Kerry's Foreign Policy Plan

If Kerry's elected, what will he do?

  • Kerry will hunt and find terrorists wherever they are.

  • Kerry will make sure that our kitchen chairs are not empty.

  • Kerry will begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq in 6 months.

  • Kerry will broaden our coalition (despite France and Germany not participating and despite him losin

  • Kerry will (other--please explain below).

  • Kerry doesn't have a plan.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Did anyone notice that the asked questions remained unanswered?

You asked what his "foreign policy" was. The question was answered on the first page.

Your dislike of his policies or your failure to understand them does not mean the question wasn't answered.

And, since we are allowed to bring other subjects up within the same thread and I was kind enough to answer your question, could you answer mine?

What is Bush's foreign policy?
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
And, since we are allowed to bring other subjects up within the same thread and I was kind enough to answer your question, could you answer mine?

Frustrating isn't it? I'm still waiting for an answer to mine.

Richard
 
Originally posted by Galahad
Not particularly reliable no. That's why I said it was a rumor. But actual text from the source is included, so there might be something to it. In any case, it, sadly, no longer surprises me.

Fox News now has the actual memo.
 
From your favorite source of information.....SLUDGE!:)


Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.


If people cannot understand what he's saying, then it's only because they don't want to. If Bush commits 50 acts of distortion of fact and Kerry commits 25, the press should not be responsible for making things "even" or giving equal time to both.

For the entire text...I don't link sludge, but it's printed there for all to see.

Once again, another story with no substance.
 

for those that answered "he will broaden the coalition", given that France, Germany and Russia are likely out no matter who wins the election, and Aus is likely still in given Howard's victory today, and given that Spain has been successfully intimidated by Al-Queada, who exactly is left to bring in to broaden the coalition? :confused:
 
You asked what his "foreign policy" was. The question was answered on the first page.

Your dislike of his policies or your failure to understand them does not mean the question wasn't answered.

And, since we are allowed to bring other subjects up within the same thread and I was kind enough to answer your question, could you answer mine?

What is Bush's foreign policy?
Yes, I see you answered; thank you. Yes, I know your answers are representative of Kerry's answers at times. But, there are other things he's said, or other actions he's done, that lead some to believe that what you believe his foreign policy to be might not be correct.

If all you're wanting (and I'm betting your question is purely rhetorical) is a general foreign policy outline, here you go...

Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

Yes, this is troublesome because of his actions with Australia. Thank goodness Howard won today, but his campaign openly supported Latham--who had clearly stated that he would pull the troops out. That was why I brought this question up. Also, France and Germany have said they still would not join in in the event Kerry wins. Russia out too. Why would someone claiming that he would broaden the coaltion campaign against a Prime Minister who is friendly towards America and for an opposing candidate who stated he'll pull out?

Do you think that Kerry's diplomatic skills are so wonderful that he will convince France and Germany to join in afterall? Russia?

That was why I posed the question. I was hoping for answers that took these other issues into consideration.

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.


Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

Captjack was quite on point with his answer. Why would Kerry want to shut down bunker busting nuclear weapons? From Kerry's own website:
End Development Of The New Generation Of Nuclear Weapons. The Bush administration is spending millions of dollars developing bunker-busters and mini-nukes, a new generation of more "usable" nuclear weapons. As president, John Kerry will signal to the world that America is serious about stopping proliferation by putting an end to these programs.
I think Bush supporters believe that Kerry will lose the hearts and minds of our troops in this war. Your second paragraph (Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal) is good. Of course, I think Bush is already doing that and have doubts that Kerry would or could do it any better.

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

Oh, good idea. . .like windfarms and such? But this isn't unique. Every U.S.politician has this policy.

Btw, what is Bush's foreign policy?

Are you seriously asking me this? Bush has made it 100% clear that he will continue with the war on terror and that his policy will continue as it has these past 4 years. His supporters, remember, are PLEASED with how he's handled the war on terror.
 
Originally posted by GaryAdams
how ironic,

seems to me,Kerry doesnt want us to drill in alaska,
he wont proceed with yucca mountain. (thats where the U.S. would store spent nuclear fuel from power plants)

guess maybe hes just gonna build windmills to take advantage of the wind caused by all his talking about a "plan"

Yes, it's ironic--you are right! And, here's something else that's definitely ironic in light of your post: A windfarm was being proposed on Cape Cod. However, many liberal democrats have beautiful homes that over look the stunning views there. . .notably Edward Kennedy, Walter Cronkite, and, you guessed it. . . John F. Kerry!

So, knowing Kerry's vow to find alternative energy sources, one would think he would support a project such as this, right?

No, no, no! Although never speaking out against it--as his buddy and Cape Cod homeowner Ted Kennedy is doing, he will not speak out FOR this project either--he just will not comment on this project at all!

So, does the absence of pandering qualify for pandering in this specific case?

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/kerry.aspx

Here's a pic of Kerry's Nantucket Waterfront home (Assessed value: $9.18 million) with a view that isn't spoiled by those nasty windmills (the painting is Ted Kennedy's compound!):
image0055_sm.jpg
kennedy_hyannis.GIF
 
Originally posted by peachgirl
From your favorite source of information.....SLUDGE!:)






If people cannot understand what he's saying, then it's only because they don't want to. If Bush commits 50 acts of distortion of fact and Kerry commits 25, the press should not be responsible for making things "even" or giving equal time to both.

For the entire text...I don't link sludge, but it's printed there for all to see.

Once again, another story with no substance.

Who is the Arbiter of "If"? How you could read that and NOT conclude that they intend, for whatever reason, to favor one candidate over the other in their coverage?
 
Originally posted by captJack88
First of all, I could care less if Dan is fired or not, I've never watched him. Secondly, IMHO, if Kerry had voted NO to give the President the authority TO GO TO WAR, this would be a whole different race. He didn't vote no, he voted YES, he didn't vote yes to threaten war, or to give more sanctions, he voted YES to go to war.

The new definition if chutzpah.

Someone (Kerry) trusts someone (Bush) to do the right thing and make the right decisions (invading Iraq, planning for the peace, etc). So when someone (Bush) royally screws up, it's the fault of the someone (Kerry) who put their trust in the individual (Bush).

You can't make this stuff up.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
The new definition if chutzpah.

Someone (Kerry) trusts someone (Bush) to do the right thing and make the right decisions (invading Iraq, planning for the peace, etc). So when someone (Bush) royally screws up, it's the fault of the someone (Kerry) who put their trust in the individual (Bush).

You can't make this stuff up.

It's not a matter of whether it's Kerry's fault or not; it's a matter of whether Kerry has room to criticize President Bush on this issue. Congress (including Sen. Kerry) was irresponsible in handing President Bush a blank check. Hard to criticize the President after doing so.
 
Originally posted by jrydberg
It's not a matter of whether it's Kerry's fault or not; it's a matter of whether Kerry has room to criticize President Bush on this issue. Congress (including Sen. Kerry) was irresponsible in handing President Bush a blank check. Hard to criticize the President after doing so.

I think we've agreed on this before.
 
Yep, I think we have. BTW, since I presume you're not a member of Congress, criticize President Bush's handling of Iraq to your heart's content ;)
 
Originally posted by jrydberg
It's not a matter of whether it's Kerry's fault or not; it's a matter of whether Kerry has room to criticize President Bush on this issue. Congress (including Sen. Kerry) was irresponsible in handing President Bush a blank check. Hard to criticize the President after doing so.

The thing is, Congress didn't need to hand Bush a blank check. Bush didn't even need to go to Congress to do anything in this area. He did it as a courtesy and to make sure he wasn't viewed as acting without their consent. So, kind of hard for them to criticize him doing what they have him the blessing to do.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom