Bush is getting desperate in his campaign.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I seem to recall the EU & the USSR as being far larger weapons dealers to Saddam then the US. He used Soviet Tanks and French fighter planes and it was German chemical companies who sold him everything needed to make chemical weapons. However, people blame the US.

The French and Russians didn't then label him the biggest threat to world peace and try and make everyone invade to get rid of him.

It's the hypocricy that offends people more than the weapons sales. All arms manufacturing nations have sold to highly questionable regimes. We still do.

[Harovan]

Germany is generally reluctant with sending, or permitting companies to send, weapons abroad. Hell, we have had (and still have) big discussions, if we should send tanks to Turkey, let alone regimes like former Iraq. If Germany did it in the 80's (which I can't confirm right now), it surely has been discussed both in the parliament and with our allies. Looks like none of them had any concerns. And fact is, throughout the 80's the West was rather friendly toward Saddam. Don't make me post Rumsfelds handshake for the 100th time.

[Ramo]

You mean it takes time, patience, and respect to make the Iraqis feel as if they don't have legitimate representatives

The Iraqi people don't need an American politician to tell them that their gov't is totally unreprentative. Something that Kerry hasn't said, BTW.

and never will with the Yanks around?

When did he ever say or imply this?

I wonder how Kerry makes Karzai feel?

Seeing as how he's not part of the coalition in Iraq, I don't see how that's relevant.

He honestly thinks he can slag the war in Iraq as a bad idea and a huge mess, and then get others to send help? To what? Suicide, the way he tells it.

Pointing out mistakes in the process is the first step to correcting them.

The only thing I see him doing is setting up an escape from Iraq. **** the people. **** democracy and the ME. Get us the **** out of there, right now.

It makes me sick to think that Iraqis went through all that they went through, and that now in the last mile some panty waist from Mass is gonna throw them to the wolves.

Except, there's no evidence Kerry is planning on this, while Bob Novak, who has deep sources in the WH (you might remember him from leaking Plame's name), says that the Administration is planning on getting out of Iraq shortly after the election.

[DinoDoc]

Except, there's no evidence Kerry is planning on this

Of course, if we ignore the NPR interview where he pledged to vastly reduce troop levels there within 6 months of being elected after beating Bush over the head because there weren't enough troops there in his opinion then you'd be abso;utely correct.

[MikeH]

Didn't he say there weren't enough troops immediately after the invation which is true, that doesn't mean that many are needed now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
Didn't he say there weren't enough troops immediately after the invation which is true, that doesn't mean that many are needed now.

It'd be if Kerry didn't openly contradict your defense of him.

Kerry: General Shinseki had the wisdom to say you're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace. We still seem to be trying to win the peace and I a) don't see that changing if Kerry wins & b) don't see any evidence that there would be a groundswell of new troops from other countries to replace ours in the event of a Kerry win. So yes there is evidence that he's planning on throwing the Iraqis to the wolves.

[MikeH]

OK, fair enough, so it's another issue where his policy is the same as Bushes. Therefore irrelevant to choosing between them.

(Although I think Kerry's plan is to get other coutries to commit replacement troops whereas Bush can't possibly do that 'cause they all hate him).

[Last Conformist]

Does anybody here think that Kerry isn't a liberal?

Yes. Liberals are supposed to be rightists.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MikeH
OK, fair enough, so it's another issue where his policy is the same as Bushes. Therefore irrelevant to choosing between them.

I don't really believe Ramo so that's open to debate at this point.

(Although I think Kerry's plan is to get other coutries to commit replacement troops whereas Bush can't possibly do that 'cause they all hate him).

I ... don't see any evidence that there would be a groundswell of new troops from other countries to replace ours in the event of a Kerry win.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Maybe. I just don't see it improving with Kerry. The guy is a disaster that can be seen coming.

If you're right, and Kerry is a disaster, then all we've done is exchange one disaster for another. We're still in the same place we were before. Therefore we have nothing to lose by electing Kerry, cuz it's always possible he minght not be a disaster. If that's the case, then we're better off than before. Cuz let's face it, Bush's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster.

[MikeH]

Worst. President. Ever.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't see any evidence that there would be a groundswell of new troops from other countries to replace ours in the event of a Kerry win.

Frankly it would be fun to watch if Kerry wins to see if all the world leaders, who are abusing Bush for not getting more concensus from them before acting, will support Kerry by actually helping him. Or will they ignore him as well... An anit Bush/American stance is a real crowd pleaser right now for many foreign politicians.

If Kerry is president, they will have to show their true colors... are they really Anti Bush, or Anti American. Bush has been a great whipping boy for them... But will it really change much with Kerry in place. It will be interesting to see if Kerry wins.

[MikeH]

Not only is it a crowd pleaser but as he or his team have publically tried to belittle them and make them look stupid there's no way they could act positively towards Bush without losing their own credibility with their electorates. That's just retarded.

Things weren't hugely different policy wise under Clinton but at least he was smart enough to keep disagreements private so that everyone could keep face, and the discussions would continue - he got more concessions that way. Bush Senior was a lot better at international relations as well.

No-one in my lifetime has been as bad as Bush. (at maintaining good relations with allies)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither

It makes me sick to think that Iraqis went through all that they went through, and that now in the last mile some panty waist from Mass is gonna throw them to the wolves.

Get your head on right -- Kerry's plan is NOT to simply give up on the Iraqis. He wants to fix the mistakes that were made by the Bush administration, in Iraq.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MikeH
Worst. President. Ever.

No. I think that title is still held by Andrew Johnson.