How will Kerry better handle Iraq and N. Korea?

[Brotha]

I genuinely want to know why all of the Kerry supporters here think Kerry will do a better job with regards to Iraq and N. Korea. I know your instant reaction is "anything he does will be better than Bush," but that's not what I'm looking for- I'm looking for things he's said will do that you think would directly help to win in Iraq and solve the problem in N. Korea.

Kerry's plan to have certain countries come to Iraq to basically bail us out is completely unrealistic. Does anyone here actually buy into this? Honestly I'm embarrassed people actually take this seriously.

How will Kerry and Edwards speed up the training of Iraqi troops anymore than it's already happening? I saw Kerry mention this numerous times in the debates, but this is already being done as fast as it can be (some say too fast).

Kerry has said he would directly negotiate with N. Korea, but how would that be any different than the deal Clinton made with them? Do any of you actually think N. Korea wouldn't violate this one as well?

[miir]

Why don't you start off by telling us what you think Bush will do.

[Siji]

I'm looking for things he's said will do

You mean kind of like all the things Bush said he'd do, that he never did or ever will do..

[Lohrno]

I genuinely want to know why all of the Kerry supporters here think Kerry will do a better job with regards to Iraq and N. Korea. I know your instant reaction is "anything he does will be better than Bush," but that's not what I'm looking for- I'm looking for things he's said will do that you think would directly help to win in Iraq and solve the problem in N. Korea.

There's an ancient trick. Instead of instantly waging war on other countries, Kerry will use his secret weapon. Diplomacy. Bush doesn't know about this.

-=Lohrno

[Animale]

As for Iraq, I admit that it will be a hard sell to get other nations to come in and help out with the security situation in as bad of shape as it is. However, especially in Europe, a new face will help immensely in that effort.

As for North Korea, the answer is simple. The Bush administration has refused to do 1 on 1 negotiations with the North Koreans. The Koreans (probably rightly) see this as a slap in their face as a sovereign, "modern" nation, and for them dignity and pretenses is about all they have left. A one on one discussion with North Korea would allow for reasonable discussion and compromise, whereas now its like the boyfriend and girlfriend who won't talk to one another trying to make it back together by talking to their one mutual friend. It just doesn't work very well. This is a major failure in diplomacy by the Bush administration in my opinion, we HAVE to deal with North Korea on a one on one basis, otherwise it just won't work.

Animale

[Cartalas]

I genuinely want to know why all of the Kerry supporters here think Kerry will do a better job with regards to Iraq and N. Korea. I know your instant reaction is "anything he does will be better than Bush," but that's not what I'm looking for- I'm looking for things he's said will do that you think would directly help to win in Iraq and solve the problem in N. Korea.

There's an ancient trick. Instead of instantly waging war on other countries, Kerry will use his secret weapon. Diplomacy. Bush doesn't know about this.

-=Lohrno

Yeah Diplomacy worked real well, Im sure The Kurds liked the diplomacy.

Now now before one of you dumbasses say well they were revolting against the Govt. Then you tell me why Milosavic was attacked and run out? werent they only revolting so what Milosavic was doing justified in the eyes of you morons.

[Rekaar.]

As for Iraq, I admit that it will be a hard sell to get other nations to come in and help out with the security situation in as bad of shape as it is. However, especially in Europe, a new face will help immensely in that effort.

As for North Korea, the answer is simple. The Bush administration has refused to do 1 on 1 negotiations with the North Koreans. The Koreans (probably rightly) see this as a slap in their face as a sovereign, "modern" nation, and for them dignity and pretenses is about all they have left. A one on one discussion with North Korea would allow for reasonable discussion and compromise, whereas now its like the boyfriend and girlfriend who won't talk to one another trying to make it back together by talking to their one mutual friend. It just doesn't work very well. This is a major failure in diplomacy by the Bush administration in my opinion, we HAVE to deal with North Korea on a one on one basis, otherwise it just won't work.

Animale

The Clinton administration proved this didn't work, why would we revisit what proved unsuccessful?

[Lohrno]

Yeah Diplomacy worked real well, Im sure The Kurds liked the diplomacy.

Now now before one of you dumbasses say well they were revolting against the Govt. Then you tell me why Milosavic was attacked and run out? werent they only revolting so what Milosavic was doing justified in the eyes of you morons.

Are the Kurds or the Serbs US citizens?

Basically, who cares. It's their problem. And if you want to start crying for the common man in other countries, then you should be against the Iraq war, as we have killed tens of thousands of people there. Most by accident, albeit some were insurgents.

-=Lohrno

PS: Congratulations, that's the first non trolling post of yours I've seen. I don't agree with you, but at least it was somewhat thought out. Seriously.

[Cartalas]

Yeah Diplomacy worked real well, Im sure The Kurds liked the diplomacy.

Now now before one of you dumbasses say well they were revolting against the Govt. Then you tell me why Milosavic was attacked and run out? werent they only revolting so what Milosavic was doing justified in the eyes of you morons.

Are the Kurds or the Serbs US citizens?

Basically, who cares. It's their problem. And if you want to start crying for the common man in other countries, then you should be against the Iraq war, as we have killed tens of thousands of people there. Most by accident, albeit some were insurgents.

-=Lohrno

Were the French,British,Chinese american citizens? No they werent but I guess Hitler was there problem.

[Lohrno]

Were the French,British,Chinese american citizens? No they werent but I guess Hitler was there problem.

Hitler would have been a threat to the US. In fact, we didn't intervene until much later. Pearl Harbor ring a bell? FYI, the war in Europe was going on for years before the US stepped in. I seriously doubt Milosevic and/or Saddam would have grown to that level of power without being overthrown by their own people.

-=Lohrno

[Cartalas]

Were the French,British,Chinese american citizens? No they werent but I guess Hitler was there problem.

Hitler would have been a threat to the US. In fact, we didn't intervene until much later. Pearl Harbor ring a bell? FYI, the war in Europe was going on for years before the US stepped in. I seriously doubt Milosevic and/or Saddam would have grown to that level of power without being overthrown by their own people.

-=Lohrno

Thats exactly what Europe thought about Hitler in the Late 30's, Oh he will stop......Ok he got that he will stop now...... What did it get them a lot of dead people.

[Rekaar.]

Ok Lohrno, so what's the magic number of genocide before the global test is passed and it's ok with you to pull up your pants and do something?

[Lohrno]

Thats exactly what Europe thought about Hitler in the Late 30's, Oh he will stop......Ok he got that he will stop now...... What did it get them a lot of dead people.

Germany was/is one of the stronger countries economically. Saddam only once invaded one of his neighbors (Kuwait, but the reason was not imperialism, it was that they were slant drilling into Iraqi territory), and Milosevic didn't as far as I know. Before the first gulf war, we wouldn't even have had to worry about them. After all we pretty much propped Saddam up by giving him weapons to fight the USSR backed Iranians. Iraq did not try to take over Kuwait, and Bosnia/Yugoslavia was a civil war.

Hitler took over most of Europe, and parts of Africa.

Another point I want to make is that Milosevic and Saddam are by far not the only tyrannical dictators in the world, yet we don't touch them either. Many people dissappear in Chile, and parts of Africa are being ravaged by overlords/dictators. I don't think we have an obligation to fight all those battles.

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

Ok Lohrno, so what's the magic number of genocide before the global test is passed and it's ok with you to pull up your pants and do something?

We have enough to worry about. Unless another country poses a direct threat to US, we should do nothing. Millions of people die from hunger even every year. People die, get used to it. I'm just more concerned with making sure it's not us.

-=Lohrno

[Aaeamdar]

1. He won't be Bush. This is important, I think (hope?), because if I were our normal "allies" I would not bother helping Bush in Iraq, but I might help, if they came to me sufficiently appologetic, another US president. Iraq is a mess and despite what Bush thinks, the US cannot handle it alone. While it might be embarassing to essentially beg for help, that's what we need to be ready to do. We need other well off nations to help foot the bill on getting Iraq back in shape. It's in our allies interests to help us with this, since alone we will certainly fail and we'll be left with complete choas in Iraq - leading either to another totalitarian regiem (if we are lucky) or a radical muslim theocracy. Either way, Bush is right on one thing - we cannot afford to fail in Iraq, but with Bush that failure is almost certain. We need someone else to restore our international credibility.

2. Kerry's plan for Iraq is simply better than Bush's. Regardless of what you think of the likelihood of success, reaching out diplomatically to our allies is necessary. Bush's plan of phat contracts for Halliburton is not going to cut it - or rather won't cut it without putting the US even farther and farther into debt.

3. Korea - not sure. It's a bad thing that is happening, but I am not convinced either Candidate has a workable plan. N.K. already has a few nukes, so attacking them is not an option. The best thing to do is worldwide sanctions. If they want nukes they can go it alone. I don't see how talks are going to disued them of anything - multilateral or "one on one." We have a similar thing happening in Iran (something, mind you, that would have been a lot less threatening if Sadam - see, before we fucked with things, Sadam's main enemy was Iran, not the US. For that matter, before we fucked with things in the 50s, Iran was our friend, was secular and was a Democracy. But Brittan needed that cheap oil, so we turned Iran into a Monarchy which, when it fell, it fell to a muslin theocracy - grats US).

The biggest point on foriegn affairs is that we need to get out of everyone's backyard with our troops. Kerry will do this. Bush will most likely hit someone else once he withdraws from Iraq and leaves it to muslin extreemists. It's Bush's general policy of pre-emptive strikes that is a failure. Pre-emptive strikes need to be small in scale with small, specific missions in mind. If the US gains intellegence that a group in Iran is going to carry out a terrorist attack on us or our allies, a small scale strike against those targets is fine. An invasion of a country harboring (willingly or unwillingly) those terrorists is not. Bush does not understand this. Kerry does.

[Animale]

It only didn't work in North Korea when we didn't follow through (in their eyes, in ours neither side really followed through) with our promises. At least we had them at the table at that time though... now they are doing whatever they want with nobody to watch them.

Animale

[Rekaar.]

Ok Lohrno, so what's the magic number of genocide before the global test is passed and it's ok with you to pull up your pants and do something?

We have enough to worry about. Unless another country poses a direct threat to US, we should do nothing. Millions of people die from hunger even every year. People die, get used to it. I'm just more concerned with making sure it's not us.

-=Lohrno

It quite obviously would never be you, you would gladly throw the women and children of Darfur in front of your cowardly face to shield you from the horror of their reality. Have you ever watched someone die in a brutal murder? I'm not talking about Law & Order, I'm talking about so callously opposing your human obligation to defend the life liberty and freedom of other human beings that you can without reservation say "rather them than me."

Weak.

[Aaeamdar]

but the reason was not imperialism, it was that they were slant drilling into Iraqi territory

A trick, no doubt, they learned from none other than C. Montgomery Burns!

[Lohrno]

It quite obviously would never be you, you would gladly throw the women and children of Darfur in front of your cowardly face to shield you from the horror of their reality. Have you ever watched someone die in a brutal murder? I'm not talking about Law & Order, I'm talking about so callously opposing your human obligation to defend the life liberty and freedom of other human beings that you can without reservation say "rather them than me."

Weak.

What makes you think that we have an obligation to stop all the deaths of the world when we can not stop the many deaths that happen from hunger/crime within our own borders? For the money spent in Iraq, we could have fed and clothed tons of our own. Are Iraqi lives more important than our own? Obligation to protect liberty? What about first instilling it here? The patriot act gives powers to the government to tap your phone indiscrimintately. Sounds like the KGB to me.

Not only that but our incompetent intervention in Iraq has CAUSED so many innocents to die. Vietnam too btw. It is up to other countries' own people to decide their fate, not us.

Let me make it abundantly clear: We are not responsible for the deaths in Dafur or any other place in the world that we are not really involved in. And since when has it been our 'obligation to protect liberty?' I thought that sovereign nations decided for themselves what they wanted.

-=Lohrno

[Winnow]

I think a global test is needed before anymore posts about Iran are made to determine if it's important enough.

[Forthe]

I think Kerry will have a much easier job getting help from allies. Bush gives the world a free pass on this issue, if we help the US in Iraq then we are in fact supporting and rewarding Bush's policies and greatly increasing the chances of (even encouraging) similar actions in the future. As long as the US supports these policies you can expect little help and deep suspicion from the world.

[Hesten]

Were the French,British,Chinese american citizens? No they werent but I guess Hitler was there problem.

Hitler would have been a threat to the US. In fact, we didn't intervene until much later. Pearl Harbor ring a bell? FYI, the war in Europe was going on for years before the US stepped in. I seriously doubt Milosevic and/or Saddam would have grown to that level of power without being overthrown by their own people.

-=Lohrno

Thats exactly what Europe thought about Hitler in the Late 30's, Oh he will stop......Ok he got that he will stop now...... What did it get them a lot of dead people.

Well, at least we ended up doing something. Just too bad some people still traded and banked for the nazis AFTER the war i europe was in full blaze. Hmm, who could that be, oh year, the Bush family.

[Fat]

Thats exactly what Europe thought about Hitler in the Late 30's, Oh he will stop......Ok he got that he will stop now...... What did it get them a lot of dead people.

There is a marked difference between Nazi Germany and the other regimes you speak of. The Nazis controlled a large industrial base that was being completely fueled by strong government spending. Ever heard of the Hossbach Memorandum? Hitler was building a modern war machine on the governments tab and at the same time boosting the economy. A lot of historians believe that he had to go to war in '39 or he would have run out of money--basically he needed to loot Europe.

At this current time the German army was probably considered the strongest standing force in the world. France had lowered its conscription requirments and Britain hadnt kept up on defense spending during the interwar period (Churchill's defining deal before he became the war hero). France still had a considerable army as well as Czechoslovakia, Britain, and Russia. Britain still retained marine superiority.

Fast forward to today. Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in terms of number of men in 1991. It had decreased in size since then and was technologically at least two decades behind the United States. The closest parallel? The Polish cavalry vs. German panzer divisions.

Another unique aspect of the Nazi conflict was that this was happening in Europes back yard. True, they appeased the Nazis and let the Anschluss happen and then at Munich they sold Benes and Czechoslovakia down the river. Was this same sort of thing happening in Iraq? No. In fact, when Saddam tried to use Hitler's argument for the Anschluss and Munich we invaded his country. Self-determination isn't in vogue any longer.

Your argument is weak and petty and purely attempts to bring a historical perspective where there should be none. A good man once said, "A historian has done his job, not by predicting the future, but by preventing others from doing so."

-Alfan

[Krimson Klaw]

I think Kerry will be less aggressive. We can still be a strong nation without having a cowboy attitude towards the rest of the planet. That's my honest and simple opinion concerning Kerry's diplomacy towards these countries. And by less agressive I do not mean appeasment.