Kerry's False Plan For Peace

[A_Wanderer]

An excellent Krauthammer piece on the reason that the US will never be able to appease the international community and why if Kerry attempts to it will place innocent lives in the balance.

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our help, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20041022.shtml

 

[verte76]

Good points made. I mean, hell, Kerry is already in Sharon's camp, and Israel is the big sticking point in the dispute. That's not going to change, and neither is U.S. policy. Frustrating but true.

 

[neutral]

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our help, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

There's a 263 page document on Kerry's site that explains how he proposes to do this.
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

 

[STING2]

Below are the countries in the coalition that currently have troops on the ground in Iraq. John Kerry and others on this board claim that this is not a "true coalition". In that case, I'd ask those on the board who feel the same way, which countries not on the current coalition list is John Kerry going to bring in and have them deploy troops in Iraq?

1 United Kingdom
2 Italy
3 South Korea
4 Poland
5 Ukraine
6 Netherlands
7 Romania
8 Japan
9 Denmark
10 Bulgaria
11 El Salvador
12 Hungary
13 Australia
14 Mongolia
15 Georgia
16 Azerbaijan
17 Portugal
18 Latvia
19 Czech Republic
20 Lithuania
21 Slovakia
22 Albania
23 Estonia
24 Tonga
25 Kazakhstan
26 Macedonia
27 Moldova
28 Norway

Out of the 26 nation NATO Alliance, the largest military alliance in the world, 16 countries have troops on the ground in Iraq.

 

[BVS]

Sting do you know the amount of troops or percentages? I'm curious.

 

[STING2]

1 United Kingdom 12,000
2 Italy 3,169
3 South Korea 3,600
4 Poland 2,500
5 Ukraine 1,400
6 Netherlands 1,345
7 Romania 700
8 Japan 750
9 Denmark 496
10 Bulgaria 485
11 El Salvador 380
12 Hungary 300
13 Australia 920
14 Mongolia 180
15 Georgia 300
16 Azerbaijan 151
17 Portugal 128
18 Latvia 122
19 Czech Republic 110
20 Lithuania 105
21 Slovakia 105
22 Albania 200
23 Estonia 55
24 Tonga 45
25 Kazakhstan 29
26 Macedonia 28
27 Moldova 12
28 Norway 10

Notice that nearly half the countries in Europe have troops deployed in Iraq. Before anyone critizes the numbers or contributions of any particular country, please explain how John Kerry would get more troops from countries who already have troops on the ground in Iraq and already support Bush's policy there.

 

[Boston01]

At random...

"Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil." - Except vote again the offshore wind turbines off Cape Cod?

"Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal." - The same human intelligence and CIA fundng he voted to cut?

"Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats." - The same weapons he voted against in the height of their necessity?

"Reward Companies that Create Jobs in America." - How many of those Heinz employees are in the US?

"Every Classroom Has a Great Teacher" - Like here in Boston where we put the most money and had the worst school system in the country. He will not go against the teachers union.

etc etc etc ... the detailed document has no more "detail" than the summary.

 

[neutral]

If you'd actually read the document, you'd see that the plan is a little more detailed than a few one-liners about "flip flopping".

Also at random....the section about freeing America from dependence on Mideast oil is over 10 pages long, the section about "rewarding companies that create jobs in America" is over 15 pages long, and it's all broken down. If that isn't detailed, then I don't know what is at this point.

The details are there, whether some partisan columnist can be bothered to read them or not.

 

[drivemytrabant]

But what the article says and what John Kerry keeps saying--is that "The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our help, especially in Iraq." This is true. He still has not come close to explaining how he intends to do this. In fact, both he and Edwards just outright dodged the question during the debates. I can't ask it any better than STING2 did:
"please explain how John Kerry would get more troops from countries who already have troops on the ground in Iraq and already support Bush's policy there."

 

[BostonAnne]

What is the amount of troops that the US have currently in Iraq?

 

[STING2]

The United States currently has 140,000 troops in Iraq.

 

[BostonAnne]

The ratio of US troops vs. other alliances being so far apart has nothing to do with Bush and his decision to forge ahead without UN support?

 

[STING2]

The ratio of US troops vs. other alliances being so far apart has nothing to do with Bush and his decision to forge ahead without UN support?

The President went to the United Nations on September 12, 2002 and got yet another resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in November 2002 with a 15-0 vote in the Security Council. Since the start of the war, the United Nations has approved the occupation in THREE different resolutions. So indeed, Bush had and still has the support of the UN.

As to the ratio of troops involved, can you name another war the United States has fought in since World War II, where the ratio of troops involved was significantly higher for non-US troops than it is in Iraq currently?

In addition, how is Kerry going to get more troops from countries that already support the policy and are contributing troops as well as from countries not involved?

 

[Boston01]

Kerry's plan does have some amount of detail, but every premise he supples defies every notion of capitalism, nationalism and in some cases, just plain common sense. Bush has some of the same issues, but at least he has the backing of some major economic forced that believe in the free market.

As for the UN, I think sadly that the time may come in the near future where is goes the way of the League of Nations. The utter corruption and heresy of the organization will be difficult to correct.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Eliminate the UN!

 

[BVS]

Eliminate the UN!

Why not restructure? How will eliminating get us any closer to a world of peace?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Hmm, Krauthammer may be right.

Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor Friday night, Holbrooke warned of a possible “Iran-type clerical dictatorship” in Iraq: This would be “very dangerous for Israel, the U.S. and the world.” Then Holbrooke segued into an account of how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: “He [Kerry] has said already he would start intense talks with the allies . . . and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He’d put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all.”

“He’d put more pressure on Israel.” Holbrooke, perhaps Kerry’s top foreign policy spokesman, confirms Krauthammer’s prediction. So there is a real difference between Bush and Kerry on Israel. Isn’t there, Sen. Kerry?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/832kszfc.asp

Don't worry Israel, Kerry will put more pressure on your government but he will also give the Mullah's nuclear fuel if they promise not to make nuclear weapons.

 

[drivemytrabant]

Why not restructure? How will eliminating get us any closer to a world of peace?

I also believe that the UN is necessary--as long as it is doing its job. Restructuring is a good first step to making sure this happens. The UN as it is--is no good to us or the rest of the world.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The UN is worse than useless because it works and it works very well - to protect terrorists (e.g. Yassir Arafat) and genocidal dictators (e.g. Omar al-Bashir Hassan).

 

[drivemytrabant]

The UN is worse than useless because it works and it works very well - to protect terrorists (e.g. Yassir Arafat) and genocidal dictators (e.g. Omar al-Bashir Hassan).

Hence the necessity for reform that will probably never occur.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Reform will never occur, I wouldn't trust the UN for global security, even UNICEF has lost a lot of my respect after I saw the groups that recieve their assistance - watching PLO Arab children being brainwashed to scream that they want to become suicidal mass murderers seems like a violation of childrens rights.

The UN does do good in the world - but the question is can that work be done without the current beurocracy.

 

[One Man]

Edit. No comment, master.

 

[hiphop]

Sadly, I think most of you see the U.N. only looking through the google of Iraq and the terror issues. I think you are misled and not informed properly.

"Eliminating" "the U.N." would include "eliminating" organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank Group including the IMF, the WHO, the UNODC, and the UNDP.

You want to tell me the UNDP is no good to the rest of the world? You want to tell me the DEA does a better job than the UNODC? Clean up your own country´s agencies first.

Before having the nerve to talk shit about the U.N. as a whole, I strongly suggest that you read up on all the organisations I have mentioned. And there are some more, this was just a tiny fraction of examples.

Also, it is not possible to "eliminate" the United Nations. The United States can choose to quit their membership. I don´t think that´s a good idea though, because the U.S. would be politically isolated.

Think twice before of whining. The United Nations can´t be exclusively directed by United States politics (and not by Australia, for that matter).

 

[BVS]

The UN is worse than useless because it works and it works very well - to protect terrorists (e.g. Yassir Arafat) and genocidal dictators (e.g. Omar al-Bashir Hassan).

Well maybe Bush can invade and take it over.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am sorry, the UN is great - it shouldnt ever change.

What I am saying is that in the realm of international security the UN is innefective, it is made up of self interested nations; it was useless for security in the Cold War and it is useless now in the Post Cold War / War on Terror.

 

[Anirban]

the problem is the ego of america. we would rather send our own troops to do the majority of the work than risk our soldiers under the command of other countries/UN. why are we so scared to do this? if those countries with 10 soldiers in iraq asked america to supply 10 soldiers to a domestic dispute in their country, would america comply? i'm not saying that john kerry would send US troops to fight for another countrye ... but his plan to create a real coalition would involve respecting the intelligence of the world community and let them be involved in the decision making process. if there was some threat to american security, and kerry knew about it, i'm sure he would deploy every aresenal the US's disposal to stop it. however, when discussing the rebuilding of iraq, providing security for THEIR citizens, providing food and clothing, and the structure of the government....what is the harm in gathering opinions from other countries? you guys are right that if we follow bush's mindset that EVERY detail in rebuilding Iraq deals with America's security, then a true coalition cannot be made. but since half the battle is grunt-work on the ground in Iraq...those duties could surely be shared by the world community if everyone was given an opinion in the planning. then when some information comes to light that may be harmful to American security...we can take over...just like any other country would want to do in a similar situation.

 

[Anirban]

about the UN ... tell the survivors in ethopia, rwanda, and east timor that UN peacekeeping/peacemaking troops are useless. if every human life is valuable ... and if no other country is willing to put it's neck on the line to go it alone ... then what other option is there than the UN right now?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I agree lets ask those from Rwanda the virtues of United Nations protection. Or those in the Sudan right now.

One question though, what is a "real coalition", does it have to include France and Germany - I mean are those countries prerequisites to having a true coalition and without them its not, if France became a member of the coalition and pleged 10 troops would it be legitimate then?

Kerry sent his sister over here to tell expat Americans and Australians that Bush has made them less safe and that we should cut and run from Iraq - drive away your allies and make nice with those that dont want any part in Iraq.

 

[Anirban]

I mean a "real" coalition is one that isn't 10,000:100,000 troops foreign:US. a coalition of two countries (that have the resources) would be legitamate if they shared the duties equally (not involving the security of their own country -- because every country's security threat is different). i don't see how people didn't realize from the beginning that it's not the US's duty to route out injustice in the world with a 10:1 ratio of troops. yes, if there are security threats, i myself would be willing to go and defend the country if bush asked me ... however, there are many people dying and suffering from unjust rulers aroung the world. how are those problems dealt with? UN peacekeeping/peacemaking missions. where the goal is common among EVERYONE involved...to promote peace and humanity around the world. i know people will argue this but before the war, many experts believe that Iraq was not a threat to US security. therefore, his only crimes involved crimes against humanity and the UN (stress: UN!) oil for food program. the former sounds like a peacekeeping/making mission to me and latter is definitely the responsobility of the UN (to protect the integrity of its own program!).

 

[Anirban]

also, what were the specifics of the UN disarmament resolutions? they said that saddam must cease any wmd/nuclear programs. cheney espeically keeps hammering home that saddam hussein did not comply with a decade's worth of resolutions. however, there were no weapons found. moreover, the last report claimed that there were no weapons before we invaded either. therefore, in terms of those resolutions, saddam's only crime was not allowing inspectors to thoroughly inspect his country. he should have been accountable for that crime and THAT crime only ... but the main point was to make sure he had no weapons programs .... and look how it turned out. he may have told a few lies, but he sure as hell wasn't making any weapons. moreoever, the argument that he would have made weapons is useless. that's like prosecuting someone for 1st degree murder saying that if he would have had a gun, he would have killed 50 people. you can prosecute that man for planning it, or haveing the intention of doing it (if he did) ... but you cannot prosecute to the full extent of the law as someone who actually did murder 50 people.