.S. ability to deal with security threats in other parts of the world; 36 percent are either not too concerned (19%) or not at all concerned (17%). Americans are also concerned about the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq; 66 percent say they do not support the current amount being spent, the poll shows. Sixty percent say the U.S. should reduce the amount of money it is spending to establish security in Iraq and rebuild the country. Thirty-four percent say they support the current spending level, which is estimated at $1 billion per week. Although some observers say the U.S. can only bring peace and stability to postwar Iraq with increased spending, 53 percent of respondents say they would oppose any increase in U.S. spending for operations there, the poll shows. Just seven percent say they'd support a major increase in spending and 30 percent say they'd support a minor increase. Almost half of those polled (47%)say they're very concerned that the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq will lead to a larger budget deficit and seriously hurt the U.S. economy, according to the poll. For the first time in the Newsweek Poll, more registered voters (49%) say they wouldn't like to see President Bush re-elected than those who would (44%). And 48 percent say the economy and jobs will be more important in determining their vote for president in 2004; just 23 percent say it will be terrorism and homeland security, the poll shows. Bush's job-approval rating and his rating on how he's handling the situation in Iraq both dropped in the current Newsweek Poll: 54 percent approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq (down from 58% in the July 24-25 Newsweek Poll) and 53 percent approve of the way he's handling his job as president, (down from 57% in the July poll). Forty-five percent say the Iraq war has reduced terrorists' power by removing an oil-rich regime that supported terrorism; while 38 percent say the war increased their power by inspiring a new generation of terrorists to take up arms against the U.S. and its allies, the poll shows. Iraq Invasion Right Thing Despite their concerns, the majority of Americans (61%) say the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq last March (a seven-point decrease from the July 24-25 poll); 33 percent disagree, a five-point increase from the July poll. Going forward, 72 percent say they would support turning over some of the authority for rebuilding Iraq to the United Nations since some allies say that is necessary if they are to send troops to postwar Iraq. And 52 percent say they'd support more aggressive action by U.S. forces to stop the violence, even if it means greater risk of civilian casualties. Americans polled are split almost evenly (48% yes, 47% no) on whether to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Iraq in response to the attacks on U.S. military personnel and other targets. When asked about confidence that the United States will successfully establish a stable democratic form of government in Iraq over the long term, just 18 percent say they're very confident that it will happen; 37 percent are somewhat confident; 40 percent are not too confident or not at all confident, the poll shows. Since May 1, when major combat ended, just 13 percent say the U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone very well; 39 percent say somewhat well; 27 percent say not too well and 17 percent say not at all well. And Americans' patience is wearing thin on how much longer they'd support keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq to help establish security and rebuild the country: 28 percent say they would support keeping the troops there less than one year; 28 percent say one to two years and 18 percent say three to five years, the poll shows. President Bush's approach on security issues consistently gets higher marks than Democratic leaders. Regarding who has a better approach at dealing with finding and defeating terrorists around the world, 57 percent say Bush is better than the Democratic leaders; 21 percent say the Dems. are better. Fifty-seven percent say Bush's approach is better at defending against terrorism at home (24% for the Dems.) and 45 percent say Bush's approach is better at tax cuts (36% say the Dems.). The Democratic leaders come out on top in their approach at stimulating the economy (45% v. 36% for Bush); health care (47% v. 31%) and the environment (53% v. 29%), the poll shows. For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,011 adults aged 18 and older on Aug. 21-22, 2003. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. This Newsweek Poll is part of the continuing terrorism coverage in the September 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, August 25). | ||
| James Citizen Username: Mcgregorj Post Number: 34 Registered: 7-2003 |
Paul: Does SO Peace Action meet regularly? I'd be interested in getting involved. - James | ||
| James Citizen Username: Mcgregorj Post Number: 35 Registered: 7-2003 |
Paul: Does SO Peace Action meet regularly? I'd be interested in getting involved. - James | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1702 Registered: 12-2001 |
Let's see. First, Bush and Corporal von Rumsfeld defecated all over Europe and the U.N. It will take some alchemy to get the U.N. to now take a meaningful role. Corporal von Rumsfeld, in particular, is arrogant enough to make a Prussian blush. At the more practical level, the U.N. is not capable of handling a hot military situation. They don't have the forces and command structure to do this. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 40 Registered: 8-2003 |
couple points -- 'registered voters' is anyone warm body over 18 that answers the phone. The UN can't deliver anything except humanitarian relief when things calm down. Tjohn is right -- the UN is ineffective to the point of being dangerous as it was in Bosnia (from their own internal report). Remember Bosnia? Let's have dialogue while people are getting slaughtered, and have disparate commanders from different countries rendering military activity WORTHLESS. While things are hot, the US rightly shouldn't cede any control to the UN or anyone else. If we have the UN work on building a representative govt in Iraq, should we eliminate all countries with non-representative govts from the process. If not, shall we leave Syria on the Disarmament committee, or Libya in charge of human rights? Why do people place so much faith in the UN? Is there something they can point to as an unmitigated success in situations like we face in Iraq. The UN can be meaningful. Just ask the Haitians. We'll be out of Iraq before we're out of Kosovo or Bosnia, you just wait. The rebuilding of post-war Germany and Europe took 10 months, right? On a purely human rights basis, how can anyone say Iraqis getting killed is less important than Kosovarians or Bosnians getting killed? And finally, let's have the Town Council take a position on this. And after that, they can have an up or down vote on Roe V. Wade. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1703 Registered: 12-2001 |
I didn't exactly say that the U.N. is useless. I merely pointed out that they aren't configured to handle hot military environments. Historically, joint military commands are more difficult to manage than unitary commands. Our track record in rebuilding countries is not exactly impressive. Germany and Japan should not be viewed as the rule. Both of those nations had a strong belief in central authority (too much), a lot of energy (again, too much) and well as some prior experience with parliamentary democracy. | ||
| montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 27 Registered: 6-2003 |
George W. Bush isn't the first peacetime politician to be overtaken by events. The British had to replace Neville Chamberlain, and Americans (more recently) had to replace Lyndon Johnson. History is full of examples. In fact, it's relatively easy for great powers to change course in their relations with smaller powers (as countries in treaty relationships with great powers regularly experience). A democratic power like the U.S. has an added advantage in that it can replace incompetent leaders with others that can do the job better. Everyone - inside or outside the country - accepts that policies will change. There are still a number of sensible people in the Bush Administration, and it's not too late for them to take a more sensible course. Paul did the community a service in bringing this again to our attention. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 42 Registered: 8-2003 |
Where has the UN been successful? Anyone? Or did I stump everyone? | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1704 Registered: 12-2001 |
The proper phrasing of the question should be something like this: Of those places where the U.N. has committed itself to nation-building, have they improved the situation over what it would have otherwise been? The phrasing is fairly important, because nation-building is not a tidy task with a definitive ending point. Nation-building, as with marriage counseling and AA, works best when the subject wants to be helped. I am not in a real hurry to trash the U.N. since Mr. Bush's splendid little war in Iraq is shaping up to be far more expensive and less tidy than he led the nation to believe. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 43 Registered: 8-2003 |
The answer is the UN has never succeeded when they call the shots and shots are flying. On the splendid war -- Bush never billed this war to be quick and cheap. He said this war on terror would outlast his presidency and it's scope was global. And there is a definitive ending point in this job -- terrorists routed and rooted out, representative govt with a liberated people and (with that)no fear of weapons of massive destruction used against the US -- either from the country directly or by aiding other groups/states that wish the US harm. For someone to think he was led to believe that the war would cost a buck fifty and be over in 6 months wasn't listening and didn't want to. If we can't pull out of blessed Bosnia yet (and we've been there since 1995), why would anyone think Iraq would be quicker? I didn't and never have. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1705 Registered: 12-2001 |
Iraq is, or should be, a subset of the war on terror. Instead, Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror, is costing a fortune and shows no signs of winding down any time soon. We have sacrificed the intiative because we are now stuck trying to rebuild a nation while every terrorist and his dog arrives in country to attack us. We are giving many terrorists an opportunity to acquire that which is hard to provide in a training camp - the brutality that comes from fighting and killing. What happens if, two years down the road, the situation in Iraq is still like it is today. How much will that cost us? How will be find people for the volunteer Armed Forces? Bush never made a serious effort to answer these questions before the war started. Instead, Cheney provided stupid optimistic responses based on information gleaned from Iraqi expatriates such as Chalabi. This is all the more surprising since Cheney -speaks with forked tongue- knew from Bush 1 that there were some very good reasons for not overthrowing Hussein. | ||
| Peanut Citizen Username: Peanut Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2003 |
What South Mountain Peace Action doesn't seem to understand is that we are at war against radical Islam. Dictatorships in the Middle East have stifled all criticism of their regimes and focused all anger at the West and at Israel. There are only three ways for us to win: 1) Change the culture in the Middle East so that tolerant liberal democracy can find a home, 2) Kill all the radical Islamists, or 3) Some combination of 1 and 2. The war in Iraq was an attempt to change the culture in the Middle East. Right now, the only Arab country with a free press is Iraq. Soon, the only Arab country in the Middle East to hold free elections will be Iraq. Most of the country is already accepting of our occupation. Most of the attacks against our troops are coming from the "Sunni Triangle". We are winning. We are also achieving goal number 2, since our presence in Iraq is drawing every aspiring martyr to Iraq. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p01s03-woiq.html Did you ever see one of those lamps that draw in flies and moths. Our presence in Iraq is one of those lamps. The terrorists are the flies and moths. The flies and moths never win. We will win this war. It will not be quick or easy, but we will win because we cannot afford to lose. Why is this so hard to understand?} | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 44 Registered: 8-2003 |
the reason we didn't march into Baghdad was the infernal consensus that's required when you go through a worthless organization like the UN. We wouldn't have gotten all that wonderful military support from the French and Arab nations if we told them we'd march into Baghdad. If it's only a subset on the war on terror and "every terrorist arrives to attack us" -- that's bringing the enemy to you instead of having to chase them. I think long-term, that will make our job easier. Better that than waiting for terrorists to come to us in the U.S. I seriously doubt it will be the same in two years. As for the cost...the cost of doing nothing is far higher. And it's a whole lot more worthwhile than a drug benefit paid for by people making 60K a year that will pay for the perscription drugs for Bill Gates. Was FDR asked the cost and duration of WW2? |
