 |
| |
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=4354830
quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John Kerry is offering American voters a far different vision of the U.S. role in international affairs than President Bush, one that much of the world may find more familiar and more comforting.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts, now leading in the race for his party's presidential nomination, has accused Bush of extremism in waging the "most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."
While insisting he would never cede U.S. security to any nation or institution and will use force when necessary, Kerry envisions a "new era of alliances (because) even the only superpower on earth cannot succeed without cooperation and compromise with our friends and allies."
Following the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, national security has become a focus of the 2004 presidential campaign and some analysts predict the November election could turn on which candidate persuades voters he will keep the country safe and best fulfill the role of U.S. commander-in-chief.
This is a far cry from four years ago, when domestic matters dominated the presidential debate.
Republicans usually score higher with U.S. voters on national security. They to exploit this tradition with Bush, who increased military spending and led the nation through conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the anti-terror campaign.
Kerry aims to blunt that record by promoting credentials as a decorated Vietnam veteran who plunged into politics on returning home by protesting the very war he fought in.
SENATE CAREER
During a Senate career spanning 20 years, Kerry, a liberal, emphasized foreign affairs and played a major role in restoring U.S. ties with Vietnam.
He voted against sending troops to the 1991 Gulf War and sought to cancel major weapons systems like the Patriot missile and the F15 jet fighter. |
The fact that he served in Vietnam is irrelevant, I think he has the stereotype liberals viewpoint of the military and the use of force.
Fair or unfair assessment?
In any case, the above blurb from reuters brought to mind the only relevant question for me vis a vis the election;
If elected president, would Kerry do anything concrete if the USA was threatened/attacked or would we back to the Clintonian "fire a couple of missles and pretend like the problem has gone away".
He talks about not ceding US security away but I dont see it. Who are these new allies gonna be, stalwarts like the French?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Define the "stereotype liberals viewpoint." If it means not invading other countries on trumped-up false charges, yes, he's a typical liberal.
If it means assuming that the U.S. has to live in the whole world and can't completely ignore the opinions of all countries, yes.
If it means avoiding war unless it's absolutely necessary, well, no, I guess he's sort of in the middle between liberals and "make war for no apparent reason" conservatives.
If it means following rules of international law, yes, he's a liberal.
If it means not lying to the public in order to foment war in an effort to ensure your own re-election, he's probably somewhat liberal, but maybe not so much more than the current (p)resident.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
If Kerry were Prez, it would make no difference to US foreign policy.
US foreign policy is dictated by organisations over and above the Presidency.
If a chimpanzee replaced Bush, the only difference would be Presidential speeches might be more meaningful.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
BTW I'm not trying to take pot-shots, you're entitled to your own opinion, but the french have not supported american military actions taken against its enemies. |
What about 1962, when De Gaulle was the first leader to pledge his support to the US in case of an all-out nuclear war?
Aside from that, the US didn't suffer from any agression, except Sept. 11, and France immediately supported the war in Afghanistan, as well as provided all help it could wrt intelligence (btw, our intelligence teams are supposed to have been instrumental in Afghanistan).
So, in the two postwar opportunities where you could judge an ally as being stalwart or not, France passed the test without problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
debeest
their are lots of other threads for your rhetoric
The question is simple, would Kerry a liberal (define it how you will) anti-war activist who is despised by many vets take action? |
What, my rhetoric is less acceptable than:
"back to the Clintonian "fire a couple of missles and pretend like the problem has gone away". "
The question is not simple, and only a simpleton would think it is. Obviously, when the US is attacked, any US president will respond with great violence, as they always have. That assumes, though, that there's a sensible target to attack. Clinton tried to kill OBL with cruise missiles, because OBL was the threat. That was sensible. Shrub destroyed what there was of Afghanistan and abandoned the shambles to the survivors, without finding OBL -- and if you think OBL's operations are substantially impaired by the war against Afghanistan, I think you misunderstand terrorism.
Shrub invaded Iraq -- a country which OBL considered infidel, a country which the US had already bombed nearly every week for 12 years so that any real suspicious facility was already destroyed, a country in which the US already maintained ongoing control of a large portion of its airspace. Predictably, Iraq has fallen into anarchy -- perhaps better, perhaps worse, than the situation under Saddam, but the unwelcome US occupation is guaranteed to provide a vastly more fertile breeding ground for the kind of fundamentalist violence against Americans that allegedly provided the rationale for the invasion.
You think Kerry will be worse than Bush in terms of national security?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
If Kerry replaced US troops in Iraq with more international troops, and pulled US troops out, we would see a less stable Iraq, as terror groups would become emboldened to strike harder.
Kerry's policies of relying more on international cooperation in the war on terror, would make it easier for Al Queda to regroup, resulting in a higher likelihood of terror attacks in the middle east. |
So you basically think them furinners can't do anything right? Especially when it comes to peacekeeping, which is mostly a grunt-job, for which soldier's militaries (such as the German one) are better made than high tech ones (such as the US)?
quote:
Kerry's domestic policies of higher taxes on the wealthy and big businesses, would result in lower GDP growth, which would hurt the economy. |
Actually, I agree Kerry could hurt the economy if he stopped deficit spending. it has little to do with tacing the rich: they have more than enough reasons to stay in the US as it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
|
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
What about 1962, when De Gaulle was the first leader to pledge his support to the US in case of an all-out nuclear war?
Aside from that, the US didn't suffer from any agression, except Sept. 11, and France immediately supported the war in Afghanistan, as well as provided all help it could wrt intelligence (btw, our intelligence teams are supposed to have been instrumental in Afghanistan).
So, in the two postwar opportunities where you could judge an ally as being stalwart or not, France passed the test without problems. |
Stalwart i.e. dependable
You make some points. As I said, France is entitled to make its own opinions and to take action or not. I might point out the French refusing overflight for F111's attacking Libya, the withdrawl from NATO, I dont recall France 'jumping in' during GW1 (but I may be mistaken), and certainly France have been antagonistic over GW2. IMO the only 'stalwart ally' of the US is the UK.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-02-2004 22:47
|