Kerry and Iraq

[Pangloss]

Kerry says he'll stay and send more troops. But there seem to be quite a few reasons to think he'll do otherwise.

 

- He's insulted our alliance partners, calling them the coalition of the coerced and bribed (or something like that)

- His campaign manager called the interim PM of Iraq a "puppet", which seriously undercuts Chalawi's ability to govern right now (probably getting huge airplay on Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV)

- His statements that he'll send more troops to Iraq are contradicted by his statements that he'll "end the back-door draft" of guard/reserve deployment

- He's actually said (if I remember correctly) that he thinks we should pull out within six months of the Iraqi election in January

 

I have grave doubts about Kerry's willingness to stay the course and get Iraq back on track.

 

Where am I wrong?

[budullewraagh]

you know, those thousand monkeys in the coalition are probably pissed at kerry right now...

as for the prime minister, of course he is a puppet; he was appointed! of course bush would make sure chalawi would be sovereign to him

he said otherwise earlier this year because he had figured the situation would get better but bush ruined it even more

[Pangloss]

Of course. But Lockheart says that and the next thing you know it's all over Al Jazeera. How's he then going to do anything *but* pull us out immediately?

 

My point really is that this seems to suggest that the election is becoming a referendum on the war in Iraq. Bush if you want any chance of success, Kerry if you think we've already failed.

 

But that's not what Kerry says he stands for. So as an undecided voter I have to wonder -- what does this guy stand for, if he doesn't stand for what he SAYS he stands for? Are tax cuts also out the window? Should we stop worrying our pretty little heads about the deficit and just put the Democrats in charge of it, and all will be well in the world, and everyone will love us?

[bloodhound]

u say he insulted his alliance partners. hah. not even a proper alliance.. but a alliance partner.

 

The only major ally bush has got is Blair..

[bloodhound]

- His campaign manager called the interim PM of Iraq a "puppet"' date=' which seriously undercuts Chalawi's ability to govern right now (probably getting huge airplay on Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV)

-?[/quote']

 

WHAT THE HELL you on??????? Chalabi is nowhere to be seen. dont know why bush put him up there in the first place. and the interim pms name is ALLAWI. you sort urself out before posting

[budullewraagh]

yeah i thought it was allawi...

My point really is that this seems to suggest that the election is becoming a referendum on the war in Iraq. Bush if you want any chance of success, Kerry if you think we've already failed.

if it becomes a referendum on iraq, i have lost my faith in the voting population. iraq is definately not the greatest of our worries.

 

the republicans need to face the facts: the economy blows and bush and co screwed us all

 

what about social security? what about social issues such as human rights? what about international affairs (aside iraq)?

 

seriously; the bush administration is attempting to play up iraq and terrorism when they arent the major issues

[Pangloss]

My mistake. Allawi, Chalawi, Chewbacca, Han Solo... oh, nonono....

 

I think Iraq and terrorism are certainly major issues. Kinda hard to see them otherwise.

[bloodhound]

What I dont like is the way bush has given the impression (while everything he said is true) that iraq is linked with terrorism. and he did nothing to change that view until the last moment.. even then most americans believe that saddam hussein and al qaida (sp??) are linked.

 

What bothers me most is that Iraq is now a breeding group for terrorists, and it seems that both Bush and Blair are out of touch with reality. It may be easy for them to say that they wont negotiate with terrorists and that some people may have to pay the blood price, but if it was their own children threathed with beheading ..... thats another matter

[YT2095]

actualy, when you think about it (and I`m not condoning EITHER SIDE) there are Iraqis held captive in America that also face the death sentence if convicted, and so what different are the "terrorist" doing by replicating the same strategy?

 

 

ok, it FEELS different, it LOOKS different, but what IS the difference?

they`re BOTH wrong

[Pangloss]

Ah, an anarchist. Always good for a lively discussion. (grin)

[Pangloss]

What I dont like is the way bush has given the impression (while everything he said is true) that iraq is linked with terrorism. and he did nothing to change that view until the last moment.. even then most americans believe that saddam hussein and al qaida (sp??) are linked.

 

Well actually Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda and terrorism. The 9/11 Commission Report documents this pretty well. But if you mean that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, I agree, and so does the 9/11 Commission.

 

The president has been trying to explain that he never said Iraq was linked with 9/11, but I've seen statements by administration officials in the 2003 time-frame which seem so imply that they were involved in 9/11. So while I wouldn't exactly call that a "lie", there did seem to be some specific impression-making going on and I can understand why some view it as deceptive.

 

Just to give an example, let's say that an administration official says something like: "Iraq has WMDs and ties with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did 9/11. You do the math." No lies there, as you say, but is it deceptive? Yah, maybe.

 

 

What bothers me most is that Iraq is now a breeding group for terrorists, and it seems that both Bush and Blair are out of touch with reality. It may be easy for them to say that they wont negotiate with terrorists and that some people may have to pay the blood price, but if it was their own children threathed with beheading ..... thats another matter

 

I respect that position. That's one of my objections to Iraq as well. It also leaves us in the position of no longer holding the moral high ground in international debate. It was a huge mistake to put us in this position.

[Skye]

What?

 

(ah another post, I'm just wondering who's the anarchist)

[YT2095]

Ah, an anarchist. Always good for a lively discussion. (grin)

if by "Anarchist" you`re refering to me and my veiws, then yes I`ll claim some of that, but in this instance, I`m looking from a truly objective and logical standpoint without bias or affiliation (if you want the TRUTH, I can`t stand EITHER side, they all suckit!). so there

[Pangloss]

No offense intended.

 

Those are certainly good questions, of course, and the reason why so many have suggested that we're seeing the fall of "American imperialism". Ironic to see that criticism come from places like Britain and France, but I suppose it shouldn't be, given that those two nations have become experts in proselytizing from the altar of self-flagellation. Iraq is certainly showing signs of being our Suez Canal. (Does that make Iran our future Falklands?)

 

At any rate, you basically have a choice of two ways to look at it:

 

1) Might makes right. It's not terrorism when we do it because we have the biggest guns. Not a fun position because it lacks any moral high ground.

 

2) You can suffer the pangs of equivocation and try to rationalize it in the details, such as, for example, the fact that we don't target women/children/civilians (which of course is small consolation since they get killed anyway).

 

The question ultimately is whether you believe freedom is worth fighting for. If you don't, there are plenty of people in the world who are more than willing to explain the error of that reasoning. One of them no longer has that ability, because of people who are willing to "fight the good fight". The price of freedom, you know.

 

Now be a good chap, pass the tea, and try not to think about the poor, hapless Indian, yours or mine. ;-)

[YT2095]

2 choices according to whom though?

[Pangloss]

Me. I set the rules.

 

(grin)

[john5746]

1) Might makes right. It's not terrorism when we do it because we have the biggest guns. Not a fun position because it lacks any moral high ground.

 

2) You can suffer the pangs of equivocation and try to rationalize it in the details' date=' such as, for example, the fact that we don't target women/children/civilians (which of course is small consolation since they get killed anyway).

 

[/quote']

 

Iraqis and the Arab world must want democracy. We cannot win it for them. We can train, advise, etc. We need to be smart. Who are the terrorists and insurgents fighting? If we pull out most of the troops, will violence increase?

 

Why isn't Saudi Arabia doing anything about Iran? They should be the one to bomb them if anyone. They should also be forking money over for Iraq.

 

Things are going bad in Iraq and the future is bleak(if you believe current intelligence) So, we have 2 options (for you black/white types)

 

1) Stay the course with no timetable, no clear idea of what victory is or when we can think of pulling troops out.

 

2) Try something different - put more people in and kill more or pull out some or all. Try to get more countries involved, work with Nato, etc. Yes Bush tried lately, but he pissed on them earlier.

[Pangloss]

Iraqis and the Arab world must want democracy. We cannot win it for them. We can train, advise, etc. We need to be smart. Who are the terrorists and insurgents fighting? If we pull out most of the troops, will violence increase?

 

I agree with these points.

 

 

Why isn't Saudi Arabia doing anything about Iran? They should be the one to bomb them if anyone. They should also be forking money over for Iraq.

 

I agree. Why should we always get stuck being the world's policemen?

 

 

Things are going bad in Iraq and the future is bleak(if you believe current intelligence) So, we have 2 options (for you black/white types)

 

1) Stay the course with no timetable, no clear idea of what victory is or when we can think of pulling troops out.

 

2) Try something different - put more people in and kill more or pull out some or all. Try to get more countries involved, work with Nato, etc. Yes Bush tried lately, but he pissed on them earlier.

 

I'll go along with that, I'm just not convinced Kerry will try anything.

 

If France wasn't going to get involved with Iraq under the Bush administration they're CERTAINLY not going to get involved in Iraq under a Kerry administration. They've won, why should they bother? Ditto Germany and Russia. They "beat Bush", why should they cooperate with Kerry now that America (in their view) is on the proverbial ropes? Game over.

[john5746]

You and I have very similar viewpoints I believe. We are just "leaning" a little the opposite way. Actually, I think Kerry will lose anyway. He needs a flawless performance in the debates. He will be too wordy and will need to attack Bush. Bush won't have to say much.

 

Who was the greatest political philosopher? Jesus. I remember when Bush answered that question as a candidate. I thought it was over for him - it turned out to be the best thing he ever said.

 

I am almost positive he will say some dumb things like he did in the debates with Al Gore - "Nation building isn't necessary", etc. But people will only pay attention to body language.

[budullewraagh]

which is why if i were any more pissed off i'd support oligarchism

[john5746]

Thought we were pretty much already there. Just need to "buy" the votes

[Skye]

I agree. Why should we always get stuck being the world's policemen?

You don't, of course. Look at all the crappy peacekeeping roles third world countries get stuck with. But if you go about starting wars then it should be surprising if you have to fight those actual wars.

[Pangloss]

You and I have very similar viewpoints I believe. We are just "leaning" a little the opposite way. Actually, I think Kerry will lose anyway. He needs a flawless performance in the debates. He will be too wordy and will need to attack Bush. Bush won't have to say much.

 

Who was the greatest political philosopher? Jesus. I remember when Bush answered that question as a candidate. I thought it was over for him - it turned out to be the best thing he ever said.

 

I am almost positive he will say some dumb things like he did in the debates with Al Gore - "Nation building isn't necessary", etc. But people will only pay attention to body language.

 

Nice post. I couldn't help but quote the whole thing, it was so well said. I think you're probably right about the outcome of the election, and I agree with your comment about the Jesus remark. And I get a centrist vibe from you as well. I have a couple of pretty good friends who lean just a little to the left, and they tend to balance me out sometimes, which I find to be very valuable.

[Pangloss]

You don't, of course. Look at all the crappy peacekeeping roles third world countries get stuck with. But if you go about starting wars then it should be surprising if you have to fight those actual wars.

 

Heh, nicely put. I find myself unable to respond, quite put in my place. (grin)

[Douglas]

What I dont like is the way bush has given the impression (while everything he said is true) that iraq is linked with terrorism. and he did nothing to change that view until the last moment.. even then most americans believe that saddam hussein and al qaida (sp??) are linked.

I'm not sure what most Americans think, but the 9/11 commission found that there were ties between Saddam and al-qaeda, but no ties between Saddam and 9/11