Chris Dodd understands that making America more secure starts with ending the Iraq war responsibly. It's made us less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated. Our country's men and women in uniform have performed heroically -- but their political leadership has failed. But to do that, we need clear, bold actions, and leadership that has the experience and judgment to recognize there's only one way to responsibly end this war:
To set a firm and enforceable timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
It may not be an easy thing to say -- but it's the right thing to do. For our troops. For our security and standing in the world.
The Dodd Plan to End the War
Chris Dodd believes the time for giving President Bush blank checks is over and that we should begin safely redeploying U.S. combat troops out of Iraq, beginning immediately and completed within eight to ten months. Iraq must assume the responsibility of policing and governing itself. There isn't an Army big enough or treasury deep enough to accomplish this if Iraqis aren't willing to stand up fight for their own future. Chris Dodd's plan would:
- Begin safely redeploying U.S. combat troops out of Iraq.
- Provide all the funding necessary for a safe redeployment of our troops.
- Complete redeployment within eight to ten months.
In addition, Chris Dodd would insist on three narrowly targeted exceptions -- the protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, specific counterterrorism operations, and assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces.
Chris Dodd understands prolonging this war will not make us more secure -- ending it will.
Beyond Iraq and Into an Era of Bold Engagement
Chris Dodd believes we don't need a surge in troops in Iraq and the Middle East-- we need a surge of diplomacy. That's why as president, Chris Dodd would:
- Engage in direct negotiation with all the countries in the region
- Convene a regional summit
By ending our military's participation in Iraq's civil war, we can begin focusing our attention on fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- boldly engaging friends and foes alike in a robust diplomacy, dedicating more resources and manpower to homeland security and leading the world on energy independence. Hope alone will not wipe away the damage to America's moral authority these last 6 years. Hope alone will not bring our allies back to our side. And hope alone will not restore America's leadership.
But with conviction and clarity, Chris Dodd believes we can bring an end to the war in Iraq and make America more secure. With the right leadership, America can lead again.
Comments
Is Senator Dodd prepared to filibuster any bill that provides President Bush with open-ended funding to continue the Iraq War? I will support any candidate who shows leadership now and gets something done to end this disaster.
If you truly believe that our nation's security depends upon ending this war, then you have no choice but to do the right thing.
Hi,
Please filibuster the Levin-Reed amendment yourself. It's the only way to block it and to make your message clear. Nobody is paying attention to the emails. If you believe that it's a bad bill that must be stopped, then stop it the only way available to you as a Senator. Do something.
I can't promise more than my unflagging support. I think that others will rally around you as well. Take a chance to lead and inspire. If you really think that this bill should not pass, then don't let it pass.
I am fully backing the plan on backing the safe deployment of our Troops
Word son me tooo
you are certinaly correct about bold actions.
I'm all for withdrawing the troops safely, and I especially would like to get my friends off of the front lines, but can we really have Iraqi troops adequately trained by April? We don't want to leave them to be destroyed... that's not why we went in there. I want this war to end, but I don't want it to end as an ugly smear on the history books. The last thing we need is another Vietnam.
Anonymous writes:
"I don't want it to end as an ugly smear on the history books."
Sorry, you're too late to prevent that from happening.
Anonymous continues:
"The last thing we need is another Vietnam."
Again, too late. And please, some common sense. Staying caused Vietnam, not leaving. The disaster of Vietnam was not that we left too early; it was that we went in stupidly and refused to leave out of pride. Same with Iraq.
if we pull out now iraq will be overrun and it will create a new safe haven for those that want to harm our country to plan attacks
Every Democrat knows that the Republicans will block any Democratic legislation with a filibuster or Presidential veto. However, Phyllis Bennis points out that any Senator can put a hold on a bill. If Senator Dodd were to put a hold on new appropriations for the Iraq war, the powers of war and peace would be returned to Congress. Senator Dodd, are you more interested in ending the slaughter in Iraq or becoming President?
I cannot believe that as a president Dodd would set a time frame for withdrawal. I could not disagree more with him on this. Nobody ever talks about the most obvious thing that the insurgents will just lay low until the withdrawal date and come back and we will end up back in Iraq for another 5 years, how will the he deal with this when it happens? Will he turn a blind eye and let Iraq turn into another Afghanistan?
I don't think we should let Iraq think we will continue to do their dirty work, but they need our help!!! I think this is the major fault of all left leaning Democrats. its all about the war, it isn't all about the war!!! If it was Pelosi and Reid would have the war ended months ago like the pledged to do. The American people do NOT want a presidential candidate or member of congress openly suggesting defeat of the US... Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer are crashing and burning because if this. If you want to win the vote, support our troops come up with an effective plan of winning Iraq with time frames for Iraq, but no set withdrawal date and people will take you seriously!!!
Remember if the last elections were truly about Iraq, the Democrat leadership in both the house and senate and the American people would have ended the war, neither has happened.
Anonymous writes:
If you want to win the vote, support our troops come up with an effective plan of winning Iraq with time frames for Iraq, but no set withdrawal date and people will take you seriously!!!
Never take advice from a conservative. The Iraq war was their brilliant idea to begin with. The idea that the public wants our open-ended engagement to remain open-ended is flat-out false, and the notion that a firm withdrawal date would make one unable to "win the vote" is bogus. The most recent national poll showed that 49% of Americans want "large numbers of troops" home WITHIN ONE YEAR, and 23% want them home in 1 or 2 years. Only the dead-end conservatives want to stretch out our commitment into the indefinite future, perhaps so they can avoid the final conclusion that they drove the US into one of the worst catastrophes in its history.
I just want to know how you and all your right wing buddies define "winning" the war.
This is now an occupation and nothing more. Except for perhaps a huge money maker for all the contracted workers in Iraq.
Remember what Colin Powel said, you break it, you bought it. Thanks to President Bush's blunder we've effectively bought Iraq. Pulling troops out now would mean sending them back when the insurgents wait us out, it would mean the brave people who've died so far died in vain, and it would make us even less secure. Like it or not, we're there to stay now. And I say that as a liberal. It's Bush's fault, but saying we're pulling troops out in 120 days is irresponsible, unrealistic and dangerous!
We must right the blunders of this President that the past but that doesn't mean killing another 100,000 people in Iraq. All these wars only stave off the next. Leaving Vietnam didn't leave them in a good place, but look at them now. Do you really believe that if we stayed 10 more years that Iraq would be better off. We have killed so many "Al Queda" leaders in Iraq that we have killed more than anyone has ever estimated exist. The insurgents were estimated at 10,000 in 2003 but we've killed 10 times that. "Al Quesda in Iraq" which is not the Al Queda but a bunch of wannabees represents less 1% of the insurgents. We are in the same position in as we were when we left Vietnam. We would have had to kill millions more than the 2 million we killed to "win" there and we just weren't up for that amount of slaughter anymore, thank goodness. No one believes it will be easy but no war ever brought peace. Even the "good" war WWII led from there to the cold war with our ally and would have probably led to a shooting war if we hadn't been so totally worn out. We need to do something other than kill people to protect our honor. If not, we should bring back the draft, at least then, all you people with the desire for this war to go on forever to prevent those who have died from dying in vain would have a real stake in continuing the war with your children and grandchildren's blood. I be it wouldn't have lasted this long if you were at risk of being called up.
i have a uncle that has been in iraq fro 3 alomst 4 years. it seems like the war is never going to ennd. is there really still point to keep them there. the longer you keep the soliders there the longer there going to be whiped out by random bomings and hostile situations. but when the real war happeneds those soliders wont be there to fight because they will be whipped out form those things. i belive that the troops should come home.
What will be the US military and corporate roles in Iraq once the bulk of the 160,000 active military, and 172,000 US mercenaries leave Iraq? What will Halliburton and Blackwater personnel be up to? How can the US administration, be it Democrat or Republican, do to rebuild the country and the Iraqi government? How many more billions of taxpayer dollars will it take to make life safe for the ordinary, non-fighting people of Iraq? Will our money rebuild the hospitals, emergency response teams, schools, grocery stores, farms, pastures for livestock, and sources of potable water? Is the oil now owned by US corporate interests? Will the Iraqi people benefit from the oil under their countryside or will the money go into the coffers of the US oil companies? What do any of the Democratic candidates for President have to say about all of this?
i agree with dodd on the withdrawl of american troops....irag will never learn to stand on there on two feet unless we show them a little tough love so to speak. i am tired of watching our heros die for a country that doesn't seem to want to save itself. the only thing i disagree with on the withdrawl of troops in irag is the time span in which dodd hopes to acomplish the withdrawl. to be safe and secure in the withdrawl it will take time and effort to safely withdrawl the troops. another reason i think the withdrawl should happen in a longer time frame is do to the insurgents. i think a longer withdrawl time will help to minimize insurgent attacks on irag..lets face it...it will be years before irag is going to be able to survive on its on without assitance from other governments but that does not mean that we have to have every troop in our military regime there to fight for them.
True complete redeployment.
Senator Dodd, you are leading on so many issues, but you aren't on truly getting us out of Iraq.
No residual forces, outside of those necessary for the embassy, should be left.
I support your candidacy pretty strongly, but I would like to see you take the Richardson line and advocate for complete withdrawal.
No more leaving our soldiers in the middle of a civil war.
Iraqi soldiers trained today may very well become well trained sectarian warriors tomorrow.
The war with Iraq is over. The fight against Al-Queda is continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Providing a deadline means that the enemey, which coincidentily is being engaged by the Iraqis, only has to wait until the support from America runs. Chris Dodd and Harry Reid have lost the touch to disagree (respectfully) and forgot that a Politician needs diplomacy and compromise.
...a Politician needs diplomacy and compromise..." is code for dithering about while history rages on around us, while the thugs that have accrued and consolidated power by subterfuge and bold maneuver do as they please. The war was never with Iraq. There is no Iraq. Iraq is a geographical blob on a map, drawn by invaders, not a true unified nation. Who cares if a deadlines comes and goes, the result you want everyone else to fear is already happening. Sectarian groups go about their ethnic cleansing while US soldiers drive around Baghdad waiting to be blown up. This is stupid. The difference that Americans are making in Iraq is to add more weapons, money and anger to the inevitable violence that Saddam Hussein kept in check for years by using brutality against his subjects. The difference Americans make in Iraq is to contribute more American bodies to the carnage. There is no magic solution that will make everyone happy and live in peace. Had we skillfully used all of the resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan that we squandered in Iraq I'm convinced that Osama Bin Laden would have been caught and tried long ago. If you think that the Iraqis are fighting Al Qaeda on our behalf, I wish that you would present some supporting facts. If you think that Chris Dodd and Harry Reid have "lost the touch to disagree" and forgotten anything about the failures of diplomacy and total lack of reason, let alone compromise, that led to this "war", and this corrupt administration, and the international relations disaster caused by our entanglement in Iraq, then I say, respectfully, that you might have "lost the touch" a bit yourself, my friend.
peace,
starlit
This is so true. Until we state and work for complete redeployment, we cannot begin to reclaim any moral authority or trust with the rest of the world.
I admire Senator Dodd and am starting to lean his way. It's important to me that some troops remain in Iraq for the reasons you listed in your plan, so I am very pleased with your position. Thank you for being an outstanding leader Senator Dodd!
It is expected that the total anticipated FY 2008 war supplemental request will approach 200 Billion dollars. That's real money that will contribute to the decline and fall of the U.S. economy.
But here's the scenario that I expect:
* Congress attaches a troop-withdrawal provision to the upcoming spending bill
* Bill is passed.
* President Vetoes Bill.
* Congress caves in; removes troop-withdrawal provision.
* Revised Bill is passed, but Democratic Presidential candidates vote against (how convenient).
* President Signs bill
All this with Democrats in control of the House and with a majority in the Senate.
The big Question is: Can Senator Dodd show the leadership to influence his fellow Democrats and some sensible Republicans to show some courage?
If Senator Dodd is the kind of leader that deserves the Presidency, then I expect to see that leadership Now.
We need to leave Iraq now! There are people named Kevin, and Shunta and Kevin in Iraq and those are my friends! Bring em home! We gotta get em some hot dogs! But leave Sam there, I don't like Sam.
Let's be honest it doesn't matter who wins in 08'. No future president will do anything meaningful in Iraq until it comes time for re-election in 2012. Unfortunately Americans only remember what someone has done lately not 3 years ago. So politically it makes no since to "fix" Iraq until around 2010-11.
There are other things to consider as well. The biggest one is government contracts. If we were to pull out of Iraq quickly we would be terminating a lot of contracts which really is one of the few things keeping our economy afloat. There is a big bubble about to pop and re-deployment from Iraq is all that is needed to set everything in motion.
This issue is much like the High Fuel cost issue. It is an outrage to the American people so hearings are made to appease the public, but Politically it makes no since to fix for either party. For Democrats it gives them a platform to speak on the need to improve other energy sources, and reduce green house gases. For Republicans they are all in bed with big business and oil companies so their pockets are being lined by both.
What this country needs is someone to step up to the plate and do what's right for America even if it's not always in the best interest of their own party.
I am am Active Soldier with 12 years of service who has been deployed. All I can say is this simple statement. The US Military is designed to fight and defeat any enemy it faces in any battle. There is no enemy in the world that can stand against our great nation's fighting men and women. We are not politicians we are not diplomats. All Battles will be won by our Military, however we do not win WARS without diplomacy and the understanding that there is not black and white, right and wrong answers there is only what is in the best interest of our nation.
The current administration makes comments about how the People of Iraq have chosen democracy but the truth is we chose it for them. They are trying to adapt to a system that is alien to them. It is our fault for forcing our views and beliefs on another culture that neither asked for it nor wanted it. And now rather a then a diplomatic solution being found we will just continue to throw more Soldiers and money at the problem hoping it will magically get better.
Last thoughts:
Things I missed in my last 16 month deployment.
1. two anniversaries
2. Christmas
3. Thanksgiving
4. two of my wife's birthdays
5. two of my youngest son's birthday
6. two of my oldest son's birthday
7. my oldest son's first day of school (Kindergarten)
8. both of my boys first t-ball game
I'll stop there you get the idea. Now take that and multiply it by the amount of service members deployed and you tell me if it's worth it. We did volunteer for the military but never before in America's history has so much been asked of so few with little to no relief. Our of the 11 months that we spend back in the States 80% will be spend in training, 20% at home. Most of this training is done overnight and or away from home which means that out of 365 days that we may spend to "rest" only about 100 days will we actually see our wives, our children, and our loved ones. Do you think this is what the recruiter is telling your sons and daughters when they join? I love the military but it's not the military making the decisions, we are simply being asked to do more then we can handle at one time by people that are not effected by their own decisions.
Thank you for reading,
CW2 STAYINGTHECOURSE
Nice piece of campaign rhetoric clearly written by a campaign staffer.
It is easy to back step a statement of 120 Days. It takes that long just redeploy 2 Brigades back home. As soon as Sen Dodd began to receive briefs about the true logistics needed to get the soldiers home he would change his words quickly. All that would happen is a symbolic redeployment and a redefined mission in Iraq until re-election when he would be forced to do more or face losing the re-election.
I am honestly a Republican, however I believe in voting for who I believe is best suited to lead our country. In my opinion neither party has shown a candidate that is "electable". The media tends to spin things a little more then I like. The only person that seems to speak his mind without regard to party lines is Sen Obama, however it seems that at this point it is more for shock factor then and anything else. The easiest way for a candidate to get my vote is to answer yes or no when asked a yes or no question instead of pulling a "Hillary" and talk about everything she can think of without actually giving an answer to the question that was asked.
If you haven't noticed by now I have not taken anyones side I'm just stating MACRO level observations, generalizations that don't necessarily apply to every situation. These are the things that I can't believe are never pointed out by editorials or the main stream media as if they are blind to what is going on.
Thanks for letting me rant some more,
CW2 STAYTHECOURSE
Although I believe you are correct that for the most part, Americans evaluate a President's term on what the President has done in the last year (I am sure statistics could be drudged up), I disagree that four years after this election that Americans will forget whether the next President brought all troops home in the first 120 days in office or if it took three years. Either way, plenty of people will take note regarding when it happens...and if Dodd is elected and doesn't keep his word, it would only hurt him for a second term. Waiting three years would hurt any candidate who promised 120 days, and it does not make sense that a candidate would claim immediate action with the intention of waiting three years. So I don't think your "three years" theory will hold and it makes sense that if Dodd claims three months, that it will in fact be his goal and that it will be a priority once taking office.
dude i feel your pain as a matter of fact and i really dont think that you soldiers deserve to be tossed around back and forth between service and your much needed and missed family life. I apologize for your pain and just wanted to acknowledge you. I am just a regular person in this world, of no importance whatsoever so i dont expect a note back. Good luck to you and may the angels watch over you and your family
Mina
I don't care about this either. You are right about it.
Dear Senator Dodd,
I've read what's written here on your site and have lots more questions. Are you and your staff up to the challenge of the presidency? I'm not usually this frank, but are you merely an establishment candidate? Will you truly take an objective look at the places in our budget where we can save? Can you avoid playing favorites in your home state for the good of the country? I don't know your age...how healthy are you? How well do you take care of yourself? Will you keel over from a heart attack within three years while fighting for healthcare reform?
What shapes your values, and how did you come to hold true what you currently believe regarding abortion, the death penalty, and the rights and freedoms stated in our Constitution? Forgive the rude intimacy of my questions, but you must know by now when you devoted your life to public service that you were giving part of yourself away that you can't ever get back...blissful anonymity.
The embarrassing and ongoing indignities continue as our nation's highest office circumnavigates the rules of law and human dignity and seems to make war at pleasure: Gitmo, approved torture from our pit bull in chief, Abu Ghraib, warrantless wiretaps, Katrina's inexcusable incompetence, trillions and billions more soon to be poured into Iraq's corruption, our world reputation smeared and stomped as we engage in pre-emptive war and attack Iraq under false pretenses, 9/11 goodwill wasted, a military moving dangerously beyond exhaustion...national policy that's made our great nation less safe...that's a lot of pain and mistrust to be undone. I think these are the things our country and her people care about, and they are things that we must make right.
Our next leader, regardless of who that person is, must be a plainspoken and well-mannered dealer in hope to avert the damage done by the uncouth, oily cowboy currently manipulating the country and holding us hostage as he lines his pockets. Let not the sins of our fathers be visited upon us as we navigate the path.
One ounce of action beats a ton of words...hallelujah. Un abrazo a su servicio ahora y en su historia. En espiritu de Armonía, ~M
Of course Dodd is for a complete withdrawal, its a win-win situation for the far left. If the complete withdrawal doesn't result in a new terrorist state and the violence stops then the far left wins. If Iraq does in fact become a new haven for Al-Queda then they'll just blame Bush for invading it in the first place.
The only people who do have something to lose by letting our middle east policy fail is the Republican party. They cannot blame anyone but themselves if it fails. Thats why Bush is "staying the course" despite the very poor results. You may not agree with him or support his actions but at least he wants things to turn out well, unlike the 20% of democrats who actually want us to lose in Iraq.
First let me say that I believe you are probably one of the most qualified candidates for the president and have demonstrated a willingness to look rationally at the issues.
Let me also be clear that I am a life long Democrat and believe we should never have invaded Iraq. Where I disagree with your position is the idea that we should disengage first and negotiate second. I believe that the only way to get an acceptable result in Iraq and the middle east in general involves making it clear that we will stay as long as we need to to see things put right coupled with strong diplomatic efforts with regional players as well as Russia, China and our European allies. The best solution would be a truly multinational force which continued the efforts General Patraeus is making to provide security to the average Iraqi. As a true "bleading heart liberal" with a strong interest in history I strongly believe that having broken Iraq, we must do what is necessary to fix it before leaving, and yes, that might involve helping to clean up a civil war which we helped unleash. The fact that the incompetent team that 'W' sent to Iraq couldn't fix it doesn't mean it can't be fixed.
"assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces." Senator Dodd, which side will you choose? Halliburton's? The Bush family? The Cheney's? Exxon/Mobile? If you want a strong man in Iraq why didn't you say so on 10/11/2002? Did you believe that GWB could be such? Did you have other motives?
I believe you cant just rip people out, it's going top take years, we have bases, and millions of dollars in equipment over there, and cannot just rip it all out, and thrrow away all the money we just wasted over the past 5 years.
Senator Dodd,
Why are you proposing only a regional summit rather than one including United States' allies that could presumably help with the rebuilding of Iraq and pressuring regional states to stay out of Iraqi civil war? Senator Clinton, for example, seems to be in favor of including other powers in a conference.
Amy77 above has it right: we are forcing deomocracy on people who do not understand it nor want it. For a democracy to succeed, it must arise from the people themselves, not be foisted upon them. As for whether getting out of Iraq will mean that the lives and money spent were wasted, will throwing away more of both somehow bring back what we've already lost?
However, as devisive and horrific as the war in Iraq is, it pales in comparison to the crisis we are facing with the global warming issue. I am 57 years old and scared out of my wits about this. Aren't you younger folks worried? We all are going on about our business as usual while our planet is changing in ways and at a speed no human has witnessed before. Humanity had better get its act together, and start working together very soon, or we are all going to be toast. Literally. At least Chris Dodd has a plan.
Global Warming - where to start....Ok well put simply If you look at the long history of the world you will see that the world goes through cycles that is what is happening now, not global warming. The sun runs on a 22 year cycle we are close to the peak of that activity which causes different things to our climate. Global warming is nothing more then an issue used to deter us from real issues. Now this does not mean that pollution is good, we do need to take measure to prevent these, but global warming is not way. The reason why is because for us to survive we need clean water sources and pollution doesn't help with that. Think of it this way, before humans were around the earth maintained itself, there were fires, volcanic activities that took out much more then we probably pollute now. guess what the earth healed because it's called the cycle of life. I say let put pollution measures in place, become a world leader in this, but let's not try to scare everyone with this global warming crap or your just as bad as Bush with the Terrorist talk every time someone doesn't agree with him.
If you want to be scared of something be scared of the strength of the dollar, the fact that Mortgage companies are able to take advantage of people and the fact that Americans aren't smart enough to not let it happen. Be scared that our wonderful Congress passed the new bankruptcy laws in 2001 that made is so banks have no reason to be fare and honest with interest rates. They can charge what they want and Americans will use it because it's all that is out there for them. They will then raise the rates to milk every last penny out of us, and then when you are forced to file bankruptcy you find out that you can only do a Chapter 13, and the creditors of unsecured credit will keep getting paid. We have let this happen and no one says anything about it. Look at you interest rates, why is is that people who can't afford credit to begin with get it at but at 22%-36%, BANKS KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!!! But the banks give it to them because they will make money off of them in the short term, and the bankruptcy law ensures that at worse they will get their money back.
Be scared about the fact that our tax code is bad that we have to pass laws every year to keep old taxes from coming back rather then fix the tax code all together. Be scared that we allow one single person so much power, and that we are stuck with a 2 party system that are more like each other then ever before.
Please understand that these are my personal views and beliefs, I may be wrong about Global Warming, but I believe that our country will seize to exist before global warming will ever be a true factor. By the way the debates tonight were a joke, more of the same bull. Sen Dodd got some good ones in though good for him!
Cheers,
CW2 STAYINGTHECOURSE
do you really feel as if removing the troops so soon from iraq is realistic?
It can be done, but it would require accepting that we can not dictate the way the world is by the barrel of a gun. meaning that democracy is not something to be thrust upon a people, they must struggle without outside influence and choose it for themselves. This is the only way that democracy can succeed. If you do not believe this show me in history where we have ever been successful forcing democracy on another population. In WWII it was not us that created democracy in Japan, or Germany but rather the war itself and it is what the people found to be best after years of horrible war.
Cheers,
CW2 STAYINGTHECOURSE
Yeah, looks like you have plans to get us OUT, but what about plans for helping create some order for the Iraqi people after all the devastation we've helped inflict upon them? Joe Biden has the best plan for getting Iraq into a state of order by creating three seperate states under a weak central government, and then getting us out of there as soon as possible. It seems really messed up for us to go in there, overthrow their dictator, and leave their country in a state chaos. Joe Biden can get us out of their quickly and safely while doing what's best for the Iraqi people.
My only argument to the person above is just because you split the country up in three separate states doesn't mean it will fix the problem. I believe that for us to be removed we need to force the surrounding countries (including Syria and Iran) to police their neighboring country. So when you split it up you assign the northeast to Iran the south to Saudi Arabia, and northwest to Syria. Allow them to aid in the training and security of the country. We would base our sanctions for countries like Iran on their performance in perusing peace in the unstable region. Other monetary methods will also be incorporated in the package. In essence what you are doing is removing their argument that we are imperialist and are only after Iraq for the oil. That would allow us to discuss the other issues that are at the root of many of the mideast problems. Bottom-line is though as long as America keeps their ties with Israel there will always be a threat in that region which has the potential to come to our country. I believe in Israel's right to exist, and our obligation to ensure it keeps it's sovereignty but with that we have to accept the fact that we will never have full support in the Mid-East region.
Regards,
CW2 STAYINGTHECOURSE
Hello all,
This is my first time writing on one of these political discussion boards and find the context very interesting, here is just my thoughts that will respond to some of the above statements and see what your thoughts are:
Armyb77 stated earlier above (not the one directly above) that US Service members are only there to fight and win our nations wars and are not diplomats. Technically correct, but the operational and tactical environment has change in both Afghanistan and Iraq. An individual service member can make all the difference in the world in regards to winning the hearts and minds of the population.
I will use this example, if you as a child grow up and hear from family and friends that all “people of color” are bad then you will adopt that point of view until proven other wise. By seeing and interacting with “people of color” in your work place, early adult hood, you find co-worker X doesn’t really fit what has been told to you over the years and when you go out to eat your waiter/waitress is very polite …a conflict will occur in what you have been told and what you see and experience. Applying this logic you can see that whether you want to accept it our not we as American Service members are seen as representation/diplomats of American Values and beliefs from each man woman and child of the host country.
As for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, you have to accept the secondary and third order effects from that withdrawal. I truly don’t believe the people of America really understand the complexity of the issue. IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE or a simple one. Whether you agree with or don’t agree with the “why” we went is not relevant now. The path has already been sent and you can not go back in time and change things, but can you right it? I believe you can. It starts with security at the local/village level and TRUST in a district, provincial, and national government that they will meet the demands of their people and fulfill their social needs (see Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs as a guide). This topic could be a book and I will leave it as a point of discussion.
Finally, no matter how long we stay, I believe Iraq will go through its own type of civil war as we did. It is hard to say but sometimes it is best to let two or three sides fight it out amongst themselves to finally find common ground. The question is though can we afford to wait for them to find common ground? I don’t know. Thank you for your time.
Undecided Voter
"Iraq must assume the responsibility of policing and governing itself. There isn't an Army big enough or treasury deep enough to accomplish this if Iraqis aren't willing to stand up fight for their own future"
I agree. But IMO, If we withdraw our troops, it should be done incrementally (city by city), as we train and replace Iraqis to take our place as a police force. The "war" in Iraq ended just a couple months after it started - we are no longer fighting a war, so much as providing our military to a foreign country to act as their police force. I remember President Bush saying something along the lines of " We did what we came to do, and now the new Iraqi Government is in power, and the Iraqi's are beginning to police some areas of their own country so now we are only staying as invited guests, as long as the new government wants us there". If we stick by that, we aren't going anywhere - after all, why would a government want us to leave when we provide additional security for them at our own expense?
Systematically training and if necessary, equipping the new Iraqi military and police force one city/town at a time over a more realistic timespan of 2-3 years to take our place seems like a much more responsible method. 8-10 months seems more like a "vote for me" statement rather than a realistic, achievable goal.
Patricia, about the global warming....Taking a scientific perspective, I'm not too worried, because we don't know for certain that us humans are actually causing climate change. I liked Al Gore's "the inconvenient truth" (although I have a problem with his lack of sources), and he did make a great case about carbon being related to temperature change. Assuming the worst to a reasonable extent, means that we have a very long time (1000+years if i'm remembering correctly) before a corresponding temperature change occurs (according to the time line on his graph). The earth historically goes through cyclical periods of climate change, which means both hotter summers and colder winters, so really it's an uncertain issue at best. I am worried about the environment, but from a health standpoint rather than from a "global warming" perspective. I think it's much better to focus on the broader issue of restoring our environment rather than only slowing/stopping global warming.
Well, after getting myself caught up on this one, I'm off to read all the other presidential candidates standpoints.
HI!
I am tired of wimpy Democrats. Many thanks to Chris Dodd for standing up to the Republicans on Iraq and telecom immunity. Many of the rest of the Democrats seem to be complicit in the Bush shenanigans. I will not ever vote for any legislator that votes again to fund the Iraq war. I will not ever vote for any legislator that votes again to trade our constitutional rights for the illusion of security. I'm voting for Chris Dodd.
Hey there,
I'm an 11 year old in 6th grade. At my school we are doing a Mock Pesidential election. I am representing Chris Dodd. I've gotten really into it. I need to know all about all of his issues. I pretty much need to be him. I am especially interseted in his reaction and response to the death of Bhutto. I do hope i get a reply soon.
If I could vote, I'd vote Dodd.
Best of Luck,
A Big Dodd Fan
I'm sorry, because I would love to believe that we could begin to draw troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. But I don't. I think it's a ploy for votes, and if elected, you'd then say, "Well, we can't quite do it by then, but look at what we are doing." We're tired of subterfuge and empty words. I long for a candidate who would say HOW something can be done, not just state that something will be done, knowing that Congress will make sure that it doesn't happen.
I think canada is going to invade if we leave iraq! like look at there cheese sandwhich factorys! they could mass produce enough sandwiches To feed a canadian army for years! and there all up in our faces with the border like they could just walk across and what coul,d we do?????? tell them to stop!! YOU BET! PAY YOUR TAXES, FIGHT THE CANADIANS!
derek schrieber is gay
the man called john lennon the third is defenity needs some to go where crazy people go