The big black spot in Baghdad that can be viewed from Google Earth, that is. It's a lake of sewage. One of the three sewage systems in Baghdad is inactive, a second is being overworked and a third has broken pipes.
As the majority of America knows, we are still in Iraq. And the majority (61%) of Americans are asking for a complete withdrawal. Bush, obviously has no such plans.
Obama, has a 16-month plan to remove combat troops. Combat troops account for only half of the military personnel. This also doesn't consider private contractors such as Blackwater or Halliburton.
Clinton has a similar plan, which calls for some troops leaving within 60 days.
However, both Clinton and Obama are pro-war candidates. Remember that the wedge issue is on Iraq and the debates never extend to war policy.
If you vote for either of them, you are supporting war and the persistence of American troops in Iraq.
Strange that in a majority-rule "democratic republic" we don't have any candidate voicing the opinion of the majority. Remember 61% of Americans want immediate withdrawal.
However, withdrawal is no longer sufficient. We have a responsibility to Iraq, and that is sustained humanitarian aid. We should fund neutral countries' assistance and support U.N. peacekeepers in a rebuilding effort in Iraq.
Ralph Nader proposes such steps, and it agrees with what a majority of Americans want. This is similar to what certain western Europeans countries suggested (our peers).
America, by continuing its unilateral megalomania as the iron fist of corporate welfare is not only ignoring its international peers, but the voice of its own citizens.
How are we justified in our actions? Our presence is no better than the presence of Saddam's regime, and in most situations, far worse. Since we have invaded Iraq, violence is at a staggering daily level, electricity is a luxury, the national health-care system has been largely destroyed, 4.5 million Iraqis have fled or become internally displaced persons, approximately 70% of the population lack access to clean water, 4 million don't know where there next meal is coming from.
Americans, in debt and complacent, oppose the war yet take no action, even when it comes to electing an official that represents their opinion. It is distressing that the two major parties do not offer a candidate that represents the views of the American people, but not surprising. In a free market one-person one-vote is distorted by unequal distribution of wealth. Money has sufficiently replaced voting proper as our voices.
The system no longer works for the majority and, unless we can internally revitalize it (third party voting)...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mike Gravel has been opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, and proclaims to have a viable plan for immediate (120 day) withdrawal. He's never wavered on his position to get us out of Iraq and switch to aggressive diplomacy and foreign aid/reconstruction; however, due to media bias and distortion, he's been "written off" the Democratic ticket, even though he has never publicly thrown in the towel on the race.
Gravel is also the proponent of the National Initiative (which is a doctrine which embodies Nader's "professional citizen" ideology), an Act and Amendment to give Legislative powers -- by adding a new check to the our Checks and Balance system -- to the people. His ideology and Nader's are almost synonymous: direct democracy over representative, involvement and professionalism of the American people, view the Iraq War as imperialistic.
I'm not sure about Nader, but Gravel has consistently roared for impeachment of the current administration and that Bush/Cheney should be tried for various crimes, including crimes against humanity.
Post a Comment