Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards Outlines Fundamental Differences on National Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:49 AM
Original message
Edwards Outlines Fundamental Differences on National Security
Speaking in Wilmington, N.C., Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards Monday outlined the fundamental national security choice facing voters in this election: four more years of a go-it-alone foreign policy that undermines the war against terror or the Kerry-Edwards plan to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

"After months of saying he'd done everything right on Iraq and foreign policy, the president acknowledged just the other day that he miscalculated the way in which he waged the war in Iraq," Edwards said. "He believes that he may have won the war too quickly and that was a miscalculation. I want to talk to you about the other ways in which this president has 'miscalculated' our approach to foreign policy. The Bush administration miscalculated by rushing to war without a plan for the peace. The Bush administration miscalculated by deciding to go it alone without strong allies. The Bush administration miscalculated when they waited three years after September 11th to start to reform our intelligence."

Stripping away the slogans, failed policies and personal attacks swirling around New York this week, Edwards said the Bush administration has led America down the wrong path in the wake of September 11th and that only a new president and a new approach can make America as safe as it can be.

"I know that some Americans question whether or not there are differences between us and our opponents -- whether it is winning the war on terror, strengthening and leading strong alliances, and finishing the job in Afghanistan and Iraq. When it comes to how America fights terror and leads the world, make no mistake: this election offers the American people a very real choice," Edwards said.

The policies of the Bush administration have weakened America's leadership in the world. The president rushed to war in Iraq with no plan to win the peace. He pursued a go-it-alone foreign policy that has squandered America's leadership in the world and alienated the allies we need to win the war on terror. He has provided billions for Halliburton while our troops have been shortchanged on body armor and benefits. Bush first resisted the creation of the 9/11 Commission, then put up road blocks to its investigation, and now has been slow to implement its recommendations.

"To win the war on terror, we need three things: a strong offense, a strong defense, and strong alliances," Edwards said. "We will go on the offensive to defeat the terrorists before they get to us. We will strengthen our defenses by providing greater homeland security. And we will build strong alliances to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- and bring stability and freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what we will do. This is what they haven't done. And that is a difference."

As Edwards outlined today, Kerry and Edwards represent a very different choice for the American people.

On Afghanistan, which has become a forgotten front in the war on terror, the Kerry-Edwards administration will meet America's commitment to bring stability and prevent the resurgence of the Taliban. They will work to get NATO to accelerate expansion of forces outside of Kabul and keep additional troops in place beyond the election period. To stop the exploding drug trade, Kerry and Edwards will double counter-narcotics assistance and will work with our British allies to create a fully capable Afghan counter- narcotics force.

In Iraq, we face a situation complicated by the Bush administration's failures. To address this, a Kerry-Edwards administration will work with NATO to accelerate the training of Iraq's security forces and provide security so that elections can move forward. "Because of this administration's failures, Iraq is a mess today -- and it probably will be the day we take office," Edwards said. "It didn't have to be this way. But it is. And we need new leadership to fix it."

As president, John Kerry will provide America new leadership to strengthen and restore alliances. With our friends and allies by our side can we effectively fight the war on terror, keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, finish the job in Afghanistan and win the peace in Iraq.

With our allies by our side, Kerry and Edwards will go on the offensive to defeat global terrorism by transforming the military to meet this threat and enhancing international cooperation to improve intelligence and law enforcement efforts. They will also launch a comprehensive strategy to win the war of ideas in the Muslim world.

The number one national security priority of a Kerry-Edwards administration will be to prevent terrorists from obtaining the most dangerous weapons. They will accelerate efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons, lead efforts to end nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, strengthen the Nonproliferation Treaty, and work toward a global ban on the production of materials for nuclear weapons. A Kerry-Edwards Administration will also create a Nuclear Whistleblower Initiative to ensure that any scientists who are willing to disclose an illicit weapons program will be given protection and a safe haven in the United States.

Kerry and Edwards will also better protect the homeland with a new strategy that takes steps as big as the threats we face. They will improve security at our borders and ports and launch a major effort to secure our most vulnerable critical infrastructure. They will also ensure that our first-responders have the training, resources and equipment they need to respond to any attacks.

"This won't be easy," Edwards said. "It will not happen overnight. It will take hard work, sacrifice, and courage. It will take new and sustained leadership. One thing you can take to the bank: John Kerry and I will do all we can to make America stronger at home and respected in the world."

FACT SHEET:

Stronger at Home, Respected in the World: The Kerry-Edwards National Security Strategy

John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is stronger at home and respected in the world. They have a comprehensive strategy to strengthen America's security. They will:

-- restore America's alliances that have been damaged by President Bush's unilateralist foreign policy;

-- destroy terrorist networks through a transformed military capable of meeting modern threats and responding effectively with force whenever necessary, and through increased international cooperation to improve intelligence and law enforcement efforts, cut off financing for terrorists, and deny terrorist havens;

-- finish the job in Afghanistan by working with NATO to expand its forces outside Kabul and stopping the exploding drug trade through doubled counter-narcotics assistance and a new international counter-narcotics force;

-- win the peace in Iraq by working with - not around - our allies to make Iraqi security one of NATO's global missions, help secure Iraq's elections, safeguard the integrity of Iraq's borders, and forgive Iraq's enormous debt;

-- reform our nation's intelligence services with a new National Intelligence Director and an intelligence community capable of meeting the threats of today -- not those of the Cold War;

-- win the war of ideas through initiatives like a new International Youth Opportunity Fund that will build and operate schools in Muslim countries;

-- keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, including through accelerated efforts to secure at risk nuclear weapons and materials around the world and a new Nuclear Whistleblower Initiative that will ensure that scientists do not pass on knowledge on building nuclear weapons to terrorists or dangerous states; and

-- protect our homeland by improving security at our borders, seaports, airports and critical infrastructure targets and making sure that our first responders have the training and equipment to respond to any attack

The 9/11 Commission has recommended taking many of these steps, which John Kerry and John Edwards have long advocated. While the Bush administration has not done what is necessary to keep the country safe, John Kerry and John Edwards will move immediately to make these plans a reality. That is the difference.

RESTORE AMERICA'S ALLIANCES. America must always be the world's paramount military power. But we can magnify our power through alliances. The threat of terrorism demands global alliances to stop terrorists before they can strike at us and to prevent them from obtaining the most dangerous weapons. John Kerry and John Edwards will restore alliances that have been damaged by the Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy.

DESTROY TERRORIST NETWORKS. John Kerry and John Edwards will utilize all available resources and the power of our alliances to take the fight to the terrorists.

Direct Effective Use of Military Force to Destroy Terrorist Networks. Kerry and Edwards will use military force whenever necessary to destroy terrorist networks -- and they will never cede our security to any other nation or institution.

Transform the Military to Meet Modern Threats. They will ensure that our military is fully prepared to meet the new security challenges by: (1) expanding our active duty forces by 40,000 soldiers; (2) doubling America's Special Forces capability and increasing other specialized personnel; (3) completing the process of technological transformation; (4) making homeland security an additional mission for the National Guard; and (5) keeping faith with our veterans and military families.

Enhance Cooperation to Improve Intelligence and Law Enforcement Efforts, Cut Off Terrorist Financing, and Deny Terrorist Havens. Because the global nature of the terrorist threat demands international cooperation, they will forge stronger coalitions to (1) strengthen the effectiveness of intelligence and law enforcement efforts around the world, (2) cut off financing for terrorists, and (3) deny terrorist havens.

FINISH THE JOB WE STARTED IN AFGHANISTAN. Afghanistan has become a forgotten front in the war on terror. Kerry and Edwards will ensure that Afghanistan receives the security, political, and economic resources it needs. They will:

Expand NATO Beyond Kabul. They will exercise real leadership by getting NATO to accelerate the expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) outside Kabul, and commit to sustaining an expansion of its troops in Afghanistan beyond the election period.

Stop the Drug Trade. Poppy production has exploded over the past three years, fueling continued instability. Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of global opium production. To stop the booming drug trade, Kerry-Edwards will double counter-narcotics assistance and expedite the growth of an Afghan counter-narcotics force whose specific mandate is to track down and destroy Afghanistan's drug lords and their drug infrastructure and drug processing facilities.

Expedite the Warlord Disarmament and Reintegration Program. The presence of large warlord militias - with as many as 60,000 fighters across the country -- is the principal cause of insecurity and a challenge to the authority of the Karzai government. Kerry-Edwards will provide increased support - including back-up military support where necessary - to crucial disarmament and demobilization efforts.

Improve Security Training. Only by strengthening Afghan security capabilities can Afghanistan be truly safe and secure. Kerry-Edwards will strengthen critical security training initiatives, including bolstering support to the Afghan National Army and national police training programs.

WIN THE PEACE IN IRAQ. Kerry and Edwards have a realistic plan to create a secure and stable Iraq where democracy can take hold so that we can bring our troops home without leaving behind a potential haven for terrorists. They will:

Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions. To reduce the burden on America and open the door to greater international involvement, they will persuade NATO to deploy a significant portion of the forces needed to secure Iraq, including the troops that the UN needs to provide security for the elections.

Plan for Iraq's Future. This will include: (1) securing a pledge from Iraq's neighbors - notably Syria and Iran -- to respect its borders and not interfere in internal affairs, (2) working with our allies to forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and (3) supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights.

Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces. To provide real security for the Iraqi people, they will involve NATO and other nations in a major effort to create effective Iraqi security forces.

REFORM OUR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES. They will act immediately on the 9-11 Commission recommendations, which mirrored their own proposal, and reform our intelligence services to better prevent a terrorist attack by: (1) creating a National Intelligence Director with real control over personnel and budgets throughout the intelligence community; (2) reorganizing the intelligence community around issue-oriented task forces to meet the threats of today; and (3) strengthening human intelligence by doubling the CIA's overseas clandestine personnel ; and (4) ensuring an independent domestic intelligence capability within the FBI.

WIN THE WAR OF IDEAS. Kerry and Edwards understand that if we are to win the war on terror over the long term, we must go on the offense to win the war of ideas in the Muslim world. They will implement a broad strategy to accomplish this by: (1) leading a global effort to improve education by supporting a new International Youth Opportunity Fund, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, that will provide funds to be spent directly for building and operating schools in Muslim countries that commit to investing their own money in public education, (2) breaking down economic and cultural isolation in Arab and Muslim countries, (3) promoting democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and (4) undertaking a major initiative in public diplomacy to advance our interests and support voices of freedom in the Arab and Muslim world.

STOP THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Kerry and Edwards believe that preventing terrorists from obtaining the most dangerous weapons must be our primary national security priority. They will:

Secure Nuclear Stockpiles. They will implement a comprehensive plan to secure these dangerous materials by safeguarding existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years, creating a global partnership to establish and enforce an international standard for the safe custody of nuclear weapons and materials, securing nuclear materials at research reactors around the world, and reducing existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials.

Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). They will accomplish this by closing the loophole that allows countries to develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a civilian nuclear power program and making adoption of the additional inspection protocol mandatory.

Institute a Global Ban on the Production of New Bomb Making Materials. They will end production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons by supporting a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty with real verification mechanisms.

Lead an International Effort to End Nuclear Weapons Programs in North Korea and Iran. We must show real leadership and use all available resources to confront the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran. Yet for too long, the administration has allowed others to speak for us while North Korea has reportedly quadrupled its nuclear weapons materials and Iran has advanced its nuclear weapons capability. In North Korea, they will lead efforts to ease tensions and get the six party talks back on track, and will be willing to engage the North Koreans directly in order to bring about a complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. In Iran, they will lead our allies in a comprehensive international effort that brings all available multilateral and bilateral resources to bear on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.

Create a Nuclear Whistleblower Initiative. This new Nuclear Whistleblower Initiative will ensure that any scientist who is willing to disclose an illicit weapons program will be given protection and a safe haven in the United States. In addition to strengthening existing programs to provide scientists who have worked on WMD programs with peaceful employment opportunities, this Initiative will help keep the knowledge to build nuclear weapons from becoming available to terrorists or dangerous states. Over time, they will work to expand international participation in this program to include many more countries and the United Nations.

PROTECT THE HOMELAND. Kerry and Edwards believe that America needs a new strategy for homeland security that takes steps as big as the threats we face. They will (1) improve security at our borders, seaports, and airports by working with our neighbors, improving detection equipment, and adopting tighter controls on air cargo; (2) launch a major effort to secure our most vulnerable critical infrastructure targets (such as chemical and nuclear plants), (3) improve coordination and information sharing, and (4) increase domestic readiness by making sure that our first- responders have the training and equipment to respond to any attack.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=35367
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Was this a major policy speech?
I sounds very good.

But is it being covered?

Do you think giving it on opening day of RNC is useful?

This message needs to get out, but how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bookman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. Americans won't read this
It's a sad statement on our country. I think the plan outlined above is a great response to Republicans. But the sad thing is most Americans couldn't be bothered to even read it.

Stronger at Home, Respected in the World perhaps might catch on, but I'm not sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. blechh
Best that can be expected, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. blechh
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 12:07 PM by GreenArrow
Just a way of saying that I found very little original or hopeful in the article posted. I found much of it disagreeable, hence 'blechh." I don't think that what is prescribed is the best way to go. I don't even think much of it is a good way. But,that is where the debate stands. The terms used, and the goals envisoned are those that resonate. Or, more aptly, those that sell. Other candidates offered other scenarios and other visions during the primary, and recieved very few votes, scant attention, and much derision.

Given the circumstances, what is being offered is probably the best that can be offered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. So you've repeated that you disagree -- Why? What do you disagree with?
What alternative ideas do you suggest?

In short, do you have any substantive comment to make?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. it's all moot
FWIW, my previous post was substantive, if not specific. You may take issue with the substance, but it was in there.

We can discuss alternative ideas after Kerry/Edwards get in. There will be plenty of time to discuss things then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
19.  You haven't cited any specific disagreement.
Just pretending that you've done so isn't going to fool anyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Indeed, I admitted myself that I had not given a specific;
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 02:03 PM by GreenArrow
it is the general tone and tenor of the proposed foreign policy outline that I find objectionable and wrong-headed.

But if it makes you feel better, I've added a few specifics in answering Larkspur's post below.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. So your post is just a vague, unspecific anti-Kerry screed. OK
Just wanted to clear that up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. how do you get that?
Seriously, if you think what I wrote is an anti-Kerry "screed" you need to get your knees checked, because they are jerking all over the place.

There were certainly some criticisms embedded in my earlier posts, but they were in no way directed at Kerry or Edwards per se.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. I don't see any criticism, just vague attacks lacking in specifics.

I don't know whether you are unwilling or unable to have a discussion about the specific things you don't like about this press release, but the fact is, you have not even made an attempt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. the criticsm is there, implicitly
but it does not pertain to Kerry, per se. I'm not going to spell it out. There were no "attacks" on Kerry unless you meant: "we can discuss alternative ideas once Kerry/Edwards are in."

At this point in time everyone (on this board at least) should have a good idea where Kerry stands. We've all heard the pro and con arguments; there is little need to reiterate them. I disagree with the direction set forth in the press release. So what? He's not going to change course. He's going to do what he thinks he needs to do get elected. I would think in the interest of him getting elected that you would be glad I'm not offering specific criticisms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abburdlen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Watch the speech
I just returned from this event. It was great see it for yourself at
http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=2233914&nav=0zHRQNBA
link to the video is under Edwards photo.
Shame they didn't include Clark's introductory remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bi-ASSED headline on Yahoo
Edward's DECRIES Bush's Foreign Policy.

Democrats ALWAYS decry everything. I think it was AP. Typical healine shit.

Oh, now the Democrats are DECRYING Bush comments on terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. The Iraq War was Wrong, John. Admit it!
Not just the execution of the war, but the war itself. Those leaders, regardless of party affiliation, that supported this war should be tried for war crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. A few more issues with this K/E policy
1) What if NATO says "NO!" to helping us in Iraq? Shouldn't we really be working with Iraqis, not Europeans, on security inside Iraq? Sistani obviously has more clout than NATO at securing peace within Iraq.

2) What about the 14 permanent bases Bush is building inside Iraq? Is Kerry/Edwards going to keep those? If so, isn't it hypocritical to tell Iran and Syria to butt out of Iraq's internal affairs when we continue to do so?

3) On the war of winning the Ideas battles against Muslim extremists, shouldn't our #1 task be supporting an "evenhanded" approach to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and smacking Israel when the continue to build settlements in the Occupied Territories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Do you not understand that we are choosing between Bush and Kerry
1) What if NATO says "NO!" to helping us in Iraq?

Is that more likely to happen with Bush as president, or Kerry? If it does happen, who can best lead us in that situation: Bush, or Kerry? That's what this election is about.

2) What about the 14 permanent bases Bush is building inside Iraq? Is Kerry/Edwards going to keep those? If so, isn't it hypocritical to tell Iran and Syria to butt out of Iraq's internal affairs when we continue to do so?

What can Kerry or Edwards DO about it now? NOTHING. They need to have power before they can shape policy. They will have to play the hands they are dealt on January 20. OR Bush will continue to play his hand. That's what this election is about.

3) On the war of winning the Ideas battles against Muslim extremists, shouldn't our #1 task be supporting an "evenhanded" approach to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and smacking Israel when the continue to build settlements in the Occupied Territories?

I agree. Who do you think is the leader more likely to support an evenhanded approach? Bush or Kerry? That's what this election is about.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Your characterization is false. And like it or not you have to choose
between Bush and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Guess you intentionally missed my signature line. I'll post it for you
again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I just think it's bulshit, that doesn't mean I didn't see it.
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 01:31 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
There is a lot of anti-Kerry propaganda posted on DU, as well as other forms of RW agitprop. I don't feel it neccesary to comment on all of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yeah, Cause Kerry Has A Magic Want That'll Make Everything Just Peachie
it's not like the Media or the Neo-Cons will be doing everything they can to undermine him.

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. that "abb coalition" retort should expire then too,
it's not an answer to every question (and i'm a former Deaniac myself if you recall). if the "abb coalition" does indeed expire on nov. 3rd, you can congratulate the other members of the coalition for essentially trying to elect a lame-duck president who will not be supported by the very voters who put him in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. That does not excuse the kerry fanatics from attacking me for
asking legit questions about Kerry's policies.

ABB is the mantra that progressives are using to pull themselves together to get bush out. Most, like me, will hold our noses and vote for kerry instead of a 3rd party or write-in candidate. ABB has been adopted by the DNC to help get kerry elected. The DNC has not thought past Nov. 2, 2004. Many in the ABB coalition are thinking past Nov. 2, 2004 with plans to reform the Dem Party and build a progressive network to challenge the Reichwing political machine -- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine...ner=rssuserland
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. that's all well and good, but that retort sounds like you want
to burn down the forest to save the trees. if you're voting for kerry; then you realize we have a lot of work to do over the next four years. if you elect him, and then attack him from the left on all his policies while dividing the coalition of herded cats on the left, you're essentially disregarding the very premise that you claim is the reason you intend to vote for him (i.e. if * is so bad, and the state of the country is so bad right now, you can't truly believe or even argue that Kerry can fix it immediately, yet it seems to me you don't want to even give him the chance to do so). change doesn't happen overnight without a drastic catalyst, and while i appreciate your aims and the aims of building a progressive coalition (i.e. dean's views are essentially mine on nearly every issue), that will take real time, and without this catalyst, we'll have to work over time (i.e. the duration of a kerry administration) to repair the damage that *co has done and truly make a difference in the direction of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. I oppose the totalitarian attitude of some kerry supporters on this board
and their view that they can browbeat those who do not drink the kool-aid. That is what I meant in my response about the ABB coalition expires. Some of these people refuse to understand that one can dislike a candidate and vote for him/her because the alternative is a disaster. They should be thankful that they are getting votes for their candidate.

In regards to post-election period, I don't see kerry as a catalyst for change. His win in November will be a slight reprieve from the Neo-con policies, but some of kerry's policies, progressives, who make up the ABB coalition, oppose strongly, like NAFTA and his pro-Ariel Sharon position. The catalyst for change will be the new progressive coalition, including Dean's DFA 2.0, that that NY Times article mentions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. That is a false statement.
BTW, as far as what an 'appropriate response' is - I will make that judgement regarding my posts, you get to make that judgement regarding your posts.





1) What if NATO says "NO!" to helping us in Iraq?

Is that more likely to happen with Bush as president, or Kerry? If it does happen, who can best lead us in that situation: Bush, or Kerry? That's what this election is about.

2) What about the 14 permanent bases Bush is building inside Iraq? Is Kerry/Edwards going to keep those? If so, isn't it hypocritical to tell Iran and Syria to butt out of Iraq's internal affairs when we continue to do so?

What can Kerry or Edwards DO about it now? NOTHING. They need to have power before they can shape policy. They will have to play the hands they are dealt on January 20. OR Bush will continue to play his hand. That's what this election is about.

3) On the war of winning the Ideas battles against Muslim extremists, shouldn't our #1 task be supporting an "evenhanded" approach to settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and smacking Israel when the continue to build settlements in the Occupied Territories?

I agree. Who do you think is the leader more likely to support an evenhanded approach? Bush or Kerry? That's what this election is about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. The substance of this thread
is the Kerry-Edwards press release:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=35367">Edwards Outlines Fundamental Differences on National Security

Wherein Edwards talks about the fundamental differences between Kerry-Edwards and Bush-Cheney on foreign policy.

I think it is a good starting point for a discussion on how to formulate shorter, pithier, more persuasive, talking points with which to win over undecided voters.


As far as your comments about me personally... :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xrepub Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
39. ABB coalition expires on Nov. 3, 2004.
And well it should. The Democratic party has always allowed (promoted is a better word) dissent. That is one of the reasons we must win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheRovingGourmet Donating Member (524 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Those bases are a large part of this war. They won't be going
anywhere no matter who wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. answers
1) It's not about the Iraqis, it's about the US and its interests.

2) See number one. Those bases will be there for a reason. The longer we are there, the greater our chances of going to war with Iran, regardless of party in power.

3) This is not open for negotiation. See numbers one and two. The Battle of Ideas is not the only battle underway, but rather, one of many battles played out on a multi-tiered field. And one, I might add, not likely to be particluarly successful given the nature of our actions in Palestine and throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
56. In response to #1
I think that you're missing the point here. We can get European help with a more cooperative understanding President and just electing Kerry alone will alleviate some of the tension NATO members have with us. Many would be willing to help in Iraq if they knew there was a leader that had different policies than With Us or Against Us and being stubborn and bullheaded.

The second point I would make is yes we need NATO's help over the Iraqis in one major place. Security Forces. There basically is no Iraqi military at this point and there will still need to be sizeable forces inside the country to fight off the terrorists that do reside in Iraq (I am not counting the Iraqi Patriots that are fighting for their country, I am counting groups like al-Qaeda).

Third, then the UN can come in and Sistani and the other Iraqi leaders can work with them to get quick parlimentary elections and start putting the societal laws in place.

Without the American and European forces in there, we have nearly no chance of gtting possible controversial laws through because there is bound to be rifts between the different religious and tribal sects over certain laws. Impatience in the negotiations could create an atmosphere for assassaination which would do nobody any good.

My basic thought is that Security Forces should be in there under US and Nato command but basically only there to help the Iraqi Government keep the peace while the Government phases in it's laws and builds relationships with the countries that can create trade and help the country grow financially.

This will take at the very least a year or two, but if we can get NATO in and then the UN, there's no reason a quick timetable to rebuild and revitalize Iraq wouldn't work.

I think this, ultimately is Kerry's goal as well although he may be playing down optimism on a time table so to not get caught if something goes wrong over there.

Right now this is the only way to win anything in this Iraqi conflict.

Unfortunately we had a President in place who stuck us with this mess because of their inability to plan or have an ounce of foresight (of course to think ahead is to be progressive and that's certainly not Bush's calling card).

Now we have to go into this 100% and get things on a time table and to do that we need to internationalize it first before we just give Iraqis free reign. At the moment, Bush let too many Terror Groups in and it's going to be hard to calm the Iraqi people if bombings are still occuring and the Media and Soldiers are blaming it on citizens they call "Insurgents".

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borgnine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. The sheep won't understand that.
They need their policy summed up in one-word statements like "they hate us for our freedom."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. It's your job to help explain it.
Sorry, but giving up in advance is not an option.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borgnine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Not giving up.
Just venting in the midst of this week's Rethug love-fest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
37. "On the war of winning the Ideas " (stolen phrase from larkspur)
This stuff from Edwards is not a serious policy worthy of serious thought. This is political talk meant to gain votes.

We have allowed Bush to define this present struggle as a "War on Terror," endless and limitless. It means anything Bush wants it to mean. And Edwards is going right along with it, as if it were a legitimate foreign policy. Just like he went along with the invasion in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. Do you really want me to bore you with my own foreign policy??
That would be a long and boring waste of time. And no one would read it but you.

I guess I am in big trouble then. I while back, I posted that Columbo is the best TV detective of all time. Do I have to go back and post a long factual explanation about that too?

You can't expect that from every poster with whom you disagree. We'd crash the server trying to satisfy you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. The hysteria of the kerry fanatics is absolutely amazing and
a good study in Democratic Party totalitarianism. It's like they believe "you are either with us or against us" is the only game plan in the world. It never occurred to them that we may want better answers from our leaders.

I agree with you on your assessment of K/E's policy regarding Muslims. I found Al Gore's Feb. 12, 2002 speech A Commentary on the War Against Terror: Our Larger Tasks http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpEyAuuVlpmDnwgPVN.shtml so much enlightening than K/E's recent policy statement. Gore has diagnosed correctly the problem with our relations with the Muslim world, and I don't see K/E addressing the justified anger of the Muslim world other than setting up rehabilitation camps, aka Westernized schools.

"Draining the swamp" of terrorism must of course in the first instance mean destroying the ability of terrorist networks to function. But drying it up at its source must also mean draining the aquifer of anger that underlies terrorism: anger that enflames the hearts of so many young men, and makes them willing, dedicated recruits for terror. Anger at perceived historical injustices involving a mass-memory throughout the Islamic world of past glory and more recent centuries of decline and oppression at the hands of the West.

Anger at the cynicism of Western policy during the Cold War: often aligning itself with corrupt and tyrannical governments. And even after all that, anger at the continued failure to thrive, as rates of economic growth stagnate, while the cohort of unemployed young men under twenty continues to increase.

This is anger different than the pure evil represented by terrorists, but anger nonetheless -- anger which is the medium on which the impulse to terrorism thrives. The evil we now confront is not just the one-time creation of a charismatic leader and his co-conspirators, or even of a handful of regimes. What we deal with now is today's manifestation of an anger welling up from deep layers of grievance shared by many millions of people.

Military force alone cannot deal with this. Public diplomacy alone cannot drain this reservoir. What will be needed is a far reaching American strategy for encouraging reform, and for engaging day in and day out with societies that are trying to cast off the curse of bitter experience relived continuously. Hope for the future is the only way to put out these fires.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Don't you ever get tired of namecalling?
A portion of Kerry's Foreign Policy speech from January 23, 2003, 2 months prior to the Iraqi invasion.

We can do better. With creative leadership, the U.S. can enlist our allies in a sustained multilateral campaign to build bridges between the community of democracies and the greater Middle East - not just for them, but for us.

Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.

First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.

Third, as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East, the U.S. must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of our relationships. We must place increased focus on the development of democratic values and human rights as the keys to long-term security. If we learned anything from our failure in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from the people cannot permanently endure. They must reform or they will finally crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change. America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them down.
In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism, a young Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor and urged the Eisenhower Administration not to back France against a rebellious Algeria. He recognized that the United States could only win the Cold War by staying true to our values, by championing the independence of those aspiring to be free.

What's at issue today is not U.S. support for colonial powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic regimes out of touch with their own people.

We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies of terrorism. We must help bring modernity to the greater Middle East. We must make significant investments in the education and human infrastructure in developing countries. The globalization of the last decade taught us that simple measures like buying books and family planning can expose, rebut, isolate and defeat the apostles of hate so that children are no longer brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers and terrorists are deprived the ideological breeding grounds. I believe we must reform and increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for all.

The U.S. should take a page from our Cold War playbook. No one expected communism to fall as suddenly as it did. But that didn't prevent us from expanding society-to-society aid to support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions and other groups dedicated to building a democratic culture from the ground up. Democracy won't come to the greater Middle East overnight, but the U.S. should start by supporting the region's democrats in their struggles against repressive regimes or by working with those which take genuine steps towards change.

We must embark on a major initiative of public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We must make avoidance of the clash of civilizations the work of our generation: Engaging in a new effort to bring to the table a new face of the Arab world -- Muslim clerics, mullahs, imams and secular leaders -- demonstrating for the entire world a peaceful religion which can play an enormous role in isolating and rebutting those practitioners who would pervert Islam's true message.

Fourth, The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.
The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

I propose the following policy goals:
We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people? But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

Fifth, and finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30 years. A great nation like ours should not be dragged kicking and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the task of making peace. A great nation like ours should be leading the effort to make peace or we risk encouraging through our inaction the worst instincts of an already troubled region.

Israel is our ally, the only true democracy in this troubled region, and we know that Israel as a partner is fundamental to our security. From Truman through Clinton, America has always been committed to Israel's independence and survival - we will never waver.

Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I know from my own trips to Israel that the majority of the Israeli people understand and expect that one day there will be a Palestinian state. Their frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process. American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism. When I visited the region last year, in meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it became clear that September 11th had changed the imperatives of these countries. The Bush Administration has missed an opportunity to enlist much greater support in the peace process and needs to focus on this urgent priority- now.

The transformation of the Middle East which can come from these efforts will determine much of our future - but we must also look to the challenges on the rest of the planet. We must build a new and more effective role for the United States in the rest of this complex world.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeminder Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
52. looking at this from very far
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 05:03 PM by freeminder
ie from Europe,

even wwhen Kerry/Edwards will be infinitely better for the american people without ANY doubt,

where it concerns foreign policy,

I see no change when it comes to :
- the US trying to enforce nonproliferation etc from others while being a self-centered nuclear superpower. Double standards anyone?
- Iraq's neighbours can't meddle in their affairs. But it's OK when the US does? And what about the bases?
- "and they will never cede our security to any other nation or institution" - so US security has priority over any other nation or institution. Any more conventions to throw away in geneva or thereabout?
- NATO to get miraculously involved? After US government trying to divide us into "old" and "new", and not taking our substantial protests before the war into account (Turkey anyone?)
- "America must always be the world's paramount military power" PNAC echoes.

I understand where this policy comes from. It is designed to appeal to americans and I can see why it will. It doesn't appeal to me.

When (not IF) Kerry comes to try and mend relationships and try to get some NATO troops and money in Iraq, I'm pretty sure we (Europe) will capitulate in sight of our part of the war bounty and I HATE IT.

I'll be damned if I stand by while NATO money and people are to be consumed to ultimately make the prospect of US stranglehold on world economy through oil, dollars & fourteen bases a reality.

Someone will ask for my alternatives. Some modesty perhaps?



Sorry if this is pretty blunt. Somehow I got worked up.
:shrug:

edited for really bad grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. some of us see it right here too
for whatever that's worth. The Empire will abide. The only question at hand is who is to be Caesar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC