If Kerry gets in - what difference will it make?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doppleganger

Active member
Right now the US Presidential election is very close, too close to call. If John Kerry gets in what fundamental differences do you see in US foreign policy and specifically on Iraq and the war on terror in general? He's often quoted as saying that America will work with our partners 'in consultation' and not 'in isolation'. It's ironic right now that the US has never been more powerful yet it's standing in the wider world has never been worse.
 
Doppleganger said:
Right now the US Presidential election is very close, too close to call. If John Kerry gets in what fundamental differences do you see in US foreign policy and specifically on Iraq and the war on terror in general? He's often quoted as saying that America will work with our partners 'in consultation' and not 'in isolation'. It's ironic right now that the US has never been more powerful yet it's standing in the wider world has never been worse.

This weekend I was at a party and I chatted with some people. The topic hit the war in Iraq, terrorism and global threats. The discussion boiled down to the question, which country was considered the most dangerous to the world right now. I was expecting North Korea or Iran, but they all agreed on one nation: The USA.

This is pretty much what has become of our good name.

Could John Kerry change that?

For one thing, most of the world would sigh in collective relief. Some mock polls ask the rest of the world who they would vote for if they had the chance (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/mock04.php) and the results are overwhelming. Here in Germany over 90% of the people would favour a President John Kerry.

I would call that a new basis of being 'in consultation' about the current pressing issues in global politics, mainly of course the war in Iraq and the "war" against terror.

What would that mean?

At least Kerry could begin reestablishing the dialogue with countries that are important allies and are increasingly being alienated. He could get financial aid, maybe even military aid, to carry the burden of the mess that has been made in Iraq. Those who believe we don’t need it should research the degree of over-extension we have reached in the current situation.

Regain credibility. George Bush’s behavior on the international platform is catastrophic. If necessary I will dig up some old material on his appearances at the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, but I believe it should be present in most memories. He is unable to work together with leaders of nations with different opinions or own opinions at all.

Regain respect. It is a fact: Most of the world stands in awe how a civilized country such as America, which has so many merits to show for, can have such an obvious moron as president and actually reelect him.

Sorry for being so honest, but it baffles me on a daily basis.

I have more to say on this, but this is getting too long...
 
The world has gone soft, Europe especially. I don't think people realize we are in a battle for Western Civilization itself.

If people don't like America because it steps on a few toes so what.

Better to step on a few toes now than to be destroyed later down the road.

If Kerry gets elected, I think he will care more for not hurting anyones feelings, than the best interest of the USA. Which we will eventually have to pay for down the road.
 
We are battling for Western civilization? Did I miss something or are you still fearing the coming of the Mahdi? :shock:

And don't mistake soft for considering military actions as the last resort.
 
Whatever you think of Bush, the war in Iraq has not gone to plan. Also, Bush and Tony Blair have been economical with the truth and some people would accuse them of outright lying (over Saddam's ability to launch WMD in 45 mins for example). IMO Bush sees the world too much as black and white, them and us. He can't appreciate that there is a world majority of opinion that falls within a view that you can only punish specific acts and not the potential of them happening. There is no use in trying to combat terrorism on a military level when the underlying causes are not tackled in the first place.

Bush has made too many gaffes and I for one have lost a lot of credibility in him. Whilst Kerry has not exactly sold himself to me I do think that he could mend some fences and restore US credibility in some parts of the world.
 
Bratwurst said:
We are battling for Western civilization? Did I miss something or are you still fearing the coming of the Mahdi? :shock:

What, you still don't know this by now? That we really are in a battle for Western Civilization itself. I'm sure the terrorist know this.

Did you really think we could actually be friends and sit down with people who crash airplanes into civilian buildings, and or murder hundreds of school children, and still keep our way of life and beliefs?

The coming of the Mahdi will merely be the culmination of all this. The more we fight it now the less effective it will be in the future.

And don't mistake soft for considering military actions as the last resort.

If you wait too long, there will be hell to pay.
 
John Kerry will rush along the Iraq war a bit, I doubt he'll leave it a mess, but not as clean as need be. He thought it was a complete mistake, he cares little for "Democracy in the broader middle-east" His heart is not in it.

Terrorism, well he will probably mimic Bush. But I believe he'll be even less aggressive towards nations like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.... those that indirectly support terrorist orgs and have had little repercussions.

Overall, I think Kerry will be very catious about putting boots on the ground, unless a state or a faction declares war. He will sqeeze diplomacy until all juice is gone, and then he will sqeeze some more. Perhaps this is good to some people, but not me. If he appeases the pacifist too much, he could very well miss our chance of prevention.

Will he help our image in the world? Probably. But I don't care. Maybe I should, but I don't. Whenever I hear someone say the US is the worst country in the world, I simply grin. Perhaps if Bush was more tender with other nations (or kiss ass) maybe we would have more allies.

But honestly, if an "ally" could so easily turn so bitter and hateful, i'd rather not have them at all.

John Kerry has shown me no strength, no real plan. And while Bush is far from my perfect pick, he at least has shown me commitment. Some would say he's ignorant to his mistakes, I say he knows them well, and i'm willing to put my faith in his ability to better.

When it comes to the Iraq war, Winston Churchill sums it up best:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events
 
I don’t know where Kerry really wants to take this country because he has supported all views during his campaign. If anything, his propensity to defend North Vietnamese communists says volumes about his character. Don’t take my word for it; just listen to what highly-decorated Vietnam vets have to say about John F. Kerry in the Stolen Honor documentary. Kerry is also for that New World Order garbage, and I don’t think that will get very far in America without much deception. He basically is a communist.

So I would say that, if Kerry wins the election, it’s I good thing that he will be held in check by the Supreme Court and Republican majority in congress. In other words, there will be gridlock and he won't be able to do jack.
 
What, you still don't know this by now? That we really are in a battle for Western Civilization itself. I'm sure the terrorist know this.

Although this is off topic, I may close the gap. This may be a idealization, because I have to keep on hoping that this current craze will come to an end and the people to their senses. Nonetheless I can see a division in the approach on dealing with the issue of global islamist terror by Kerry and Bush, even if it may not be as clear as I draw it.

Did you really think we could actually be friends and sit down with people who crash airplanes into civilian buildings, and or murder hundreds of school children, and still keep our way of life and beliefs?

Actually I did sit down with a Muslim student, a supporter of islamist terror and had long and heated discussions with him. Yes, you can sit down and talk with them. It doesn't lead to anything productive though (other than to know what you're up against). We agree on that.

We probably also agree that those terrorists that represent the likes of Al Qaida should be hunted down without mercy. They deserve nothing less. And we need to stick together on this. It must be a broad international effort. International laws as they exist may need to be bend on occasion. It will get bloody. They should have no safe haven.

Although we must do all that, we should never forget what makes us different from them. Belief in human rights, the promise of peace, freedom through justice - just to name a few of those things that make our Western civilization worth defending.

I'm not drifting off...

We are not witness to a grand clash of civilizations. This is no Hollywood spectacle. Islamist terror is a phenomenon we have to deal with carefully and thoroughly.

How we approach this problem is essential. Regardless of the motivations of the current commander in chief and his staff, the actions taken so far have made matters worse in many ways.

Not only have they divided the Western world, they have destabilized an entire region that had become dangerously fragile through an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, economic inequities and religious as well as cultural friction. Yes I am writing about the war in Iraq here.

John Kerry said it is the wrong war at the wrong time and he is absolutely right. Why is that? Apart from the obvious, that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have about as much connection as Kermit the Frog and Mahathma Ghandi, the biggest disaster is that Iraq has virtually turned into a recruitment center for islamist hatred, may the recruits be called murderers, insurgents or terrorists. They are fuelled by the same poison.

Terrorist leaders have no greater ally than Bush. He supplies them with something much more necessary for their idealism than weapons. Reason.
There is nothing so fruitful for their propaganda than an Iraq in disarray, destroyed infrastructure, killed civilians. If the situation continues (and bloody hell it will), they will probably have more success recruiting than the US army at home.

Apart from the massive loss of life (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) the results of the current President’s efforts have cut an existing psychological wound ever so much deeper. This shock will send ripples throughout the consciousness of the entire region for a long time to come. Cause and effect. It is a simple and fundamental principle.

Fighting against a terror cell cannot be done by armies. They thrive on the chaos that armies leave behind. By what I have heard John Kerry say, he understands this (at least better). It is my hope.
 
Bratwurst said:
We are not witness to a grand clash of civilizations. This is no Hollywood spectacle. Islamist terror is a phenomenon we have to deal with carefully and thoroughly.

How we approach this problem is essential. Regardless of the motivations of the current commander in chief and his staff, the actions taken so far have made matters worse in many ways.

Not only have they divided the Western world, they have destabilized an entire region that had become dangerously fragile through an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, economic inequities and religious as well as cultural friction. Yes I am writing about the war in Iraq here.

John Kerry said it is the wrong war at the wrong time and he is absolutely right. Why is that? Apart from the obvious, that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have about as much connection as Kermit the Frog and Mahathma Ghandi, the biggest disaster is that Iraq has virtually turned into a recruitment center for islamist hatred, may the recruits be called murderers, insurgents or terrorists. They are fuelled by the same poison.

Terrorist leaders have no greater ally than Bush. He supplies them with something much more necessary for their idealism than weapons. Reason.
There is nothing so fruitful for their propaganda than an Iraq in disarray, destroyed infrastructure, killed civilians. If the situation continues (and bloody h**l it will), they will probably have more success recruiting than the US army at home.

Apart from the massive loss of life (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) the results of the current President’s efforts have cut an existing psychological wound ever so much deeper. This shock will send ripples throughout the consciousness of the entire region for a long time to come. Cause and effect. It is a simple and fundamental principle.

Fighting against a terror cell cannot be done by armies. They thrive on the chaos that armies leave behind. By what I have heard John Kerry say, he understands this (at least better). It is my hope.

John Kerry is right when he hammers Bush on Iraq, but I'm not sure if Kerry is doing it because he understands why or he's doing it because he knows the Democrats like it and it makes good TV.

What is true that things are not any better than before. and the Middle East is a whole breeding ground for terrorism. It's a very have and have-not society. The rich are still rich and the poor are getting poorer. People there are getting more and more desperate and desperate people are more likely to become the terrorists of tomorrow. Bush or Kerry and their successors will have this to deal seeing as the US will always have to support Israel and with Israel being the one big sticking point for most Arabs. TBH I have no real conviction that either of them really know how to solve the problem.
 
I would start with making more European people see the true face of the terrorists, if Europe had lesser young and old people supporting the terrorists over here I think both Kerry and Bush would have it alot easier to deal with these terrorists in generall all over the world. Over here US are the bad cops regardless of who is in charge, Because the left party rules the people.

I say that Europe is lame it´s no question about it. It is our gov,s and the media toghter with people who are missinformed and it is sickened over here by a plague called public ignorance this have rised from socialists movements that are the house-trained version of our leftwing/leftparty, the same thing that Kerry represents in my opinion. But over here I am a minority and probably labelled as a right wing loony because I dont agree with the political correct agenda of EU. That makes me wrong and a bad person over here. The public oppinion needs useful idiots not people that question the political agendas in the EU.

So I must agree with former writer gladius The world has gone soft. With more voters that support the war on terrorism more weak gov over here would take the step out and begin to support the war on terrorism. But you dont hear the silent majority over here calling for a war against terrorism because they are house-trained by their unions and by the gov not to stick one's head out because then you are in trubble.

So the only voices you hear is the leftwings anti-war demonstrations, and there is no pity for a killed women or child, that has died because a terrorist blowed himselfe up. But if an american fighter drops a bomb over a terrorist cell who uses his famaly as a living shield and they get killed OooooH! That so terrible!!!! "Why doesnt the silent majority say anything -part II"because they are infested with this public ignorance and the political correct media picture of dying civilian crowds.

So I dont think it would matter to much if Kerry wins. US would only be turned into another Sweden, Germany, or France and everyone will be peachy about it and green untill the next building is attacked by terrorist cells. Then the police will arrest the guilty ones but the gov will see to it that the terrorist cells that have not killed anyone yet in sweden can continue to collect money for the Palestinian Hamas and more civilians will die in the middle east. Wellcome to Europe, the land of the free terrorist cells, the new Europe land of Mahdi.

When people understand that terrorists dont bargain or make diplomatic solutions then more people will understand what is going on in this world. But not untill then. I think Kerry would be a great leader if there was no terrorist war to be honest. But now I think the world needs a man like Bush, this world doesnt need another sweden.


Cheers:
Doc.S

:viking:
 
Bratwurst said:
Actually I did sit down with a Muslim student, a supporter of islamist terror and had long and heated discussions with him. Yes, you can sit down and talk with them. It doesn't lead to anything productive though (other than to know what you're up against). We agree on that.

You actually sat down with someone who totaly hates the West and will stop at nothing to destroy it, and you still see things the way you, I agree with some of the things you said, but what will it take another 9/11 or Beslan, or worse, before you realize this is really a war of civilizations.

That guy who sat across from you is long waiting for the day that he and his comrades would utterly crush Western Civilization and all it stands for that includes; belief in human rights, the promise of peace, freedom through justice - just to name a few of those things, and other things we hold so dear.

When he sees Westerners dying by the bushel full he will be more than happy and he will yell "Allah Achbar!" "Allah Achbar!" "Allah Achbar!"
 
To be honest, I don't see that much difference between the candidates in many issues. And they have skirted alot of issues such as immigration which are much more important to me than some of the things that their entire battle with each other has been focused on. So many wheels are in motion that Kerry cannot just suddenly put a stop to where military actions are concerned, so those who are thinking that Kerry will suddenly bring our military home and all will be well, are going to find themselves quite disappointed. We are looking at a long scary haul no matter who sits in the oval office.

My issues with Kerry are about character and his lack of. I cannot fathom that a man such as he has shown himself to be could be looking at the opportunity to represent this country as our president. But, after Clinton I guess anything becomes possible. Things like integrity, morality, accountability matter to me.
 
Kerry can actually speak well without making up words like Iraqistan.
He has been in a war so he knows not to sen unwilling citizens to fight a totally unneccesary war. He would be a great president and would help the American economy back on its feet and let the world respect the USA again.
 
gladius said:
Bratwurst said:
Actually I did sit down with a Muslim student, a supporter of islamist terror and had long and heated discussions with him. Yes, you can sit down and talk with them. It doesn't lead to anything productive though (other than to know what you're up against). We agree on that.

You actually sat down with someone who totaly hates the West and will stop at nothing to destroy it, and you still see things the way you, I agree with some of the things you said, but what will it take another 9/11 or Beslan, or worse, before you realize this is really a war of civilizations.

That guy who sat across from you is long waiting for the day that he and his comrades would utterly crush Western Civilization and all it stands for that includes; belief in human rights, the promise of peace, freedom through justice - just to name a few of those things, and other things we hold so dear.

When he sees Westerners dying by the bushel full he will be more than happy and he will yell "Allah Achbar!" "Allah Achbar!" "Allah Achbar!"

Very true. Very good post!
 
You actually sat down with someone who totaly hates the West and will stop at nothing to destroy it, and you still see things the way you, I agree with some of the things you said, but what will it take another 9/11 or Beslan, or worse, before you realize this is really a war of civilizations.

Yes I still see things the way I do and although given the right arguments I would modify my perspective, but you do not have any to offer.

First off, Al Qaida may be a well organized terror cell, but this doesn't qualify them as a civilization. The Muslim world (I can only guess that you are referring to it and falsely defining it as a civilization) is in its majority peaceful.

Second, you must differentiate. The terrorism in Beslan had a strictly national character. The Russian/Chechnian conflict was the source of it. The terrorist targeted innocent to make a political statement and by doing that used similar methods like Al Qaida, but its motivation was not hatred of Western civilization. It was a crime, yes, but it was a similar crime for different reasons.

The world is not that simple.
 
gladius said:
You actually sat down with someone who totaly hates the West and will stop at nothing to destroy it, and you still see things the way you, I agree with some of the things you said, but what will it take another 9/11 or Beslan, or worse, before you realize this is really a war of civilizations.

That guy who sat across from you is long waiting for the day that he and his comrades would utterly crush Western Civilization and all it stands for that includes; belief in human rights, the promise of peace, freedom through justice - just to name a few of those things, and other things we hold so dear.

When he sees Westerners dying by the bushel full he will be more than happy and he will yell "Allah Achbar!" "Allah Achbar!" "Allah Achbar!"

I don't believe it's a war of civilisation at all. It's actually more a war of economy and politics. Just say for example that Israel did not exist and that the wealth in the Middle East was more evenly spread. Do you think the main terrorist organisations, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, would have nearly the support and motivation that they do?
 
Bratwurst said:
First off, Al Qaida may be a well organized terror cell, but this doesn't qualify them as a civilization. The Muslim world (I can only guess that you are referring to it and falsely defining it as a civilization) is in its majority peaceful.

But that guy you were talking to where did he live? Did He live where you live?

It doesn't matter, he is longing for the day when he can force you to convert or cut your head off. There are millions if not hundreds of millions waiting for the same chance. And these people hold somekind of jihadist arua over an entire civilization.

The majority of Muslims are peaceful, yes this is true. But they are still simphatetic to the terrorist. The sway of the majority of their entire civilization is leaning towards that way.

Like you said talking with that guy did nothing productive. All your logical reasoning will not change his mind you know.

Second, you must differentiate. The terrorism in Beslan had a strictly national character. The Russian/Chechnian conflict was the source of it. The terrorist targeted innocent to make a political statement and by doing that used similar methods like Al Qaida, but its motivation was not hatred of Western civilization. It was a crime, yes, but it was a similar crime for different reasons.

The world is not that simple.

To them... it is that simple.

You are either Muslim or not.

Doppleganger said:
I don't believe it's a war of civilisation at all. It's actually more a war of economy and politics. Just say for example that Israel did not exist and that the wealth in the Middle East was more evenly spread. Do you think the main terrorist organisations, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, would have nearly the support and motivation that they do?

The support maybe not as broad.

But the motivation, yes, always.

Israel is just a big excuse for them to hate us, without it they will find something else to hate us for.

Israel by the way is our only real true ally in the Middle East, there will be no threat coming from Israel to either the US or Europe.

One of the problems I have with Kerry is he would rather cater more to those people who would like to see Israel destroyed for the sake of world image and popularity, rather than make a stand with conviction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top