Does Kerry Support Regime Change? Pre-Emption? Invasion?

[DrFunkenstein]

Regime Change?

As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war...Regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war.

Pre-emption?

Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent.

None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption.

Right the first time:

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

None of what Kerry says here contradicts Kerry's statement about what he "knows now." It underlines it. Saddam had a history of violent unaccoutability, and the legitimate threat of force was the only method of compliance throughout the 90's.

Does Kerry support the invasion of Iraq?

I voted to protect the security of our country, based on the notion that the only way to get inspectors back in was to have a legitimate threat of force and the potential of using it. They took that legitimacy and bastardized it. If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today -- we would not be at war.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=5939886&pageid=rs.PoliticsArchive&pageregion=mainRegion&rnd=1092930440441&has-player=unknown

[peacetalksforall]

1. All your words will be put to good use if Kerry workers read it and this

post - Kerry's 'metal of conviction' will soon be required because the right wing is gearing up to declare war on Iran. The right wing wind is storming up. They are planting spokespeople to make the case. And, most importantly, they are desparate for another win.


There may also be a simultaneous attempt to declare war on Cuba and Venezuela as well, because confusion of causes and chaos in the news coverage will reign.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Bush May Need To Invade Grenada Again

Panama didn't do the trick. Iraq was a loser the first time. Better start thinking smaller.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Somehow, the more doomsday scenarios you pile into one post

the less impact it has.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Good luck being optimistic about their plans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Good luck being pessimistic about our plans.