Kerry's Foreign Policy Plan

[Geoff_M]

What is Kerry's plan when the "allies" don't join?

Or when allies pull out.... Australia have a national election tomorrow. If the opposing Labor Party wins..... bye-bye Aussie troops: http://mikejericho.blogspot.com/2004/10/count-on-us-today-but-day-after.html

 

[Nebsky]

Thanks Richard...

I guess its just one of those hypotheticals that pop up every now and then. Glad someone else see it the same way..

 

[peachgirl]

What is Kerry's plan when the "allies" don't join?

Since he says he will not give other countries veto power over the safety of the U.S., it's not hard to figure out, that if need be, he would go it alone. It's also not too hard to figure out why Bush had so much trouble getting a significant coalition together....HE WAS LYING.


The difference is that he doesn't start out with the lone cowboy attitude that Bush does and is much more likely to convince our allies to join us, much as Bush's father did. I expect Kerry to be much more effective in dealing with foreign countries than kick *** George is.

Bush Jr would have done well to learn a thing or two about diplomacy from his father.

 

[Galahad]

HE WAS LYING.

This is the biggest load of horse crap in the entire argument. EVERY major intelligence agency from EVERY major western (and some eastern) country came to the SAME conclusion. If he was wrong about WMD, EVERYBODY was wrong. That is not a LIE. I really hope he takes it to Kerry on the "Liar" charge tonight.

 

[Mermaid02]

"It's also not too hard to figure out why Bush had so much trouble getting a significant coalition together"

Yeah- At least 3 of the countries we would have liked to have in a coalition already had a "coalition" with Saddam.

 

[peachgirl]

Yeah- At least 3 of the countries we would have liked to have in a coalition already had a "coalition" with Saddam.

Nah, at least 4. One of which is in Bush's so-called coalition.

 

[peachgirl]

If he was wrong about WMD, EVERYBODY was wrong.

Perhaps, but he's the one who chose to look at every scenario in the worst possible light and he's the one who went to war.


His choice, his responsibility to be sure he's right.

 

[Nebsky]

Bush was acting on the information provided to him. Was it wrong at the time. We now know yes it was. Did he actually know that for sure AT THAT TIME, No. He acted in the best intrest in the United States and some of her allies. To say he was Lying is FALSE!!!

Even with the threat of WMD's and all the Security Council Resoulutions to allow monitoring, France and Germany were in Sadams back pocket and would veto any unanimous decision. These are the same resoulutions that France and Germany help write.

 

[Mermaid02]

"Nah, at least 4. One of which is in Bush's so-called coalition."

And this makes you so giddy- Why??

 

[peachgirl]

Giddy?

How in the world did you manage to come up with that????

 

[Mermaid02]

Because you've brought it up a couple of times- you seem so pleased with it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Or when allies pull out.... Australia have a national election tomorrow. If the opposing Labor Party wins..... bye-bye Aussie troops: http://mikejericho.blogspot.com/2004/10/count-on-us-today-but-day-after.html

Yep. . .and Kerry clearly wants this to happen--since he sent his sister Diana to Australia to campaign for Mike Latham. Can anyone really explain why he would do this when he keeps on stating he would build a better and more comprehensive coalition?

Maybe that will be proposed tonight. . .but, with Kerry talking and taking both sides of every issue, I can't see how we'll get an answer.

Do you see how all his supporters who had the guts to even comment on this thread just ask, "what's bush' plan?" instead of answering what Kerry's is? The thing is, even if we don't know DETAILS--for instance, is Iraq or Syria on the agenda?--we know that Bush will NOT back down to these nutcases. He will do what is necessary for the security of our people and treat the murderous Islamofascists as the murderers they are. Kerry has stated he'd begin to pull troops out, he's implied that all our soldiers will once again be home to eat dinner every night, and he's stated that the "front" of this war was in Afghanistan--when clearly the war, unfortunately, has many fronts. Richard Miniter stated that there is evidence that bin Laden is being hidden in Pakistan.

Absurd.

We cannot fight terrorists if the troops aren't deployed. Richard Miniter also has reported that we've killed or captured 3000 members in 102 countries and at sea. Edwards stated that the terrorists are in only 60 countries. . .as if he didn't know about the other 62 countries we've had some successes in. Kerry refers to some coalition--well, if Australia backs out, if France and Germany let it be known they weren't going to help Kerry either, what kind of coalition is he talking about? Please, someone--just answer this specific question. Pretty please????? Sugar on top????

Bush' plan is absolutely clear. He will continue to hunt and kill terrorists. He will stay in Iraq until it is stable. He will continue to try and use diplomacy, however, he will surely act in our country's own best interest at all times.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Mermaid02
Because you've brought it up a couple of times- you seem so pleased with it.

Since so many of us seem to be "giddy" repeating the same thing over and over (using the fact that foreign countries were involved with Saddam as "proof" that it would be impossible to form a coalition with them)....it seems important to point out that it is, in fact, not impossible and Poland proves it.

I'm sorry if it bothers you to read that fact more than once.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Since he says he will not give other countries veto power over the safety of the U.S., it's not hard to figure out, that if need be, he would go it alone. It's also not too hard to figure out why Bush had so much trouble getting a significant coalition together....HE WAS LYING.

So he won't give them veto power and with hindsight I think we can agree that there's not much chance that France, Russia, and the UN were going to join in the coalition of the bribed. Oh wait, they were in their own coalition of the bribed. So no, it's not hard to figure out why the President had trouble with them then.

Okay, so that pretty much means that he would have went into Iraq with what we had or he was okay with the status quo. Which one of those is his position?

Originally posted by peachgirl
The difference is that he doesn't start out with the lone cowboy attitude that Bush does and is much more likely to convince our allies to join us, much as Bush's father did. I expect Kerry to be much more effective in dealing with foreign countries than kick *** George is.

Bush Jr would have done well to learn a thing or two about diplomacy from his father.

I understand some get a real kick when Bill Clinton's name is used to help bolster a Republican argument. I gotta tell ya, using George HW Bush's name to bolster Democrats argument is just as funny.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[Mermaid02]

Doesn't bother me- I was just wondering why it made you so happy.

Have a great weekend!

 

[peachgirl]

I think we can agree that there's not much chance that France, Russia, and the UN were going to join in the coalition of the bribed. Oh wait, they were in their own coalition of the bribed.

Be careful or Mermaid02 is going to accuse you of being giddy too!
At the risk of being so giddy that mermaid02 completely loses it, just because a foreign country was violating UN resolutions doesn't mean they can't be convinced to do otherwise.

It gets tiresome typing that over and over, but it's a fact.

I gotta tell ya, using George HW Bush's name to bolster Democrats argument is just as funny.

I'm glad you're amused, but unlike some, I'm not so blind that I can't see the positives when there are positives to see. I've never had much of anything negative to say about Bush Sr. I think his Presidency as far as foreign policy goes was excellent and while I disagree with his domestic policies, I believe he was honest and I have a great deal of respect for him.

 

[Mermaid02]

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Since he says he will not give other countries veto power over the safety of the U.S., it's not hard to figure out, that if need be, he would go it alone. It's also not too hard to figure out why Bush had so much trouble getting a significant coalition together....HE WAS LYING.


The difference is that he doesn't start out with the lone cowboy attitude that Bush does and is much more likely to convince our allies to join us, much as Bush's father did. I expect Kerry to be much more effective in dealing with foreign countries than kick *** George is.

Bush Jr would have done well to learn a thing or two about diplomacy from his father.

How can this statement " is much more likely to convince our allies to join us, much as Bush's father did." be true knowing that his campaign is actively pro-Mark Latham in Australia? I understand that some are accepting his stance that he will be tough on terror, but knowing he has acted HYPOCRITICALLY in this regard, how can some continue to accept his answer? If the troops in Australia pull out (if Latham wins), and since he is supporting Latham, the logical conclusion is that he's DISMANTLING the coalition we do have. And, according to him, and you, he will be more successful bringing in MORE countries to the coalition. Does anyone see they hypocrisy here?

This is one of the other major hypocrisies: It seemed that the Kerry supporters felt we needed France and Germany to come along with us. That would make our war with Iraq "legit". Now we know they won't come with us EVEN if Kerry is elected. .and, we know that France was being paid off by Saddam. In your post, you state: Bush Jr would have done well to learn a thing or two about diplomacy from his father. " Now, how would more diplomacy have helped, knowing what we know now?

Also, remember, Kerry voted AGAINST the Persian Gulf War. . .so, why state that W could have learned a thing from his father? Were the bribes going on back then, too? No, obviously not. Since France wasn't being paid off back then, there was no reason to side against the U.S. So, your argument is empty!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
OK...

Fact: France and Germany have clearly signaled, and their governments have promised their citizens that they won't go near Iraq. Kerry even admitted this in recent days at a campaign stop.

Fact: Iran and China have strongly rejected Kerry's proposals about fuel rods and bi-lateral talks with North Korea.

Fact: If you accept the Duelfer report with regard to WMD stockpiles, the same report sheds damning evidence that members of foreign governments opposed to US intervention in Iraq were "on the take" from Saddam using money and vouchers that were improperly derived from the UN's own Oil-For-Food humanitarian program. Any "global test" for Iraq appears to have been rigged.

Fact: The same reports clearly shows that the international sanctions against Iraq weren't effective.

You forgot one.

The report also stated that SH's plan after the sanctions were lifted was to restart his WMD programs.

And now that Iran is close to (or already does have) a nuclear weapon, do you really think that SH would just sit back an do nothing to counter that? Me thinks not.

Don't know about anyone else but that's be good news to me.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Okay, so that pretty much means that he would have went into Iraq with what we had or he was okay with the status quo. Which one of those is his position?.

Yes, this is my question, too! They know if they answer A, we can give them statements that Kerry has made that would prove him to be a hypocrite. And, if they answer B. . .well, we can do it again.