Democratic Convention

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Bull**** and you know it Michael. I highly doubt that a change of leadership here is going to lessen the resistence of the European populace to getting involved with Iraq and it's going to take more than mere platitudes from you to even begin to convince me that it might be so.

It depends on the nature of the sales pitch and the product you're trying to sell them. Are there suddenly going to be 50-100 k additional foreign troops on the ground? Hell no.

Is there a possible economic case to be made for rapid stabilization and continuing improvement to Iraqi oil export infrastructure? Yes.

Is there an argument to be made for increased support for training and equiping Iraqi security forces, to get more of them better trained and in action quickly? Yes.

There are two big differences with new management in any enterprise. First, the old management (no matter who they are) are typically bureaucratically wedded to their chosen way of doing things, whether right or wrong. Second, the new management (especially of an entity with as much leveral and as big an ass to kiss as the US) has an opportunity to make new deals and get "favors" (even if they're really not) from parties who are interested in maintaining or improving relations with the new party in power.

It's got nothing to do with Bush and Kerry, it's straight Macchiavelli.

[Pekka]

I have to say that Sava is 100% right. While there is anti-americanism in Europe, it isn't anything new or weird, there's anti-everything in Europe so you're not special. However, the new wave of protestors etc are strictly against administration, not the people or the country. You can say that if you're against the administartion, you're against the people, but that's not really true. So there are a lot of anti-bush people in Europe, that is true. You will see it, if Kerry gets elected, they will joy like Iraqi people on the streets .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
I believe it to be so because I have friends who live in both England and France who visited recently(and relatives who live in Germany) who say people in their countries would support reconstruction in Iraq if Kerry was president. The feeling in Europe isn't "anti-American"... it's ANTI-BUSH.

But Republicans want everyone to think that being against Bush is being anti-American.

Britain is already punching well above its weight in Iraq, so other than cementing New Labours political position its not clear this matters much. I doubt any support France will give to Kerry will be all that substantial.

Lets not forget that France's issues with US power did NOT start with Dubya. We were an "arrogant hyperpower" under Clinton. We had conflicts with them on trade, on Africa, on Israel, on Iran, and yes on Iraq during the Clinton years. Unless Kerry is going to be MORE accomodating to France than Clinton was (if so, Id like to hear about that) we are still going to have a difficult relationship with France.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's because you're all damned commies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Lets not forget that France's issues with US power did NOT start with Dubya. We were an "arrogant hyperpower" under Clinton. We had conflicts with them on trade, on Africa, on Israel, on Iran, and yes on Iraq during the Clinton years. Unless Kerry is going to be MORE accomodating to France than Clinton was (if so, Id like to hear about that) we are still going to have a difficult relationship with France.

At least we can agree on France.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Is there a possible economic case to be made for rapid stabilization and continuing improvement to Iraqi oil export infrastructure? Yes.

Is there an argument to be made for increased support for training and equiping Iraqi security forces, to get more of them better trained and in action quickly? Yes.

That probably explains thier reluctance to even commit that much is the way of resources.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


No, between folks who are so incompetent that they can't do anything right and people who realize that the United States cannot do nation building in Islamic countries.

I know you believe that Agathon, if John Kerry also believes it I want to hear it from him.

[DinoDoc]

Kerry doesn't take stands on issues, LOTM. It's not in his nature or his record.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Kerry doesn't take stands on issues, LOTM. It's not in his nature or his record.

Which is good. He believes in a compromise and seeks to make both sides of an issue happy. Which is a sharp contrast to Bush who takes stubborn ideological stances just to please the most extremist elements in his base.

What does that mean? Kerry wants to unite, Bush wants to divide. America wants a president that represents everyone, not just the extremists on one side of the political spectrum.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

How could you possibly believe the last question? In our district in NYC they closed a firehouse soon asfter 9/11 due to budget cuts. If Fire departments are supposedly the front lines in the "war on terror", then in theory thy should get more funding, not cuts. I think is is simply obvious what he was saying.

.

Front lines? Er, I think fire houses are the LAST line of defense in the war on terror. If firemen are rescuing folks from burning buildings due to a terr act, or a blown up train, or or pulling people from a tunnel filled with poison gas, thats already the end of a string of defeats. Defeats of law enforcement, of intell, of special operations, of public diplomacy, and yes, of nation building. Suppose there had been more firehouses in lower Manhattan on Sept 11, 2001. What would that have meant - a few more dead firefighters, is all.

What WOULD have stopped 9/11 would have been an interventions in Afghanistan more substantial than Clintons pinprick bombing, BEFORE 9/11. Now Im not blaming Clinton for that - or Bush either, for that matter. There wasnt the political will to do something like that with what was, after all, only sketchy intell.

So what I want to know is will Kerry act decisively when there is only sketchy intell???

[DinoDoc]

The article I linked to earlier is for you too Sava.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Kerry doesn't take stands on issues, LOTM. It's not in his nature or his record.

I must respectfully disagree. All pols change over time, and the complexity of the legislative process leads to complex votes. Nonetheless I know in fairly great detail, considering hes not in office yet, where Kerry stands on prescription drugs, tax cuts, increasing the size of the army, etc. Compared to that level of detail I know nothing about his foreign policy values. Ive got people here saying he IS for nationbuilding in Iraq, and will do better cause of his ability to reach out to allies. Ive got Will Marshall agreeing. OTOH Ive got folks as far apart as Andrew Sullivan and Agathon in agreement that he doesnt beleive in nation building by the US in the muslim world - all positions that are equally defensible based on Kerrys RECENT public statements.

Im NOT the only one saying this - this AM's WaPo editorial makes a similar criticism.

Now Agathons Kerry is NOT MtG's Kerry. I very much need to know which one is the REAL kerry before I vote.

[KrazyHorse]

That's ridiculous.

Neither candidate says what they're going to do. It's the nature of politics.

The only reason you know what Bush is going to do is that you've seen what he has done. The question in the American system is: do I believe that a random person will do better than the current president.

From an American perspective, I can't see how that answer is anything but yes. From a global perspective, we'd like to see you continue shooting yourselves in the foot (as long as it doesn't go too far and start hurting us in a meaningful way).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It depends on the nature of the sales pitch and the product you're trying to sell them. Are there suddenly going to be 50-100 k additional foreign troops on the ground? Hell no.

Is there a possible economic case to be made for rapid stabilization and continuing improvement to Iraqi oil export infrastructure? Yes.

Is there an argument to be made for increased support for training and equiping Iraqi security forces, to get more of them better trained and in action quickly? Yes.

There are two big differences with new management in any enterprise. First, the old management (no matter who they are) are typically bureaucratically wedded to their chosen way of doing things, whether right or wrong. Second, the new management (especially of an entity with as much leveral and as big an ass to kiss as the US) has an opportunity to make new deals and get "favors" (even if they're really not) from parties who are interested in maintaining or improving relations with the new party in power.

It's got nothing to do with Bush and Kerry, it's straight Macchiavelli.

so they wont give us troops, but they will give us money? So we can build more stuff for the insurgents to blow up?? So we can have money that cant be spent cause the contractors are afraid to go there?? AFAIK theres almost NO reconstruction going on in the Sunni triangle, because of the security situation.

ONce the security situation is dealt with, to make way for large scale reconstruction, the games largely won anyway. (Which would mean that Bush CAN succeed in Iraq without the stinkin' allies) John Kerry didnt imply last night that reaching out to France will save us money - he implied it will save us LIVES.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's ridiculous.

Neither candidate says what they're going to do. It's the nature of politics.

The only reason you know what Bush is going to do is that you've seen what he has done. The question in the American system is: do I believe that a random person will do better than the current president.

There are many people who think a random person would do better than Bush. Those people are already going to vote for Kerry. Given the polls, at least half the US electorate doesnt fall in that category, and those are the people Kerry needs to win over.

Again I dont want to know exactly what hes going to do. I DO want to know what direction hes going to head in.