How does Nader's Iraq plan differ from Kerry's?

[mzmolly]

They appear quite similar from what I can tell.

Both feel we should pull out slowly with international cooperation right?

[DenverDem]

1. Kerry's will be implemented.

nadir's won't.

[k in IA]

2. Exactly what I was going to say.

[Caution]

3. Who cares. Nader is irrelevant.

i know exactly one person who says they are going to vote for him. And once this guy sees F9/11 even he will come around.

[meti57b]

4. Cats for John Kerry! Love it!

[mzmolly]

5. The reason I ask is because Nader supporters feel they differ somehow?

I am trying to "figger out how egzactly." ;)

[Myrina]

6. Nader has an Iraq plan ?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

7. Yeah, read it in an interview with Pat Buchanan. It sounds like

Kerry's to me :shrug:

[Mike L]

9. Yeah, withdraw in 6 months and let Iran invade Iraq.

That's Nader's plan.

[mzmolly]

8. kick

:kick: for an answer :shrug:

[sandnsea]

10. Cheers MzMolly!!!

Been asking people that question about these "Iraq plans" for a while. No candidate is suggesting we just pull out and leave Iraq to fend for itself. It's all contingent on international cooperation. Kerry's plan is quite specific, as opposed to Ralph's. Sharing the contracting, reconstruction money going to locals and NGO groups, real diplomacy on government responsibilities and decision making, shared military decision making.

He would never have taken us into Iraq and he will do everything in his power to get those troops home as soon as possible. And he'll never ask a troop to die unless there's no other possible way to accomplish his goals. I have an 18 year old and there isn't anybody else I would trust his life to. It's been a determining factor in my support for Kerry since the very beginning.

[notbush]

11. I don't think Jesus Christ himself could talk one of our uncommitted

allies into sending troops to Iraq now! JFK says he can. I don't believe it.
The U.N. isn't gonna save us...NATO isn't gonna save us...WE NEED to get out now......Save our young men's lives.

[sandnsea]

12. Beg to differ

NATO has agreed to train Iraqi security. That's a start. How much more would they have agreed to with a sane leader who actually wanted to get out of Iraq instead of Bush and his ME "democracy" b.s.?

Of course, first a person has to believe that terrorists are real and really do want to kill westerners. If one doesn't believe in terrorists, then there's obviously no reason to stay in Iraq.

[notbush]

13. Training will not be in country(Iraq)

A baby step at best.
Oh Yea! if things start going better in the next 60 days....maybe they'll take another "baby step"
If things go bad.......we're on our own. Hell, we're on our own now.
Please ..can't we just leave.

[sandnsea]

14. A step is a step

It shows they are willing to take those steps. I'd bet they'd take alot bigger steps without a maniac in the White House.

But you didn't address the other question. If you don't believe terrorists are real, then of course we should just leave. Funnel in some money and hope for the best. But if you think having another Afghanistan is a bad idea, then we can't go.

[notbush]

15. So if I follow your premise.....

Bush is already making these small steps......Kerry will make "BIG STEP'S"?????? and Europe will just "follow along"???????

[sandnsea]

16. Avoiding the main point

Do you think another Afghanistan is a good idea or not?

[mzmolly]

18. We can't just leave. We've destroyed their country and opened it up to

terrorists who were not there before.

It's against the Geneva conventions to leave without rebuilding the country as well. Not that * cares about anything but the money to be made, but the D's have to see it through honestly when/if they take office.

HALIBURTON OUT, UN IN! That's my motto.

[mzmolly]

17. Nader and Kucinich claim the same thing.

:hi:

I disagree with you. I think the UN will help out, but they resent helping Bush.

[notbush]

19. I'm sorry, but I do not think Either Nato or the U.N. will get involved

(troops on the ground) with the security situation as it is.
If we're going to stay until the security situation gets to the point others will send troops, we won't really need them.
I guess I'm pessimistic the the U.S. can really get things calmed down at any time in the foreseeable future, and I'd prefer not losing any more lives.

[mzmolly]

20. I am pessimistic with * in office, but without him I am confident we can

turn things around.

[no name no slogan]

21. Good point mzmollyu. The world hates Bush, not America

If the US were removed as the main occupyer, the situation on the ground would probably be much better. Even if US troops are still there under a UN mandate, the US would NOT be in command of them-- the UN would. Even a small change like that could make a huge difference on the ground, where "coalition" troops (under US command) are rightly seen as an occupying army instead of a peacekeeping force.

The one main difference I can think of between Kerry's and Nader's plans is that I believe Nader would allow the Iraqis more control over resources, and let the Iraqis decide who gets to rebuild their country-- not the US government, not Halliburton, not Dyncorp, etc.

Also, the rebuilding would look to employ Iraqis first, instead of importing help from around the world. This is a MAJOR factor too, as about 1/4 of the Iraqi population is unemployed. For comparison, just imagine if FDR had imported a bunch of foreigners to handle the New Deal programs-- can you even imagine how pissed off the country would be?

Personally, I think the best way to diffuse Nader (especially on Iraq) is to adopt a plan similar to Nader's, or DK's, or even Senator Mark Dayton's, which calls for a "hands-off" approach in the day-to-day rebuilding of Iraq. Let the Iraqis decide their own fate, not another colonialist occupier.

With the rate things are deteriorating in Iraq, IMHO it's only a matter of time before Kerry moves closer to this sort of position on Iraq.

And, although I deeply disagree with Kerry's stated plan for Iraq, I'll still vote for him, anyway. Although I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000, I did so to support the Greens and for more voices in the process. This year, without the Green endorsement, I see no need to vote for him. I'm still not very happy with Kerry on several big issues, but I'm less happy with Nader.

[TexasSissy]

22. I don't care what Nader plans or thinks about anything. It's irrelevant.