If Kerry becomes Prez

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Answer the question.

What, the wonderfully phrased "have you stopped beating your wife" question?

What will kerry do?

1. The same in Afghnistan and in the war on terror- at most, an increase in funds allocated.

2. In Iraq, no idea- it will depend on what the Bush admin. does before the elction-ie, what type of handover of power will occur in Iraq? Kerry will not withdraw but may cut troop numbers, or return to the UN and seek a compromise the bring in more foreing troops.

3. The big difference wil be in dumping all the civilians in the Pentagon that see the world as some hideous threat- no more Wolgfie, Perle, Feith, and those nutbags.

4. it would be wishfull thinking for a kerry government to get tougher on SA or pakistan- but I am doubtfull.

5. The end of the notion of preventive wars (thank God).

6. perhaps more engagement in the ME conflict

7. A reproachment with France and Germany- not sure what kind of relations with Putin or China.

[oedo]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The question is simple, would Kerry a liberal (define it how you will) anti-war activist who is despised by many vets take action?

can you elaborate how these many vets can prefer a drink driving draft dodger to an severally honored veteran?

[Sava]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If Kerry replaced US troops in Iraq with more international troops, and pulled US troops out, we would see a less stable Iraq, as terror groups would become emboldened to strike harder.

see Kosovo...

Kerry's policies of relying more on international cooperation in the war on terror, would make it easier for Al Queda to regroup, resulting in a higher likelihood of terror attacks in the middle east.

oh and Bush's OPERATION IGNORE that allowed 9-11 to happen is what this country needs.

Kerry's domestic policies of higher taxes on the wealthy and big businesses, would result in lower GDP growth, which would hurt the economy.

This is the most retarded crap I've ever heard. How was the economy in the 50's? The top marginal tax rate was around 85-90%. Also... Clinton's 1993 budget raised taxes on the top marginal tax rate and we saw the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world. So, take your supply side bull**** and go preach to some right-wing think tank, because EDUCATED people know better.

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: If Kerry becomes Prez

Originally posted by SpencerH
BTW I'm not trying to take pot-shots, you're entitled to your own opinion, but the french have not supported american military actions taken against its enemies.

What about 1962, when De Gaulle was the first leader to pledge his support to the US in case of an all-out nuclear war?

Aside from that, the US didn't suffer from any agression, except Sept. 11, and France immediately supported the war in Afghanistan, as well as provided all help it could wrt intelligence (btw, our intelligence teams are supposed to have been instrumental in Afghanistan).

So, in the two postwar opportunities where you could judge an ally as being stalwart or not, France passed the test without problems.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


What, the wonderfully phrased "have you stopped beating your wife" question?

What will kerry do?

1. The same in Afghnistan and in the war on terror- at most, an increase in funds allocated.

2. In Iraq, no idea- it will depend on what the Bush admin. does before the elction-ie, what type of handover of power will occur in Iraq? Kerry will not withdraw but may cut troop numbers, or return to the UN and seek a compromise the bring in more foreing troops.

3. The big difference wil be in dumping all the civilians in the Pentagon that see the world as some hideous threat- no more Wolgfie, Perle, Feith, and those nutbags.

4. it would be wishfull thinking for a kerry government to get tougher on SA or pakistan- but I am doubtfull.

5. The end of the notion of preventive wars (thank God).

6. perhaps more engagement in the ME conflict

7. A reproachment with France and Germany- not sure what kind of relations with Putin or China.

Those are likely changes in policy, but they dont answer the question.

[debeest]

Originally posted by SpencerH
debeest

their are lots of other threads for your rhetoric

The question is simple, would Kerry a liberal (define it how you will) anti-war activist who is despised by many vets take action?

What, my rhetoric is less acceptable than:

"back to the Clintonian "fire a couple of missles and pretend like the problem has gone away". "

The question is not simple, and only a simpleton would think it is. Obviously, when the US is attacked, any US president will respond with great violence, as they always have. That assumes, though, that there's a sensible target to attack. Clinton tried to kill OBL with cruise missiles, because OBL was the threat. That was sensible. Shrub destroyed what there was of Afghanistan and abandoned the shambles to the survivors, without finding OBL -- and if you think OBL's operations are substantially impaired by the war against Afghanistan, I think you misunderstand terrorism.

Shrub invaded Iraq -- a country which OBL considered infidel, a country which the US had already bombed nearly every week for 12 years so that any real suspicious facility was already destroyed, a country in which the US already maintained ongoing control of a large portion of its airspace. Predictably, Iraq has fallen into anarchy -- perhaps better, perhaps worse, than the situation under Saddam, but the unwelcome US occupation is guaranteed to provide a vastly more fertile breeding ground for the kind of fundamentalist violence against Americans that allegedly provided the rationale for the invasion.

You think Kerry will be worse than Bush in terms of national security?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If Kerry replaced US troops in Iraq with more international troops, and pulled US troops out, we would see a less stable Iraq, as terror groups would become emboldened to strike harder.

Kerry's policies of relying more on international cooperation in the war on terror, would make it easier for Al Queda to regroup, resulting in a higher likelihood of terror attacks in the middle east.

So you basically think them furinners can't do anything right? Especially when it comes to peacekeeping, which is mostly a grunt-job, for which soldier's militaries (such as the German one) are better made than high tech ones (such as the US)?

Kerry's domestic policies of higher taxes on the wealthy and big businesses, would result in lower GDP growth, which would hurt the economy.

Actually, I agree Kerry could hurt the economy if he stopped deficit spending. it has little to do with tacing the rich: they have more than enough reasons to stay in the US as it is.

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If Kerry becomes Prez

Originally posted by Spiffor

What about 1962, when De Gaulle was the first leader to pledge his support to the US in case of an all-out nuclear war?

Aside from that, the US didn't suffer from any agression, except Sept. 11, and France immediately supported the war in Afghanistan, as well as provided all help it could wrt intelligence (btw, our intelligence teams are supposed to have been instrumental in Afghanistan).

So, in the two postwar opportunities where you could judge an ally as being stalwart or not, France passed the test without problems.

Stalwart i.e. dependable

You make some points. As I said, France is entitled to make its own opinions and to take action or not. I might point out the French refusing overflight for F111's attacking Libya, the withdrawl from NATO, I dont recall France 'jumping in' during GW1 (but I may be mistaken), and certainly France have been antagonistic over GW2. IMO the only 'stalwart ally' of the US is the UK.

[Sava]

SpencerH... I'm not sure exactly what your "question" is. I see two in the first post... I'll attempt to give you the answer you are looking for. Let me know if I misunderstand your question(s).

Your assessment of Kerry being a stereotypical "liberal" when it comes to National Security:

He voted for the Iraq War Resolution... he voted for the Patriot Act. That should be "N'uFF Said!" for the silly notion that Kerry is voting "liberal". Plus... I think the "liberal" doctrine for declaring war is what a moral country should practice. We should not go to war on a whim... on questionable and uncorraborated intelligence that was twisted to suit the ideological motives of the people in charge. War is a serious thing and should not be used with such a cavalier attitude. Europe understands this because they've seen the horrors of war.

Who are his allies going to be

the same allies that defeated the Nazis... the same allies that held back the Red Curtain... the same allies that have together built the strongest, most free, tolerant, productive, and economically vibrant societies. Yes... France, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc... It's sad that conservatives have forgotten what allies are. A good friend doesn't join you in doing something wrong. A good friend wants to see you do the right thing. Chirac's corruption aside... our ALLIES, didn't want this war... and for generally honest and moral reasons. All they asked for was proof. And not only did we not deliver that proof... but the US LIED in a weak attempt to get support.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Those are likely changes in policy, but they dont answer the question.

Well, your question is deeply biased and thus usless.

if I asked:

how long will Bush continue to follow this neo-con policy that is erroding America's s3curity and strengthening the enemy? would youi answer it?

Give me a break- ask a fair question, get an answer, ask biased crap question, get nothing. Simple system.

[Spiffor]

Ah yes, I thought "stalwart ally" meant "an ally that will honor the alliance without hesitation". If for you a "stalwart ally" is a country that shares the same geopolitical interests + methods very closely, you are indeed alone with the UK.

Unfortunately, being alone has a high cost your deficit won't be ably to finance for all eternity.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, your question is deeply biased and thus usless.

if I asked:

how long will Bush continue to follow this neo-con policy that is erroding America's s3curity and strengthening the enemy? would youi answer it?

Give me a break- ask a fair question, get an answer, ask biased crap question, get nothing. Simple system.

Its not a fair question to ask whether you think Kerry would take effective action against threats a la Bush, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy or would not a la Clinton, Ford (not necessarily his own fault) and the winner of the bunch Carter?

I thought its a pretty simple question, but one that goes to the heart of the matter. I dont trust that Kerry will maintain military and intel vigilance and I dont trust him to take effective action.

[Sava]

uhmm SpencerH... Reagan created the threats we are "dealing with" now.

[Sava]

If Kerry becomes prez

you will undoubtedly see me *****ing and moaning about him for 4 years

[SpencerH]

deleted as stupid