I'm not cherry picking, I am just commenting that this is not a policy issue that can be put into effect. It is nebulous and assumes alot of things that are simply not true. I could rail on all twelve, but I don't feel like doing it unless you want me to go off on it.
It is cherry picking to pick one out of 12 (or more) points of a plan to end the conflict in Iraq. I don't want to debate it, as I haven't read it, and I doubt it would be very enlightening since we have such divergent opinions on the matter.
Not getting into this again because I don't feel like going 18 pages of posts with you again.
I also don't want a rehash. But the point is that the error made in entering into this war is known by the world and by Iraqis. It undermines the United States' credibility.
- Abu Gharib was a horrible abuse of power.
By a few bad soldiers.
Even if that was true (and it has not been established as true by any means, but I'd prefer not to have THAT argument again as well), it is still another part of Iraqi-American relations that have made the Iraqis distrustful of the United States.
I think the Iraqis are a little more discerning since they are asking for Blackwater to be kicked out of the country, not the United States military.
For the past two years, polling data has shown that Iraqis overwhelmingly have wanted ALL foreign troops out. Other data has shown that while the majority of Iraqis think that attacks on civilians by insurgents are wrong, only a minority thinks insurgent attacks on occupying forces are wrong.
Even the Iraqi parliament has had members demanding the withdrawal of foreign occupiers as well (though it never reached the floor for a vote). The Blackwater incidents are considered American-spawned because we hired them. Yes, if Blackwater was kicked out and a new mercenary force was not put in place it might help Iraqi-American relations.
However, the United States has just hired a British Mercanary company to take Blackwater's place. Time will tell if they are more incident free.
(I would love to argue about whether it is in a company's interest to end an occupation when the continuation of that occupation is where they're making their profit, but that is surely another thread.)
The point is that these incidents have added to poor Iraqi/American relations.
- Our own soldiers are guilty of many unwarranted attacks on the Iraqi people, though this is undoubtably part of the “fog of war”.
This is an irresponsible statement that paints every service member as a war criminal. Maybe you might want to refine it?
I think grammatically it is correct, but to avoid another semantic argument, we'll change that to “some of our soldiers”, okay?
Some Soldiers have shot, wounded and/or killed innocent civilians. Some soldiers are currently being investigated for the rape of an Iraqi girl (and they are not all pleading innocent). These are true incidents, and there are many more.
Many milder incidents - soldiers bullying civilians needlessly - have been reported.
This isn't new. This is what the “fog of war” is. There's no way a soldier can know for certain that a civilian isn't an enemy, and with the language and cultural barriers between our soldiers and the Iraqis it is inevitable that there will be incidents.
The point is that this, again, strains Iraqi/American relations.
This would be fine if we were all in kindergarten. Kucinich assumes the worst about the United States and I don't see how anyone wants the leader of the country to think the worst of the country.
If you think American bravado is going to end this occupation, you're wrong. If we do not hand this off to an international coalition of some sort at some point, it will end with us abandoning Iraq, probably later rather than sooner. (Assuming we continue living in a Constitutional Democracy, of course).
The sad part will be that whatever party is in power when that decision is made will be blamed for the withdrawal, and not the party that put us into such an untenable situation in the first place.
Everything I've been talking about illustrates the reason Iraqis do not trust us. You may think that's an unfair conclusion they have come to, but that doesn't make it less true.
Do Kucinch's conclusions necessarily mean that he only sees the “worst in our country?” Well, that's a jingoistic phrasing if I've ever seen one.
I think that it isn't going too far to say that Kucinich thinks Bush's actions have been some of the worst things for our country, and he wants to undo them in a rational manner.
I understand that some may choose to defend the indefensible so that they never have to call those they are loyal to to account for their actions.
Translated: you don't understand it because you don't know what you are talking about.
Response: Actually Kucinich doesn't know what he is talking about and that is why he will never be elected.
No, he'll never be elected for several reasons:
1. He's goofy looking.
2. He's a bit of an attention hog.
3. He doesn't take corporate donations.
4. He has a somewhat odd personal history (though comparable in many ways to Fred Thompson)
5. He speaks poorly and doesn't inspire confidence.
But I do think he knows what he's talking about sometimes. I just don't think America is in any way ready to give away the power he is talking about in trade for peace. And that is what he is suggesting, and in many ways that is very hard for Americans in general to stomach. We must be continue to be the world's superpower, right?
And because of that, I actually am not sure that those in power want peace all that much. And what's worse is that I'm not sure the majority of Americans want peace.