Kerry calling for more "security", troops for Iraq? Doesn't he get it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Just read on AP:

"Kerry said it is critical that the president get support from allies, "not resolutions, not words, but real support of sufficient personnel, troops and money to assist in the training of security forces."


"We must have security on the ground in order to be able to proceed forward with the reconstruction and the political transformation," Kerry told reporters. "It is vital to do the hard work and statesmanship and diplomacy necessary to get that."


Kerry said "it is absolutely stunning" that of the $18 billion that Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction, only $400 million has been spent on security."

I don't know how to do links so you'll just have to cut&paste:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20040628/ap_on_el_pr/kerry

"...only $400 million has been spent on security." Only? What does he want? The full 18 billion for more troops and prison guards?

Why the hell is he still backing the war? We might as well have nominated Holy Joe.

My nose holding capabilities are really being strained and Cobb is looking better all the time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. He does actually

what is sad is that many here don't

Bush broke Iraq, One option with that is a failed state, which ... will become another Afghanistan. (THINK and try to connect this dot)

Another view is we all invest in making this work, not for Halliburton, not for us, but in order to prevent this failed state.

Now you get it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Uh-huh. So we send more troops to "fix" it?

Brilliant. All we have to do is kill a lot more Iraqis and blow up more things.

Just like we "fixed" Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and now Afghanistan.

Oh, yeah, now I get it.

[apnu]

5. Do you honestly think Kerry, of all people, will allow Iraq to decend to..

... that level? I don't think so, but I admit its quite a mess with no simple binary solution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Beats me. So far, he still hasn't said anything about getting out.

Instead, he's calling for more troops, spending more money for "security" and trying to involve more nations to involve themselves in the briar patch.

Since when do "troops" rebuild anything?

[IrateCitizen]

9. Actually, he has said something about getting out

He didn't offer a specific timetable, because he said he didn't want to be held to a statement assessing a constantly changing situation. But he did make statements that directly addressed the idea of getting troops out of Iraq.

Of course, I for one am still looking at all of this with a cynical eye....

[Blue Wally]

53. The Marines...........

did a pretty good job in haiti in the first third of the 20th century. What rural infrastructure they have in terms of roads, phone lines, and electricity are courtesy of the USMC. After the "blancos" left, everything quickly went to hell in a hand basket.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. No, it is not only troops

NATO gets it, I get it, and troops are not the answer, just
part of the answer... and the reality is that those troops should
chiefly be from the Arab World, not NATO, and NOT the US.

Big mistake we made (well the bushies were in charge) was to
ignore Afghanistan, and I mean the Western World

Everybody gets it, if we do not make sure that this somehow works,
the blowback will make 9.11 look like a walk in the park

Thankfully, if you can see this, NATO also gets it that they cannot
play ball, as it were, until AFTER BUSH is voted out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Arab troops? From where?

Turkey? Syria? Lebanon? Saudi? Yemen?

I don't think the Iraqis would be too thrilled to have any of the above.

Of course, we could give the Iraqis a chance at running their own country. Who knows? They might be able to figure out what kind of government they want without our "help".

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. The same place we got them for the '91 war

and for the same lenght, which was extremely short term.

This also means bringing in UN Police OFficers to train the cops. (Not CACI OR TITAN)

This also means bringing in the UNHCR to help handle things such as reconstruction... not Halliburton

This also means bringing the World Health Organization to rebuild the health system, not Halliburton and Carlyle

But you don't get it, that is what Kerry is talking about when he talks ALLIES helping to make the country a viable country.

As to letting them do it themselves, how do you bloody think these international bodies work? I take it YOU HAVE NEVER worked with any of them, have you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. FINE!! Then get Kerry to say just that!

As for the Arab countries participating, how is he going to get them to do it? Let him explain that.

Nope. I haven't worked for any of the organizations you listed. Other than to send them $$$ regularly. But, I have worked for the military as a lowly GI. Got big news for you, the marine corps never taught me a thing about rebuilding anything. And, I sincerely doubt that their abilities to do so have improved.

As for Kerry talking about getting allies to help, then you'd better read the article. He's taling about allies sending troops and providing "security" not about "rebuilding" or getting WHO or UNHCR.

[emulatorloo]

29. NO - to STOP things from being blown up - to STOP Iraqis from being killed

MORE SECURITY means stabilizing things so that women and children and men can walk the streets of Bagdad without the fear of being blown up. So that we can rebuild the shit that GWB blew up and get the hell out.

[Carolina]

58. no, the US Congress helped Bush break Iraq

The US is THE PROBLEM. Its credibility is completely gone. The lies, the roving motivations, the no-bid contracts, the prison, the torture ... Read this girl blog from Iraq who writes (5/7/04):

"Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill, and get out while you can -- while it still looks like you have a choice. . . . Chaos? Civil war? We'll take our chances -- just take your puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."

The US cannot be part of the solution when the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people are against ANYTHING having to do with the US.

Get the fuck out now.

[mia]

2. More to the point, Kerry does get it.

"Certainly today's papers are filled with stories about how angry these countries are at the way they've been treated by this administration," Kerry said. "It may well be that it takes a new president to be able to re-establish the relationships that we've had in the past."


Kerry also said Vice President (news - web sites) Dick Cheney (news - web sites) cursing a Democratic senator on the floor of the Senate and Bush's online advertisement that intersperses footage of Adolf Hitler with Kerry and other Democrats are signs that the president's re-election team is "getting desperate."


"I mean, the vice president's reaching for the f-word and they're going on the Internet (news - web sites) with wild ads," Kerry said during the Baltimore news conference. "I intend to keep talking about the things that are important to America, not going down into the mud, and I'm sorry they are."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. "Re-establish the relationships.."

How? By trying to muscle them into sending troops to Iraq and spending more on "security"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. No, not quite, you really do not get it

Kerry does, it means COOPERATING with friends and allies, the ones
we USED TO HAVE.

You see we are the greatest military power around, but he understands that right now we are no longer a superpower. I know
you do not get it.

Kerry does... I do... you don't, and until you do, you will understand what we are talking about

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Fine. Then let's see him say so.

And, let's put some pressure on him to tell us how he's going to get that "cooperation" and what "cooperation" means. If he really want's us out of Iraq and wants to rebuild it, let's hear him tell us how.

"greatest military power"? So what? All those cool missles and tanks can't defeat guerillas.

I do understand what Kerry and you are talking about. Kerry's saying "I'm not as bad as Bush". You're saying, that underneath all the political maneuvering, (also known as lying), he really doesn't mean it when he calls for more troops and "security".

I'll still vote for him, because he really isn't "as bad as", but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand around and hope that he doesn't mean what he's saying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. He has said it,

the fact that the press is not carrying his speeches should
be your only free clue

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Give me a break.

The press wouldn't carry a speech by Kerry that demanded that American troops be placed under UN command and withdrawn in favor of a UN peacekeeping force? Or, one that said that the invasion and occupation is a failure?

If so, why are they reporting the above speech? That essentially supports much the same thing as Bush?

[Kanary]

34. I'm sure Kerry is pleased as punch to have such a superior intellect

translating his points, and defending him.

Too bad the rest of us are sooooooooooo......s..l...o...w.... eh?

Kanary

[mia]

13. Other countries don't want to reinforce Bush and his administration.

The problem isn't with helping Iraq, it's that no one wants to make a deal with Bush.

[abelenkpe]

10. clearly he does not 'get it'

Gotta admit Kerry's support of the war is a real turn off.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. The name of the game is to get the Chief Squatter out of the White House..

...and Kerry's playing the game well.

Maybe Kerry was no different from all of the other Democrats that voted to support the war based on the pack of lies they were presented by the NeoCons.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Hey lets be honest how many of us actually got that these

were lies oh... before the war?

If you answered a very small minority this is correct.

Now the closer you get to the seat of power the more paranoid and powerfully fearful the power points (which remain classified) are.

They lied to Congress, you and I get it, but many do not. That is an impeachable offense, not that this matters to law and order (chucklle, chortle) DeLay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Hmmm again we don't get it

what Kerry suported was GOING TO THE UN to get the authority, not
a blank check

I know it is a fine distinction that many do not want to make, but that was what Kerry suported, which comes down to RULE OF LAW

But he also realizes that right now he cannot just pull every trooper out... I wish YOU GOT IT.

No it is not black and white, but shades of gray

[bigbillhaywood]

11. He gets politics. He gets that he needs to look tough in the swing states.

That's why the fuck was nominated. You had to have known he was a sleazy politican ready to make himself more hawkish than the Repugs when you first decided to hold your nose and pull the lever. He voted for the war and the Patriot Act. There's nothing new here. Just keep pinching the nostrils until November. Then get out in the streets to protest the new, lesser of two evils President in February.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Which is exactly what I intend to do.

But, I'm not letting him off the hook until then.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Do you recall that quite few other Democrats voted to support the....

...war in Iraq?

Do you also recall that quite a bit of information has come to light since that time, information that proves that the NeoCons were lying about Iraqi WMDs and the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

If I recall correctly, the only Senator that actually read the Patriot Act before the vote was taken was Byrd. The rest of the Senators believed what they were being told by the NeoCons. Only one Senator voted against the PA, and it wasn't Byrd.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. 23 senators didn't buy the BS.

Including mine. Not to mention the literally millions of people around the world who hit the streets.

[Carolina]

61. exactly

I responded similarly below before reading your post. Twenty-three Dem senators was close to half their total number. That's truly noteworthy and speaks volumes about JK.

[sampsonblk]

42. Then Byrd is the only senator qualified to be Pres!

The only Senator with brains, courage and conviction.

[Carolina]

60. but 23 Democratic Senators

or almost half voted against this fiasco. Don't forget that either.

Kerry stuck his finger in the wind 'cause there's no way in hell anyone can convince me that he of all people (Iran-contra, etc.) truly believed Bush. Moreover at the time of the IWR vote, Kerry was first and foremost a senator representing his MA constituents. They were soundly and nearly unanimously against the war and let him know so. Did he listen? No, he failed them ...

God, I'm suffocating from holding my nose.

[bigbillhaywood]

68. Thanks

"If I recall correctly, the only Senator that actually read the Patriot Act before the vote was taken was Byrd. The rest of the Senators believed what they were being told by the NeoCons."

This actually proves my point. The Democrats are almost indistiguishable from the Republicans on many counts, and where they are different often lack the spine to stand up to them. I will be voting for Kerry, but that is no doubt in my mind a vote for the lesser of two evils. Such tactical positions are sometimes necessary to prevent a complete fascist takeover, but only until a movement independent of both parties is in position to throw out the lot of them.

[Eloriel]

15. He's gotta be tough on defense, doncha know?

The asshole coward that he is.

[mia]

17. What do you mean, Eloriel?

:spank:

[emulatorloo]

24. THE MORE SECURITY THE FASTER WE GET THE HELL OUT!

More security means fewer people getting killed less stuff getting blown up.

Then we can fix the shit Bush blew up, and get out.

[Jacobin]

50. Need more "security"?

Ya mean more soldiers?

That makes more targets.

Anyone who does not understand that the overwhelming sentiment of Iraqis is for the U.S. to get its soldiers out must not have read the polls of Iraqis, or does not believe those polls or perhaps thinks that it is possible to repress 28 million supremely pissed off Iraqis with, what(?) 200,000 troops, 300,000 troops? In Vietnam we had 550,000 troops and we got run out.

And by "internationalizing" (NATO?) they will be less pissed off? Has anyone noticed the careful targeting of ALL nationalities by Iraqi militants?

Why do people think that throwing more gasoline on the fire will help?

What is the reasoning? (other than simply saying "we need security")

[jpgray]

28. What about Dean? He says the same things

“We can??t pull out, because if we do that, chaos ensues or else a fundamentalist Shiite regime may arise with undue Iranian influence, both of which would be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.” (CNN, September '03)

Dean also supported increasing the numbers of foreign troops in Iraq AND he promised that we would still have the largest, strongest military in the world. Kerry believes the same things. Is Dean also wrong? In my view he is. They are both wrong on this one.

Sometimes I think you know very little about your avatar or have forgotten, but my notebook, FILLED with just about every policy statement he's made, can help you out when you forget.

[emulatorloo]

20. IT IS VERY SIMPLE - The More Security, The Fewer People Get Killed

The fewer people getting killed, the faster we repair the shit we blew up, the faster we get out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Right. "Peace With Honor"

More troops, more bombs, more repression. Worked real well in Vietnam. Works great in Israel.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. When you see a Neo con

think that you are seeing the black side of you, they are 180 from you

It is NOT black and white,

And by the way, does the term Fait Acompli mean anything to you?

If it does, you should also look under obligations of an occupying force in times of war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Obligations of an occupying force in times of war.

What war is that? Is there a "war" going on in Iraq? Are we at war with Iraq? Must've missed it.

Fait accompli? So, the occupation is a fait accompli so we should continue it, despite the desire of the occupied?

Obligations of an occupying force? How about we oblige them to get out? They work for us. We pay them.

[kymar57]

62. Didn't you hear??

The occupation ended this morning. I saw it on the news! :bounce:

[emulatorloo]

36. Kerry knows more about failure of Vietnam than you do, and he ain't LBJ

I'll refer you to the poster below and his thread on TPM (Dems Will Win - Post 22)

ON Edit - clarify point to post

[goodhue]

55. US military presence is not consistent with security or stability. eom

[Carolina]

65. yeah, sure

it's so simple.

Bullshit, they want us all out: US, British, Korean, Japanese, whatever.

"Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill, and get out while you can -- while it still looks like you have a choice. . . . Chaos? Civil war? We'll take our chances -- just take your puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."
--- an Iraqi girl

[Kanary]

80. Ah, yes "Peace Through Strength"... where have I heard that before?

[Upfront]

21. This Is The Reason

Kerry is not killing B***. He wants more troops, more money, and more war. Tall B*** sucks!

[sleipnir]

31. Second verse, same as the first.

Sometimes I feel like we're to "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[jpgray]

37. I'm sure you thought Gore and Bush were the same as well

How easily the left is manipulated. :(

[Jacobin]

78. It's worse than that

From a purely geopolitical standpoint, if Kerry escalates (as LBJ did) and Bush would continue a pull out, many earnest voters will have a real conundrum on their hands.

The longer we are in Iraq and the more troops we send there, the worse it will get. That is simply not subject to dispute based on the last year's evidence and our ghastly conduct of this godawful conquest.

[jpgray]

83. Bush continuing a pull out? He is building fourteen permanent bases

There is no evidence Kerry has plans to escalate beyond what Dean and even others such as Kucinich have been saying--stabilize, internationalize, get out.

[Carolina]

67. touche,

"Second verse, same as the first."

How sadly true.

[Dems Will Win]

22. To inform this thread I posted the following article from Josh Marshall

on how Bush and Kerry differ dramatically on Iraq.

He's saying that Kerry understands nation-building and that the extra troops are to provide enough security to reconstruct. Bush is just protecting the oil wells.

Then we get out. He said it just two weeks ago--of course the news doesn't cover it.

Here is my thread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1880974

[Still_Loves_John]

32. So what's your solution?

What, do you think we pull our troops out of Iraq, and suddenly everythings hunky dory? What do you think happens? It plunges into anarchy. Look, I did not support this war at all, but now that we have wrecked this country, it is our responsibility to stay there until we can fix it.

But tell, me, what is your plan?

[Capn Sunshine]

40. No, we can't have anarchy!

Imagine! Municipal services looted and not functioning! Roving bands of gunmen ! A civilian population living in fear, guards abusing and torturing prisoners! Terrorists with free reign of the countryside! Troops shooting indiscriminately at any thing that moves! And things blowing up daily!

No, we don't wan't anarchy there, no sir.

[Still_Loves_John]

43. Yeah, I understand that

but do you think that things will improve if we just pull out? How would that solve anything?

[Capn Sunshine]

44. approximately three of our kids per day will live

and ten to eleven of them will remain whole and unmaimed, and go on to live full lives here in their own country.

Unless you think that's a fair price to pay to enable War profiteering and the tax money they suck from the economy on the bakcs of the middle class.

[Still_Loves_John]

47. Oh please

"Unless you think that's a fair price to pay to enable War profiteering and the tax money they suck from the economy on the bakcs of the middle class."

Yes, unless I think that we should pull out of Iraq immediately, I'm part of the evil Republican machine.

Listen, I hate this war, but we have a responsibility to at least try to do the right thing in Iraq now. Yes, people are going to die, and its horrible, but if we pull out of Iraq now, it will be even worse there than it is now. It's horrible, and there are really no good options, but that's what there is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. How about we let the Iraqis decide?

Heard the "plunges into anarchy", "bloodbath", "civil war", nonsense before. As I recall it was a guy named Nixon who used similar arguments.

I agree that we have a "responsibility" to help fix it. But, I don't think that sending more troops, spending more money on "security" as our fearless nominee demands is the answer.

[jpgray]

45. Here's what could happen in Iraq with no security

Iran takes the Shia chunk, the tens of thousands of Turks already on the northern border squash the Kurds, and the Sunnis get completely screwed over in the middle. What happens to a nation bearing rich national resources when it is in chaos, and is beset by greedy neighbors? 2 million dead Congolese would tell you about it. Granted, Iraq is very different from the Congo, but still, there is no pretty way to solve this, and just bugging out and crossing your fingers doesn't seem to be the most clever. At the bare minimum some semblance of Iraqi border security should be in place before American troops leave. Bush of course is set on his fourteen bases. :(

[Still_Loves_John]

51. Here's where the Viet Nam analogy breaks down

for me, at least.

In Viet Nam, if we pulled out, there was still some form of government existing there, even if the S Vietnamese were taken over. If we pull out of Iraq, there is no government standing there that would take power, and that, I think, is a huge difference.

[hiphopnation]

39. Uuuh, yes he does get it.

re: this statement: My nose holding capabilities are really being strained and Cobb is looking better all the time.

So vote Nader or Bush or for your pet dog. If you're in a swing state and you help re-elect Bush, be prepared for the fallout. I'll be lounging on a beach New Zealand safe and happy with my vote for Kerry.

[Raskolnik]

46. He understands that we broke it, so we must take the lead in fixing it.

The deed is done when it comes to the decision to be involved in Iraq. If we just pick up and leave now, we will leave a power vacuum that will result in a situation far worse than Saddam or the present chaos.

Kerry wants us to own up the enormous responsibilty that we now have to Iraq, courtesy of W.

[Jacobin]

52. We are the proverbial bull in the china shop

Every time the bull turns around, he breaks more stuff. Torture, killing innocent civilians, NO concept of their culture, values, etc.

WE are NOT Capable of fixing it. That much should appear very obvious by now.

The china shop is saying to us:"get the hell out. STOP trying to 'fix' it."

We are not listening, at least Kerry is not.

[hiphopnation]

54. Irresponsible and simplistic analogy.

You cannot sum-up the need for our continued security in Iraq with the above analogy. We need some kind of border security which will have a ripple affect in the country by allowing time to train troops and police to defend themselves against outside aggression and to secure city streets, to give the interim government time to establish basic water and power to residents, etc.

Without defending the actions of the misadministration, we should be able to see that we cannot reasonably expect for Iraq to pick itself up by it's bootstraps and fixed the mess that WE (Bush AND you AND me, even if you didn't support the war, this was an AMERICAN LEAD INVASION) caused. Kerry understands this.

I would also add that his actions after he is elected might turn out to be much different then his campaign trail rhetoric.

[goodhue]

56. "our continued security in Iraq"

Oxymoronic

[hughee99]

77. Not to change the subject

but I believe that this is technically a "complex question" in the form of a statment (rather than a traditional question), instead of an oxymoron. It assumes a fact that is not generally accepted or demonstrated (security currently exists in Iraq). The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a classic example of this, since it has the built in assmption that you are currently beating your wife. An oxymoron is "Placing two ordinarily opposing terms adjacent to one another. A compressed paradox" , such as "a new classic", "actual reenactment", and "genuine imitation". Not to sound anal about the whole thing... but I guess I just did.

[Jacobin]

63. What is irresponsible is sending more infidels to die in Iraq

What is simple (not simplistic) is that westerners are abhored in Iraq for TORTURE MURDER CONQUEST THEFT and humiliation. We are NOT part of the solution. WE ARE THE PROBLEM.

I'm as convinced that I am right as you are convinced that you are. The only question I have is WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that makes you believe that Iraqis would welcome and respond to more troops?

To call me irresponsible and simplistic and not say what makes you think your position is right seems cavalier and certainly not convincing.

[Carolina]

69. excellent

We are the problem!! I couldn't agree with you more.

[hiphopnation]

70. None.

I have no evidence that Iraqis would welcome more troops nor did I ever make such an assertion. You have used faulty logic here in tying my comments to such an assertion.

Iraqis have not been particularly thrilled about the invasion thus far and I have reason to believe that they would welcome more troops. I am not even advocating sending more troops.

I believe that Kerry understands more, by orders of magnitude, about what it will take to ensure that there is some semblance of a civilization to give back to the Iraqi people. Much more than Bush. I also believe that he may be saying things now for the benefit of people in swing states that he may not carry out exactly once he is elected. I believe that Kerry knows that by packing up and leaving Iraq we would be doing more to rub salt in the proverbial wound that Mr. Bush and his cabal inflicted.

He may even, in a much more diplomatic way, allow some international energy companies go in and divide up the oil supply. That would be war profiteering, yes. Whatever he does I give him a full vote of confidence that it will be heads and shoulders better than what the current Resident in Chief has done in Iraq.

[Jacobin]

75. So, this is a "faith based" military position?

Count me out.

If Kerry does an LBJ he will bring the party down in 2008, when he loses the re-election campaign, just as Smirk is going to lose in 2004 because of his faith based military incursion into Iraq.

[hiphopnation]

81. Can I look at your crystal ball when your finished?

I want to see if this lottery ticket is good. Thanks.

Re: faith-based, I have no idea what you are referring to.

[Jacobin]

82. It's quite simple really

You said you had no facts to support your contention that we should send more troops to Iraq to "increase security", yet you maintain that is the proper thing to do.

If your position is not based on reasoning and factual data, then it must be based on faith or some belief that is not supported by facts.

The factual basis for getting out is clear. See earlier posts of what we have done to them, what their OWN POLLS show and the last 16 months of history.

[hiphopnation]

86. Again

I am not advocating sending more troops to Iraq. Merely suggesting that a Kerry Administration would understand the importance in helping to clean up the mess that * and his team made. "Cleaning up the mess", meaning helping to secure borders, keeping the peace on city streets, etc.

IMHO, to pack up and leave would seem to be more the faith-based approach in the sense that we'd be taking it on faith that Iraq would turn out for the best after we were gone. (BTW,I love to entertain this position, but given the oil reality in this country and the world, you and I and everyone here should know that it is so far from a reality as to be pure fantasy! Fun, but fantasy.)

[Q]

57. "proceed forward with the reconstruction and the political transformation"

- I wonder if Kerry and Democrats understand how arrogant this sounds? Reconstruction? More like war profiteering. Political transformation? Sounds like Kerry is determined to pick up where Bush* left off: forcing 'democracy' at gunpoint.

[hiphopnation]

59. Yeah like he'd be the first Democrat

to also be a war profiteer.

Sounds like Kerry is determined to pick up where Bush* left off

If you really believe this I'm not sure what to say...

[Q]

73. In any other time and place...war profiteering is a crime...

...but you probably knew that.

- Perhaps you can enlighten us on how Kerry's approach would be different? The only difference I can see is that he wants to involved 'other nations' and build a 'real' coalition. The fact that he wants to STAY in Iraq and continue an illegal war is the problem. That Bush* started the illegal war should in no way FORCE Kerry to 'stay the course'. An illegal war and occupation is illlegal...no matter who is president.

[hiphopnation]

76. No argument from me here.

An illegal war and occupation is illlegal...no matter who is president.

I cannot, and would not try to, refute such a statement.

Anyone of the Dem challengers were up against this formidable, overwhelming task of dealing with the mess in Iraq that Bush started. I wouldn't have wished it on my worst enemy.

But, IMHO, the answer is not in withdrawing all troops and leaving Iraq to clean up a mess that we (yes, WE) made. It is certainly not in the spirit of internationalism and responsible foreign policy, as far as I can tell.

No it won't be pretty and yes the onus belongs entirely to the war mongers who put us in the position in the first place. But, one way or another the job has to be finished. Do you want to help clean up or just leave it to Iraqis? I know my answer.

[kiahzero]

64. Why don't other people get it?

Why the hell is he still backing the war? We might as well have nominated Holy Joe.

He's not backing the war... he's backing the effort to prevent a power vacuum.

[goodhue]

66. Vote in this poll

This thread go me thinking about the extent to which folks on DU think that continued US military presence in Iraq will achieve security and stability. So I created a simplistic little poll . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1881729

[Larkspur]

71. Spain and Russia have already given the "finger" to Kerry and Bush

about sending troops to Iraq.

As the Iraqi insurgency increases, our allies will be less likely to want to send a sizeable force to deal with a homegrown insurgency, especially if those troops are there while the US builds 14 permanent military bases for the US to use as a base to launch attacks in the region.

Even Juan Cole no longer thinks Kerry's plan is usable -- see Iraq as the 51st statehttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF18Ak01.html.

Iraq as Bush's nightmare
ATol: There's a more realistic scenario of the resistance increasing in the next few months.

JC: It will, but the Americans are hard targets. I don't expect the insurgency to be able to hit the Americans and make a difference. Whether Iraq has a big impact on the election will depend very much on what's going on in Iraq in September and October, because people have short memories in elections. I think the Bush administration will be very careful not to provoke another Fallujah this fall. You could have a low-level guerrilla going on, not terribly well reported in America, Iraq could well fall off the front page, it might not be a big issue in the election, so Bush may get away with it. But if he's re-elected, it's still going to be there. You simply cannot have a big, important oil producer at the head of the Persian Gulf in a state of turmoil. In a way, if Bush is re-elected, it would be poetic justice that he continues to spend a lot of energy putting Iraq back together. If Kerry were elected, he would have the same problem. Kerry being elected is not a solution.

ATol: Do you detect any Iraq policy at all from the Kerry side?

JC: Well, he says he wants to internationalize, and the real question is whether it's not too late. If Kerry is elected in November and he goes back to France and Germany and says, "OK, it's a new ball game, won't you come in with me?" are the French and German governments really going to be eager to send their troops? By then also, as the Sistani fatwa makes clear, all traces of the occupation should have been erased. There may be a building demand from the Iraqi side that foreigners just get out of their country. So Kerry's internationalization will not even be welcomed in Iraq by that point. The question is: has Bush ruined the situation beyond repair so that Kerry's policy is difficult to implement?

ATol: What would you say?

JC: I think it is very difficult for Kerry to have his policy implemented.

What would Kerry do if Sistani issues a fatwa in early 2005 declaring that all foreign troops leave Iraq immediately?

Sending in foreign troops, like we did in 1991, was only feasible when we had our allies support at the begining of the war campaign, but Bush II ignored and humiliated them to our troops' peril. Assuming Kerry wins in November, the insurgency could be a hair's width away from open rebellion, and by then it could be too late for foreign troops, Arab & Muslim included, to help.

[hiphopnation]

72. I have to believe

that a Kerry administration would do more to garner international support than BushII. That's just me. :shrug:

[Larkspur]

74. Putin has already blasted the Democrats as warmongers too

over our invasion of Bosnia and Kosovo. I don't agree with his reasoning. I do believe that it's morally right to send in the troops to stop genocide. But Putin's blast at Democrats is a warning shot that a Democratic President, especially one that voted for the war, won't have an easier time getting allies' help with Iraq.

[hiphopnation]

79. Sure he won't have an easier time.

I wouldn't expect him to. If I were a PM of another country I'd be wary of any other leader to occupy the oval office after these facists.

But does that mean Kerry doesn't deserve a vote of confidence in trying to regain some of that international support? The guy speaks French! At least he speaks English in full and complete sentences. This has got to be a good start. :crazy:

[Kanary]

84. Lots of us aren't "getting it"... including Kerry's target audience

ON the front page of Sunday's Denver Post, there is an article about both * and Kerry campaiging for "unaffiliateds in Colo." I remember at least one of those interviewed saying that she was really disgusted with *, but couldn't see that Kerry's views were all that different.

We keep being told that Kerry is saying all this stuff for the swing votes. Many of us have said that the way to actually *win* the swing votes is to distinguish himself, and make strong statements of policy, and back them up. No no no, we get told, he has to play it "cool"........ well, he's being so "cool" that the "unaffiliateds" are cool right back.

Kanary

[numenorean]

85. Kerry is right!

John Kerry is right for calling for more troops. Right before the war was over and people were talking about the post-war occupation and transition, General Eric Shinseki said we would need 300,000 troops on the ground in order to pull this off right. He was visiciously attacked by Rummys boys in the DoD. Rumsfeld, just coming off a successful operation in Afghanistan that was done on the "cheap and light" felt he could replicate a post-war victory in Iraq by going "cheap and light" again.

The result, along with dismantling the Iraqi army and letting Chalabi run nilly willy removing all the Baathists, was that security in post war Iraq sucked ass from the get go. We never had a firm grip on security over there. Rumsfeld make a big mistake. A huge mistake. You have to give Kerry credit, at least he has seen the mistake and seeks to rectify it.

I know many of you on here strongly oppose the war and if able would pull out tomorrow, but its too late for that. Far too late and too much is at stake. That would be the worst mistake that could be made at this point.



-Num

[emulatorloo]

88. Well Put . . .

Poor planning by GWB created this chaos.


Welcome to DU. . .:hi:

[Malva Zebrina]

87. I cannot stand it

He is still suporting the war because, he voted for it and also wanted the stuff Iraq had. Well we got it. Yippee.

And now the Iraqi people will have democracy and we will have all our corporations in there making big, big bucks off the slaughter.

Sorry, Kerry wanted it and that is why he must support this. This is really an incredibly, wishy washy stance.

What exactly is Kerry going to do about Iraq? Is he going to give back to the Iraqi people what is rightfully theirs?

Has anyone seen or heard of anything like that coming from Kerry. I have not heard this from his at all.

He is playing the safe game. He wants Iraq under the thumb of the United States. HE supported the slaughter and the war. He now is jockying to make himself appear as the great healer.

It is all bullshit.

The only one who was honest about it was Dennis Kucinich. Perhaps Howard Dean also.

The others are all taking advantage of what they voted for. The slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent babies, children, women old women, o9ld men and etc.

The voted for it and that is the reality that needs to be faced.

[emulatorloo]

89. It is all about giving the Iraqis their country whole again

Your claim that Kerry want Iraq for American Corporations is really unsupportable and fantastic. There is no credible evidence for this assumption.

Under the thumb of the US? . .Kerry has stated on MTP that Iraq may not end up a "Jeffersonian Democracy" - - - it is up to the Iraqis.

Neither Dennis Kucinich nor Howard Dean want to leave the Iraqi people stranded.

[Malva Zebrina]

91. what is the evidence he does not? It takes a little logic

Look, these experienced belt way politicians, even if they be Democrats, know how to play this game. It is my opinion based on a variety of observations and conclusions. No one but Dennis and Dean made a loud noise and took a moral stand, about the invasion

NO ONE but a handful--Kerry was not amongst them.

Why? Has he ever explained that?

[emulatorloo]

93. He made noise, but no one reported it. . .

"regime change in washington, etc" I think we have been thru this one before, so we will have to disagree on the noise part.

As to does Kerry want to conquer Iraq and opress its people - you are making a big assumption, and asking to prove a negative. . .Like the old "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?" Or like when like Saddam said he had no weapons, Bush say ok Prove That You Don't Have Something - I say you DO!!!!

[FlemingsGhost]

90. John Forbes Kerry = "JFK" ... Nah, more like "LBJ."

I can't believe this guy is the best Democrats could do ...

[seabeyond]

92. lets try a different course here

we are there and this situation is not impossible and it wasnt impossible with bush. i could have been done with by now, but consistantly bush screwed thinks up, did it on the greed and lack. he didnt listen to the people in the know

i am not even looking at what kerry needs to do with iraq now.

kerry cannot do iraq now

i will have to wait and see and listen in january. but i dont think kerry is far off. different type of trained troop and larger number and different intent (away from the greed and taking) to creating may work

we have a tired iraq, that needs to heal. i think they have had enough. it may be a can do thing

certainly not going to judge this in june, months away