Reply #23: Yeah, I've read HIS website, and I get some info from there, too.

[WitchWay]

Oh, do you mean something like this article?
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

Nah, Kerry's not saying he's against the war -- only that he's against Unilateralism. Well, I'm opposed to the war, even if it means that it is "internationalized" or multi-lateral, as Kerry likes to put it to make it sound more palatable. Again, Kerry is into the "right" way to do the war, not opposed to the war itself.

Also, if we are going to "internationalize" the "work" in Iraq -- how come we NEED so many troops added to our military. Doesn't internationalism mean that we are pulling a bunch of our troops out of there? So, then, why more troops? And what are our "responsibilities elsewhere" that involve the military, might I ask? Frankly he says internationalize and add more troops in the same breath, and it doesn't add up.

I don't know, but when I read what is ACTUALLY being said (behind the nice cadence, vague "nuances" and the fancy words) this sounds like a imperailtic intent backed by the threat of war to ME:

"I believed then and I believe now that Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. To provide responsible leadership, we need to take the third path in foreign policy – a bold, progressive internationalism – backed by undoubted military might – that commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity. If Democrats do not stand for making America safer, stronger, and more secure, we won’t win back the White House – and we won’t deserve to."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

I, frankly don't see how using "undoubted military might" to ensure "prosperity" makes us more secure. It's going to put us more and more in harm's way if we do not end America's imperialist goals and agenda.