Elements of the Kucinich Plan

[IronCobra]

Kucinich:

I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die.

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.

Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n

12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

[jbrady]

You would think that there would be SOME positives in any remotely competent persons plan... I cannot find such in this. The entire plan is pure politics with no understanding of issues or caring of outcome.

Here, in order are just a few out-takes...

"The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General"

"The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference"

"Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation"

So, in order, this magical solution coming from the UN is dependent of a conference that cannot take place before the end of US occupation but MUST replace that occupation with UN "peace keepers" that somehow will get there before the conference???

[IronCobra]

Eactly! This makes no sense at all unless you are simply trying to make a political statement to those that "Want us out"

[bitkahuna]

Fortunately, few take Kookcinic seriously.

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by jbrady

You would think that there would be SOME positives in any remotely competent persons plan... I cannot find such in this. The entire plan is pure politics with no understanding of issues or caring of outcome.

Here, in order are just a few out-takes...

"The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General"

"The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference"

"Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation"

So, in order, this magical solution coming from the UN is dependent of a conference that cannot take place before the end of US occupation but MUST replace that occupation with UN "peace keepers" that somehow will get there before the conference???

The sad REALITY, jbrady, is what you ignore... That we would never have needed a plan from Kucinich were we not to have gone to war with ZERO post-war plans. Personally, I find it amusing that the righties want the Dems to come up with a plan to extricate us from Iraq. Excuse me, but didn't some of us sound the alarm bells of the foolishness of that policy ? Now that we have been borne out to be correct, now its our turn to offer a plan to get us out ? Last I checked, Dennis Kucinich voted against going to war.... So why bash him for offering his brand of solutions for ending the war ? I didn't see you or anyone here criticize the President for having no plan for post-war Iraq, and botching the entire invasion and occupation, that has led to where we are today.

Can you at least admit the foolishness of going in to Iraq, the sheer and utter lack of plan on how to deal with the aftermath, and 4 years into the war, it is worse off today than it was 4 years ago ? Someone needs to be held accountable for taking us to war without plans... Is that something that bothers you or not ?

[jbrady]

Originally Posted by bluestar

The sad REALITY, jbrady, is what you ignore... That we would never have needed a plan from Kucinich were we not to have gone to war with ZERO post-war plans. Personally, I find it amusing that the righties want the Dems to come up with a plan to extricate us from Iraq. Excuse me, but didn't some of us sound the alarm bells of the foolishness of that policy ? Now that we have been borne out to be correct, now its our turn to offer a plan to get us out ? Last I checked, Dennis Kucinich voted against going to war.... So why bash him for offering his brand of solutions for ending the war ? I didn't see you or anyone here criticize the President for having no plan for post-war Iraq, and botching the entire invasion and occupation, that has led to where we are today.

Your attack of me is both unfounded and comes off as angry and prejudice. Are you labelling me a rightie? If so suggesting that I expect the dems to come up with a plan is not based on any of my posting. If they do offer a positive plan that will improve any part of any situation GREAT... until that time when I see politics trump patriotism I will call it as I see it... including when reps sign on to the same.

Originally Posted by bluestar

Can you at least admit the foolishness of going in to Iraq, the sheer and utter lack of plan on how to deal with the aftermath, and 4 years into the war, it is worse off today than it was 4 years ago ? Someone needs to be held accountable for taking us to war without plans... Is that something that bothers you or not ?

If it was my choice we would NEVER fight any war because, again IF it was my choice there would never be a need! Unfortunately Utopia is only a concept and in the real world sometimes... too many times... we must choose between bad and worse. Your point, tirelessly presented, is that we entered Iraq completely without any plan or understanding. Sorry but to me that comes right out of the democrat playbook and as such does not offer constructive ideas. If we really want to accomplish something positive we should try our best to understand each others true position without character attack. I feel that I have offered my honest constructive opinion when ever possible and have tried not to attack the character of anyone here. Hopefully, I can get similar respect from those that may not agree with my positions.

[bluestar]

As I'm sure you are well aware, this is a debate forum about ideas and opinions. I am debating your post that Kucinich offered nothing positive in his plan. In response, I said you are ignoring how and why we even needed a plan in the first place. My comments about your post are therefore in direct proportionality to your comments about Kucinich.

This guy was against this war from the beginning, he even voted AGAINST it. He would never need to offer a plan if Bush hadn't gone to Iraq with ZERO post-war plan, or a failed plan (at best). Maybe you don't want to deal with that fact ! I am sorry, but fact is fact. Without a war gone awfully bad, there would not be a need for plans to extricate us. We need to ask the tough question from those who took us to war without a plan. That is the right question, not dumping on those who didn't cause the war but are offering their own plan on getting us out. I daresay, we are focusing on the WRONG premise.

[IronCobra]

Originally Posted by bluestar

As I'm sure you are well aware, this is a debate forum about ideas and opinions. I am debating your post that Kucinich offered nothing positive in his plan. In response, I said you are ignoring how and why we even needed a plan in the first place. My comments about your post are therefore in direct proportionality to your comments about Kucinich..

Debating is arguing a point and not attacking your opponent’s character. In this sense is he correct.

Originally Posted by bluestar

This guy was against this war from the beginning, he even voted AGAINST it. He would never need to offer a plan if Bush hadn't gone to Iraq with ZERO post-war plan, or a failed plan (at best). Maybe you don't want to deal with that fact ! I am sorry, but fact is fact. Without a war gone awfully bad, there would not be a need for plans to extricate us. We need to ask the tough question from those who took us to war without a plan. That is the right question, not dumping on those who didn't cause the war but are offering their own plan on getting us out. I daresay, we are focusing on the WRONG premise.

You are correct when saying that he was against the war from the beginning. But if he wants to be President, as he does, then he will have to have some type of a plan for Iraq.

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by IronCobra

Debating is arguing a point and not attacking your opponent’s character. In this sense is he correct.

You guys are really unbelievable ! How exactly did I "attack ... his character" ??? Can you or even jbrady point out my attack on him personally ? Methinks you guys just want to cloud the debate by bringing up the so-called "personal attack". Its nothing more than a smokescreen. Why not debate the issues, eh ?

Originally Posted by IronCobra

You are correct when saying that he was against the war from the beginning. But if he wants to be President, as he does, then he will have to have some type of a plan for Iraq.

Let us do the numbers, shall we ? There are 6 declared GOP candidates for president. Of these GOP candidates, which one has offered a plan for extricating us out of Iraq ? Let me go even further.... Of the 252 Republicans in Congress, can you name ONE who has offered a plan for extricating us out of Iraq ? Just name ONE and show us the plan he/she has offered, if you can....

Of the Dems running for President, Biden, Obama, Kucinich, have all offered a plan. Others like Sen Kerry, Rep Woolsey and Rep John Kurtha have also offered plans on extricating us from Iraq. Even non-Congressional Dems out of public office such as Ambassador Galbraith and Senator McGovern, have offered plans to extricate us from Iraq.....

Of the entire Republicans in this country, at any level of government (local, state or federal), and even out of public office, can you name ONE that has offered a single plan for extricating us from Iraq ?

The only plan from the GOP is that from Pres Bush. Which would mean every single Republican is in lock-step with this plan, since they have offered NONE in dissent. It would appear that the GOP is incapable of offering any alternatives that goes against their leadership... in other words, they are acting like the Science Fiction "Borgs"... all tied to a central control without individuality. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to be proven wrong here. Being tied to a single plan from Bush has cost the GOP control of State Houses of Assemblies, Governorship, Congress, and support from the American public... Is it not about time the GOP offer alternatives to Bush's plan, if they have any ???

So while you may throw stones at the Dems plans, we'd like to see what your side offers... assuming your side has any plans whatsoever.....

[bluestar]

tick tock tick..... the bell tolls..... and the silence is deafening. If any of you supporters or members of the Republican Party (including self-styled Libertarians) cannot produce a plan that is an alternative from the Pres, you will have ZERO credibility the next time you ask for, condemn or thrash any plan offered by others.

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by bluestar

He would never need to offer a plan if Bush hadn't gone to Iraq with ZERO post-war plan, or a failed plan (at best). Maybe you don't want to deal with that fact ! I am sorry, but fact is fact. Without a war gone awfully bad, there would not be a need for plans to extricate us. We need to ask the tough question from those who took us to war without a plan. That is the right question, not dumping on those who didn't cause the war but are offering their own plan on getting us out. I daresay, we are focusing on the WRONG premise.

Let me try an analogy. When you're being shot at, you don't analyze how you ended up being shot at. You decide how you're going to save your ass (which might include shooting back, not just running away) AND later how to make sure it doesn't happen again, options should include preemptively taking out your enemy.

You want this witch hunt against the Bush administration WHILE WE'RE AT WAR. I suggest that is an incredibly irresponsible position and a good way to get people killed while their leaders are distracted in hearings designed to show off new hair plugs and for people running in '08 to look good.

Kucinich just wants to run away and put his head in the sand. His talk of using less troops but a UN peacekeaping force (funded by the US) with a big chunk coming from Moslem nations - yeah right. Good luck pulling that together. That may be consistent with him having voted against it in the first place but it's naive AND irresponsible as it doesn't look at the facts NOW.

Hillary's slowly dragging herself left to respond to Obama and others - today or this week she said we need to be out by Jan '09 and if she's elected and it's not already done, she'll do it. Well isn't that nice. "Vote for me and I'll whip 'em out right away." How insanely pandering and irresponsible is that? But keep it up Hillary. I know you're not a fan of hers, but she's the front runner for your party and has warehouses full of money.

The U.S. needs (and I expect it's doing this) to seriously change its rules of engagement and be utterly unambiguous about what happens if it goes into an area and anyone so much as shows up with a weapon let alone fires it, they're gone. No more protecting Mosques, school, etc. either. Shots coming from them? Flatten them and everything inside. Same thing with borders to Iran and Syria - close them. Anything crosses, blow it up. No more weapons and insurgents going back and forth.

You probably didn't watch the special on FoxNews last night, but it showed the indoctrination of children to become suicide bombers. Nice. It showed cartoons that run in the Middle East showing 'heroes' blowing up themselves as they jump on military vehicles. It showed how martyrdom is a 'guarantee' to get into heaven according to their views so young men decide they can cause some harm to infidels and get into heaven guaranteed - what a deal.

How that part of the world has ever accomplished anything is amazing with so much irrational thought and hatred. Oh wait, they haven't really accomplished anything except pumping oil out of the ground. Without that they'd be living the same way as thousands of years ago.

They're blowing the chance the U.S. has given them to change that. But making the U.S. 'kinder and gentler' as Kucinich and others want will make things worse, not better.

[IronCobra]

Originally Posted by bluestar

tick tock tick..... the bell tolls..... and the silence is deafening. If any of you supporters or members of the Republican Party (including self-styled Libertarians) cannot produce a plan that is an alternative from the Pres, you will have ZERO credibility the next time you ask for, condemn or thrash any plan offered by others.

wow, you actually typed this. You know, it's a Saturday night and some people have better things to do than sit and wait for all your responses. The UFC fights were awesome.

Back on topic though. I agree that BOTH the GOP and the DEMS need to have a plan. Anyone who is going to run for president and get my vote better have a plan for the future of Iraq.

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Let me try an analogy. When you're being shot at, you don't analyze how you ended up being shot at. You decide how you're going to save your ass (which might include shooting back, not just running away) AND later how to make sure it doesn't happen again, options should include preemptively taking out your enemy.

Thankfully this is an analogy. Let's try actual facts for example. Fact is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or WMD. Fact is that we were misled to war. Fact is that there was no plan for post-war Iraq. Fact is that we are bogged down in Iraq. And the reality is that there are no good options to solve the Iraqi problem. See, I am not discussing analogies... I am discussing facts.

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

You want this witch hunt against the Bush administration WHILE WE'RE AT WAR. I suggest that is an incredibly irresponsible position and a good way to get people killed while their leaders are distracted in hearings designed to show off new hair plugs and for people running in '08 to look good.

I want our democracy to survive. I want leaders held accountable for their actions. If the Bush govt have committed any crime in pursuing their policies then they need to be investigated and if proven, then the course of our laws must be followed. Nobody is above the law... Nobody. Do you know what our founding fathers put in Article 1 of the US Constitution ? Its not the President or his powers, but that of the representative of the American people - Congress. That should tell you something. And this red herring of distracting leaders in time of war is just bogus. Its one flown by righties to deflect the truth of what many believe are illegal and impeachable offenses committed by this President. There are no greater crimes than to mislead a nation into a war, and to cause the death, infirment and destruction of lives, limbs and treasury on false grounds. Maybe that is not important to you that our democracy, that which our forces are defending globally, is worth protecting right here at home !!!

Besides, didn't the GOP impeach Clinton while he was in office ? You think the many years of investigations of the Clinton WH distracted him from carrying out the duties of the office he swore to uphold ? All US Presidents put raise their right hand and swear to uphold and defend the US Constitution. If any President breaks that oath of office he needs to be removed from office. That simple, or is that difficult for anyone to accept ?

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Kucinich just wants to run away and put his head in the sand. His talk of using less troops but a UN peacekeaping force (funded by the US) with a big chunk coming from Moslem nations - yeah right. Good luck pulling that together. That may be consistent with him having voted against it in the first place but it's naive AND irresponsible as it doesn't look at the facts NOW.

Why don't you go back to the beginning of this thread and read through Kucinich's plan. He has many points, but of course you pick one that tickles your fancy. It is the totality of his plans you need to discuss, not pick one out of 12 and hold it up like it fully represents the plan.

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Hillary's slowly dragging herself left to respond to Obama and others - today or this week she said we need to be out by Jan '09 and if she's elected and it's not already done, she'll do it. Well isn't that nice. "Vote for me and I'll whip 'em out right away." How insanely pandering and irresponsible is that? But keep it up Hillary. I know you're not a fan of hers, but she's the front runner for your party and has warehouses full of money.

Yes, I am no Hillary fan... but she is responding to the true aspirations of her party. IF she fails to do this, she has no chance of surviving to be nominated. Afterall, she needs her party nomination before she can stand for election to the Presidency.

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

The U.S. needs (and I expect it's doing this) to seriously change its rules of engagement and be utterly unambiguous about what happens if it goes into an area and anyone so much as shows up with a weapon let alone fires it, they're gone. No more protecting Mosques, school, etc. either. Shots coming from them? Flatten them and everything inside. Same thing with borders to Iran and Syria - close them. Anything crosses, blow it up. No more weapons and insurgents going back and forth.

This is so ridiculous, its not even funny. Obviously, its easy for you to say thousands of miles away from the frontlines. Do you know that Iraq is a country just like ours here ? Are you essentially calling for genocide of the Iraqi population ? And what would be left for our forces to defend or protect if we decimate a society as you advocate here ? Methinks you watch too much Faux News propaganda and are indoctrinated by the many falsehoods they propagandize on that network. Please go out and smell the roses once in a while, will ya ?

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

You probably didn't watch the special on FoxNews last night, but it showed the indoctrination of children to become suicide bombers. Nice. It showed cartoons that run in the Middle East showing 'heroes' blowing up themselves as they jump on military vehicles. It showed how martyrdom is a 'guarantee' to get into heaven according to their views so young men decide they can cause some harm to infidels and get into heaven guaranteed - what a deal.

ooopss, spoke too soon.... Faux News is your source of news ? This is a network of false-beliefs and propaganda. That "24" show reflects the false realities they create. Only the very misled will count Faux News as providing anything but propaganda and punditry-based journalism. This is the network that starts its day with distributed "talking points" ? Is that journalism ???

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

How that part of the world has ever accomplished anything is amazing with so much irrational thought and hatred. Oh wait, they haven't really accomplished anything except pumping oil out of the ground. Without that they'd be living the same way as thousands of years ago.

Obviously you need a history lesson on the Middle East.

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

They're blowing the chance the U.S. has given them to change that. But making the U.S. 'kinder and gentler' as Kucinich and others want will make things worse, not better.

A "kinder and gentler" US won't be such a bad idea afterall. Leaders lead not by the muzzle of the gun but by our ideas, our freedom and our strength. If your idea of America is imperialism and military adventurism, I suggest a history lesson of now-past Empires. America will go the same route as long as there are people with such mindsets... Thankfully, the greater majority of this country are NOT in that mindset.