Umm, no, not possible, if we insist that an American commands it.
We did before the war, they didn’t want to participate, so we bribed people to join our “coalition”. We shouldn’t expect help from any country that was against the war. If they give it that’s one thing, but to expect it, that’s another.
What’s good for us isn’t necessarily what’s good for the world. But back to usual Kerry, he picks at Bush instead of tackling the issue. How about he explains to us how Bush has failed in rallying the world to our cause, and what he specifically would do different. I’d also like to hear what he’ll do in the event he is unable to muster up the support he wishes.
Thanks, Joe. Sad that it takes a basically conservative poster to finally link to Kerry’s “plan”, but good on you for doing so. I agree with your assesment of this “plan”, BTW. I’ve read that page before, and think that my earlier characterization of it as:
is spot on. Kerry should be campaigning on his plan, including giving concrete details on how it would be acomplished. Soundbites and TV spots may not be the place to do so, but the web is perfect, offering interested people the opportunity to find as many details as they want. Sadly, all that’s online is the same “If I’m elected, the world will rush to our side because I’m not Bush” crap that I’ve seen elsewhere. Gobear stepped up to the plate, and he’s a weak supported of Kerry at best. Can any of the ardent Kerry folks here offer solid details about HOW or WHY he expects the rest of the world to rush to our side in Iraq if he’s elcted?
Well, I didn’t participate in that poll, and I haven’t been nor will I be long for this board with its new format, but I would have plugged Kerry in there too, and I’m not very far left-leaning by any measure.
Bush sucks ass. Kerry, while he sucks to a certain degree, does not suck as much.
In sum, it’s my opinion that while this board does seem to push left on many issues—and some of its leftward voices are quite loud—it’s possible for a strong majority on a board to support one candidate for reasons including but not limited to partisanship. For instance, the other guy just might objectively suck.
Those “sticking points” were only problems because of Bush’s “my way or the highway” attitude. Even after Bush’s end-run around the UN to invade Iraq, he STILL could have secured international cooperation had he not been such a pigheaded idiot. In fact at the time, if you will remember, quite a few of our resident SDMB right-wingers were posting blithe comments about how the U.S. was now going to get all the “spoils” from Iraq, and mocking all those other countries for supposedly wanting to “get in on the action”. It was even likened to the story of the Little Red Hen, where the other animals were NOT ALLOWED to eat the bread because they didn’t help make it.
So now all of a sudden, it’s that Bush was trying so hard to get other countries to cooperate. BULLSHIT. He basically told 'em all to fuck off. Kerry is spot on in his position - the solution is a true multinational effort (not just a few token countries as window dressing). Maybe he won’t be able to undo the extensive damage Bush has done to our standing in the international community, but I hardly see how that would be Kerry’s fault. Frankly, I wouldn’t want the job of cleaning up Bush’s mess. Kerry’s plan is sound; if it fails, it’s only because Bush poisoned the well so extensively.
The problem with details is that even though he’s a Senator, he just doesn’t have the capability - no one but the incumbent does - to generate a detailed plan in any meaningful way.
For concrete details he would need input from the Pentagon, the State department, the UN, and so on. Challengers just don’t have access to that. Any attempt to provide details without consulting the actual participants would be met with gales of derision.
Deciding between the two main candidates is like choosing between getting anally raped with a rusted metal pipe or a splintering board. You can debate which is better until your face turns blue, but in the end you’ll still wind up choosing to get fucked in the ass.
The country is in for four years of deep, deep shit regardless of the result of the election. I cannot think of a better year to vote one’s conscience - perhaps the other parties might actually become viable.
And you placed it in context as “The wingnut brigade is absolutely ecstatic over killing “brown skinned people””. The real quote:
[quote]
Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that,
Find “We love that we get to kill brown-skineed people” in there and I’ll pay your next-year’s SDMB subscription. Even though I can’t.
As for the second half of your response, I should have written the next phrase . And I didn’t mean that you used it as such, it was just tempting to point it out:
Meanwhile, I’ll feel free to think that you’re a fucking idiot. Happy now?
Yeah, Bush blew that bigtime. If I were him, I would have given France and Germany the extra 60 days they had wanted. If would have totally changed the dynamics of the entire situation.
It’s pretty obvious that getting the world involved is the only way to get us closer of fixing this mess. Kerry doesn’t seem to be aware that there are shitloads of countries that will probably leave us to twist in the wind on this. Conceivably there are ways in which he could land this support, and ways in which he won’t. I would like to hear more then the obvious “we need to get the world involved”. No shit, how will you accomplish this?
His handlers should let him know that being vague about this is working against him. Come up with a specific plan and let us judge it.
First, apologies to Shodan for stealing his line re: blatant lying about Bush. Second, the last line of my previous post should not have been like that. Here it is instead:
You really should get a sock puppet sometime. It will never have those annoying truths.
First, apologies to Shodan for stealing his line re: blatant lying about Bush. Second, the last line of my previous post should not have been like that. Here it is instead:
You really should get a sock puppet sometime. It will never have those annoying truths.
It’s possible–note that I didn’t say “likely”–that should Kerry be elected, that France, Germany, Spain and other nations that are currently at odds with our military presence in Iraq might decide to cooperate with Kerry because he is not Dubya. A great deal of the distaste for tour policies seem to stem from a personal dislike of Dubya and his administration.
So the fuck what? He’s probably been blasting them with tons of ads which usually give a person a short boost in the targeted state. Besides the election isn’t for awhile, and besides that, Tenn. was Gore’s state IIRC.
Fine. Let’s hear from Kerry what he’d do about it in these real world situations.
If the UN won’t enforce it’s own resolutions because of deep seated corruption, and because UN bureaucrats are making millions off of the Oil for Food program, what would John Kerry do? And what would he do to clean up this festering mess now?
And if a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council is going to veto any condemnation or sanction of a dictator because of extensive commercial interests in that country, and that dictator poses a threat to U.S. interests, what would John Kerry do?
I know what the answers would be from Bush if these questions were posed in a debate. I think Kerry, who likes to be on all sides of all issues, would by twisting in the wind.
Well it’s a bad assumption. Focusing on what he is going to do might be a bad strategy for Kerry. While people who are very politically aware (likely including yourself) might make a choice regardless of incumbency, many many people will only throw the bums out after they are convinced that they are bums. Similar to an employer who does not fire an employee because an alternative candidate is better, but only because this guy is not getting the job done.
If it were truly the only thing Kerry is saying is that he is not Bush he would be an idiot, but this is not the case, and the statement is an exaggeration. What is true is that the focus of Kerry’s campaign is on this angle, but the focus is necessarily so, as mentioned.
I should also mention that the media has a tendency to focus on the more sensational aspects of a candidate’s campaign, which can sometimes distort the picture of what the candidate is doing and saying. So that if Kerry gives a long speech full of boring detail about health care and throws in one line about how Bush doesn’t care about health care, guess what the headline reads.
Comes up a lot. (Note again that I specifically said that that comment was not about you in particular - it was about the general tendency of posters). I think it is pretty clear that the mass of SDMB posters, intelligent as they tend to be, are not nearly as accomplished as senators or presidents.
Have to disagree with you here. There are exceptions who slip through the cracks everywhere, but generally to rise to the top of the ranks of any profession requiring intelligence or signs of it requires that you not be an idiot.
John Kerry did not win some sort of random lottery to become the Democratic nominee. He was elected senator several times and has been one of the leading Democrats in the country for years, and was often talked of as a possible presidential candidate. And then, slugging it out with other candidates, he got the most support. This didn’t happen because people who knew him or followed his career thought he was an idiot.
It’s an amazing thing. You read this thread and zillions of others like it and there is this widespread feeling that both candidates are by some unique coincidence the two biggest losers that the major parties could possibly put forth. And the strange thing is that people felt exactly this way during the last election as well, and the election before that and every other election that I can remember. Absurd.
Of course, a lot depends here on what you mean by “idiot”. I remember a full scale argument during the last election about whether Bush was a moron. And liberals were going on and on about how stupid Bush was and about how his parents were perpetually ashamed of his great stupidity etc., and I finally asked one of them (lissener, IIRC) to quantify just how stupid Bush is, in terms of his ranking on an intelligence quotient scale. And the guy came back and said that he thought Bush was in the 85% percentile (higher than I myself would have ranked him). Turns out that the guy just felt that a president needed to be really really smart, and by that standard Bush failed miserably.
So you might not really think Kerry is an idiot other than in the context of what you feel should be the standard that a candidate should have. But if so, the whole statement boils down to you disagreeing with his decisions, and calling him an idiot confuses the issue.
The real truth about all of this is that no one is perfect. People who rise to the level of being presidential candidates tend to be towards the upper level of humanity in terms of their qualifications, but they too will inevitably have faults and imperfections. And as direct result of their being in the heat of a political battle, these faults and imperfections tend to be focused on and magnified until they become idiots, liars, serial rapists etc. Silly silly.
I’m not one to withhold criticism when I think it’s appropriate. So to be fair, I like to also acknowledge when someone I often disagree with makes a good point. With that in mind, I have to state, excellent post, IzzyR.
So Mr. Moto, is that the newest reason we went to war? First it was terrorism, and when that didn’t pan out, it was WMD, then “Liberation”, and now were doing it to keep the UN honest? I just want to know because it getting harder to follow without a program.
I’m just wondering how many people in this thread who are currently deriding the Kerry plan to get the UN involved, and send more troops, will be lauding that exact same plan when it is co-opted by Bush and company, just like folks did in regards to the Homeland Security Department.
I have to say I’m rather dismayed by the intellectual dishonesty of those who believe that a candidate, any candidate ever would put forward a platform position, backed up by the proposition of failure. For crying out loud, when we went to war did Bush say what he’d do if we lost? Come to think of it, did he even say what we’d do if we won?
Politicians do not contemplate failure. It’s the nature of the beast. Can you imagine the fodder for the Bush re-election team if Kerry said, “now this is my plan. However, if that doesn’t work, here’s what I’ll do.” I can see the ads now:
Ominous voice: “Even Kerry doesn’t believe that his plans for Iraq will work!” “ Kerry Bad on defense……bad for America”