Kerry's Speech on Iraq

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Hey Fez, don't feel too bad about being stood up. You'll get a social life sooner or later.

I do have a social life. It is called going to West Hollywood and hanging out with my friends. Anyways, I must get going.. he and I are going to watch a DVD. It has nothing to do with being stood up.

[notyoueither]

btw, who has the 100,000 or 250,000 troops standing by that would be required to top up the occupation?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They need to update some of those though.

This is my fave:

October 2003: Kerry Calls Fence “Barrier To Peace.?“And I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long- term, they increase hardships to the Palestinian people, and they make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder.?(Sen. John Kerry, Remarks Before Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference, Dearborn, MI, 10/17/03)

February 2004: Kerry Calls Fence “Legitimate Act Of Self-Defense.?“US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, described Israel’s construction of a security barrier as a ‘legitimate act of self defense?after Sunday’s suicide bombing in Jerusalem, clarifying a position he took in October when he told an Arab American audience, ‘We don’t need another barrier to peace.’” (Janine Zacharia, “Kerry Defends Security Fence,?The Jerusalem Post, 2/25/04)

There's no real contradiction there (or at least not quite). He was criticizing the route of the wall, not its existance.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


I do have a social life. It is called going to West Hollywood and hanging out with my friends. Anyways, I must get going.. he and I are going to watch a DVD. It has nothing to do with being stood up.

Okay, have fun. I just assumed that you got stood up because you're still here 90 minutes after saying you were leaving to go on a date.

Of course, you also said something about ignoring this thread...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Okay, have fun. I just assumed that you got stood up because you're still here 90 minutes after saying you were leaving to go on a date.

Of course, you also said something about ignoring this thread...

It is called a DVD... and the new speakers on my TV.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boshko

There's no real contradiction there (or at least not quite).

How is something both a legitimate act of self-defense and a barrier to peace? If you're critical of the route the fence takes then you don't see it as a legitimate act of self-defense.

[notyoueither]

The fence is the best idea I've ever heard of. If it keeps 'them' apart and not killing each other, all power to it.

Now if Israel could stop the settlements. ****, are they stupid?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How is something both a legitimate act of self-defense and a barrier to peace? If you're critical of the route the fence takes then you don't see it as a legitimate act of self-defense.

It would seem obvious that if everyone is shooting at each other in self-defence then this is a pretty big barrier for peace.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The fence is the best idea I've ever heard of. If it keeps 'them' apart and not killing each other, all power to it.

I second that. We had one through Berlin, and it worked exceptionally good. Shame that it's gone.

[Jack_www]

Kerry likes to point out the problems in Iraq and ask questions as you guys say, but I dont think he would do anything different then Bush on Iraq.

First he has said that he would still have voted for the war knowing what he knows now( I dont know if he has change his mind on that or not). Second he would try to go to the UN and NATO for help, but I doubt they would every send troop to Iraq, why would they want to? Thrid if you pulled out of Iraq it would leave a big mess in the middle east.

I dont see what is so great of Kerry's plan with Iraq.

[Straybow]

OK, Imran, here goes:

Let's see what Kerry's magnificent speech tells us.

A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

But Kerry has already pledged to fund massive health care initiatives, economic growth incentives (ie, pork barrel spending), redoubling of education spending, etc. Where does he propose to get the money for this "powerful military" he seems to think doesn't exist?

What exactly is the magical "transformation" he proposes for the military? First I'll remind you of a poignant line in Zell Miller's speech about what weapons systems our military would be using if Kerry's Senate "no" votes had carried.

First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

What "promised international support?" Kerry mentions Resolution 1546, and then immediately tells us that none of the other nations who agreed to 1546 have followed up on that promise. Whose fault is that? Does Bush rule in those dozens of countries? Do his exective powers extend outside the US to compell them?

Maybe some countries voted and made promises for the sake of appearance? Hmmm, kinda reminds me of Kerry. Lots of talk, no substance. Some countries have withdrawn from Iraq, not because of Bush but because of terrorism. If they don't have the spine to stand up to the terrorists what are they doing promising support?

He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution.

He has, they haven't. He is undoubtedly continuing to pressure our allies to fulfill their promises. Or do you think the entire US diplomatic corps is sitting on their collective arses sipping tea?

He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

Actually, we simply wouldn't give their governments any control over the rebuilding, which is basically what France and Germany were trying to get. Many countries have sent workers, truck drivers, etc. No doubt French or German private companies could have offered on their own to help out, with the tacit admission that their governments' policies of opposition were not the universal view among their countrymen.

After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us.

Excuse me, but alliances are 2-way streets. The insults came from the other side of the ocean (and Great Lakes) first. Then we said, "Screw you, we'll do it ourselves" and kicked butt without their help.

At that point the Canadian, French, and German governments were too busy grandstanding to say, "Oops, our estimates of civilian and military casualties were off by orders of magnitude. Let's back up and work out our differences so we can work together." Whose fault is it that they were wrong and we were right?

The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training.

Takes money. Kerry voted against additional funding. Wrong again.

He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries.

They could volunteer, but they are too busy wearing their snubbed feelings on their sleeves. And not paying the money they've already committed to pay, so it isn't like they are suddenly going to have billions to throw at this problem.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Of course, all the roads and bridges and power stations and pipelines already rebuilt don't help the Iraqi people. What they need are, ummm, some other kind of tangible benefits. Like jobs created at the wave of a magic wand.

Somebody ask the French how their job creation magic works so well, and we'll copy it for Iraq.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Ah, yes, not spending money fast enough is always the Democrat perception. We should be loading the money into helicopters and dropping it over Bagdad.

Get this through the ol' skull: it isn't poverty that creates terrorism, it is ideology. We didn't have terrorists popping up in this country in the Depression. The terrorists popping up in Iraq aren't recruiting by telling the people that the terrorists can make jobs.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape.

Kerry is the genius so why doesn't he already have the list? Present it to the voters now so they'll know what they're voting for.

Nope, Kerry's got nothing. You aren't voting for Kerry because he has answers but because of some personal frustration.

I’m convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals.

In other words, let the responsibility fall to the UN. Kerry certainly doesn't have the guts to make a decision and stick to it, so there isn't any leadership there. The UN has failed to lead, every time. It is only when individual countries siezed the initiative that anything has been accomplished.

The first shot of Gulf War I would still be awaiting the twenty-ninth stern warning for Saddam to remove his troops from Kuwait. Raping and pillaging in former Yugoslavia would still be going unchecked. Afghanistan would still be hosting Bin Laden and broadcasting executions live from the soccer stadium.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He'll be many times more likely to have other countries to send some troops than Bush will.

Quick, what's 100 times 0?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
After Kerry's elections,

As president and dictator for life I assume, so that he can deliver at least 10% of his domestic agenda.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I can easily see a thawing of relations resulting in UN Security Council resolutions authorizing a peacekeeping mission in Iraq. I think you underestimate how much the Euros despise Bush and how the way he went about Iraq made them oppose it so strongly. A US President that treats Europe with respect and dignity, I think, can make a dent over there.

Time for a wager here. How much can you afford to lose?

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

but I think it asks a LOT of questions

Does it actually provide any solutions? I've read plenty of *****ing and questioning of Bush's Iraq policy from Kerry, but I've yet to read what exactly Kerry has in mind if he is elected. All he can seem to manage is "I would do it differently than Bush", which is a ****ing pathetic response.

The thing is, this is the advertisment that should make you buy the Kerry package. You'll then see what you get.
If it was Bush running against Kerry, you'd surely see the same thing from Bush.

This is called running against someone. Pretty much everyone will do that. You can't really make plans and say what you do when you don't have the same insight the administration has.
What he promised to do (I read it that way) is be critical about what Bush has done so far, evaluate the methods and try to find the best solution.
Voting for Bush I think will just give him support that what he did was okay and he'll continue w/o questioning.
Things have gone a bit wrong however (as Kerry pointed out) and I think a reevaluation of the situation is quite necessary.

[Chemical Ollie]

Excellent speach, but I don't see how Kerry would be able to make things better in Iraq. The damage is already done.

Kerry would perhaps be able to create a global coalition to go into Sudan or something, but Iraq is already too messed up by the Yanks. It was started by the Americans and should be payed by them, in blood and dollars.

[Drake Tungsten]

Post enkai, a bit drunk, just want to laugh at Immers some more...