There is a presidential candidate who agrees with you 100 percent on how to end the US occupation of Iraq:
<blockquote>Nader put forward a three-step process for removal of US troops.
1. Development of an appropriate international peace-keeping force: Under the auspices of the United Nations an international peace keeping force, from neutral nations with such experience and from Islamic countries, should be assembled immediately to replace all US troops and civilian military contractors doing many jobs the Army used to do more efficiently. "Former General Wesley Clark described the Bush administration's foreign policy as 'cowboy unilateralism that goes against everything the United States is supposed to represent to the world,' noted Nader. "It is time for the US to return to the family of nations. The US will have to underwrite a significant portion of this less expensive short-term peacekeeping force since it was George W. Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has led to this quagmire."
2. Support Iraqi self rule and free and fair elections: Free and fair elections should be held as soon as possible under international supervision so democratic self-rule can be put in place in Iraq. This will allow Iraq to develop legitimate self-government that will be able to provide for its own security. Nader recognized: "It is a challenge to bring democracy to Iraq, a country controlled by a brutal dictator, devastated by economic sanctions and torn apart by war. The complicated culture of Iraq, the split between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds makes consensus on a new government a challenge. A suitable framework of unity with allowance for reasonable autonomy would be a proper balance. But Iraq should be able to sort out these issues more easily without the military presence of a US occupying force and the projected 14 US military bases that Iraqis see as installing a puppet government fronting for an indefinite military and oil industry occupation."
3. The US should provide humanitarian aid to Iraq to rebuild its infrastructure: The US invasion of Iraq and the long-term US-led economic sanctions against Iraqi civilians resulted in tremendous damage to people, their children and the Iraqi infrastructure. The US has a history of supporting Saddam Hussein. "Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the Middle East. Washington also supported him to keep Iran at bay with his army. In so doing, during the 1980s under Reagan and the first George Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush later accused him of having," said Nader. "Therefore, the US has a responsibility to the Iraqi people so Iraq can become a functioning nation again. However, we should not allow US oil and other corporations to profit from the illegal invasion and occupation of their country." Control over Iraqi oil and other assets should be exercised by Iraqis.
<http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=55></blockquote>
Your vote for Ralph Nader in a safe state of New York allows you to express your support for a position regarded as unpractical by both much of the US power elite and those whom you label "the more righteous corners of this list" -- with no risk of swinging the state to George W. Bush, I might add.
>I said this because it's what I thought that Iraqis thought at the
>time, based on polling and on what journalists who'd talked to
>actual Iraqis were reporting.
Are polls of Iraqi opinions about the US occupation in war-torn Iraq sounder than polls of American opinions about the presidential election in the pretty safe United States or should we regard the former with more skepticism than we do the latter?
>[lbo-talk] Why not Nader?
>James Heartfield Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
>Mon Oct 4 08:55:46 PDT 2004
<snip>
>The WEEK
>ending 3 October 2004
>
>WHY NOT NADER?
>
>America's left is in a froth over the candidacy of Ralph Nader, the
>veteran anti-corporate activist, who threatens to cost Democrat John
>Kerry the election. The vitriol of the anti-Nader campaign is all
>the more curious since many of those now urging him to stand down
>are his supporters from the 2000 elections.
>
>More strikingly, Nader is the only candidate who supports the left's
>goal of withdrawing from Iraq. While super-patriot John Kerry has
>only committed himself to getting European support for the policing
>action in Iraq, Nader consistently opposed the war.
>
>The scorn Nader's candidacy is all about arithmetic and nothing to
>do with principle. It is widely thought that Nader cost Al Gore the
>election in 2000, and helped George Bush to the White House. Bush,
>say American radicals, is the greater evil, against which you have
>to support the lesser evil, Kerry. Nader says that Kerry is just as
>bad as Bush - a point that it is hard to gainsay, especially on the
>core issues of the election. Kerry loses more votes for Kerry than
>Nader does, says Nader.
>
>The radical Kerry supporters point out that much of Nader's platform
>- like keeping American jobs for American workers echoes key parts
>of the right-wing platform of Pat Buchanan. And they say that
>Republicans are surreptitiously supporting Nader.
>
>Nader's platform is the reason not to vote for Nader. It is
>backward-looking and hostile to economic progress. It is inwardly
>nationalistic and insular. Even the opposition to the war comes as
>an expression of a desire to withdraw from international connections
>and draw down the shutters.
>
>But Nader's platform was just as bad in 2000 as it is in 2004. The
>difference for the radical Kerry supporters is that in 2000 they
>learned that there is no such thing as a protest vote. They think
>that in supporting Kerry they are using their votes to make a
>difference. But they are not. They are giving up their independent
>influence on events to turn themselves into Kerry's cheerleaders.
>
>Better to abstain at the ballot box than to endorse any of the three
>choices before the American people. Voting for someone you do not
>support is the real abstention.
If you were an American and wanted to vote for a presidential candidate whose status is antithetical to nationalism, you could vote for Roger Calero, who is not a US citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible but is still defiantly running for president. :->
<blockquote>PRESIDENCY 2004: Martin Koppel ROGER CALERO of New York Socialist Workers Party Presidential Nominee
Note: James Harris is the SWP surrogate nominee for President in any states that will not accept Calero as a qualified candidate because he is a not constitutionally eligible.
ROGER CALERO BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS: POLITICAL: Communist political organizer. PROFESSIONAL: Associate Editor, Perspectiva Mundial (official Spanish language newspaper of the SWP) and Staff Writer, The Militant (official English language newspaper of the SWP). Former meat packer. EDUCATION: Not known. PERSONAL: Born in 1969 in Nicaragua. Moved to the US in 1985. Permanent Resident Alien (Green Card) of the US since 1990. Convicted Felon (Sale of Marijuana), 1988.
Arrin Hawkins ARRIN HAWKINS of New York Socialist Workers Party Provisional Vice Presidential Nominee
Note: Margaret Trowe is the SWP surrogate nominee for Vice President in any states that will not accept Hawkins as a qualified candidate because she is a not constitutionally eligible.
Like her foreign-born Presidential running mate, Arrin Hawkins is also constitutionally ineligible to be elected -- but for a different reason. Hawkins -- claiming to be only 24 years old in 2004 -- is far too young to meet the minimum legal age requirements of the office. Hawkins is the leader of Young Socialists, the communist youth wing of the SWP. She was also Koppel's 2002 running mate for NY Lieutenant Governor. Other info: Hawkins earned her B.A. degree from the University of Minnesota, spent a year in Senegal studying the role of women in African culture for her senior year college project, and previously worked as a SWP political organizer in Chicago during the 2000 campaign. An interesting aside: Politics1 received several emails from people who claim they knew Hawkins, in which they each wrote that she is actually several years older than the age she claims (allegedly somewhere in the 28-30 age range). However, inquiries on this issue to the SWP have gone unanswered. While Hawkins may be older than 24, it appears that -- whatever her real age -- she still is under the legal age requirement. Calero briefly became a communist cause celebre in 2002-03 when the INS arrested Calero and started deportation proceedings based on a felony marijuana conviction from 1988 when Calero was in high school. A federal judge killed the deportation attempts six months later.
<http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm></blockquote> -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>