He supports getting other nations involved and our troops home.  Who doesn't?  How exactly is he going to do this?  His magnetic personality is going to convince France/Germany/NATO and the UN to devote significant numbers of peacekeepers?  Don't hold your breath.
 If he can't get other nations to contribute troops, is he going to pull out before the country is stable?  I would respect him much more if he was simply truthful: we will have to have troops in Iraq for years (he could still blame Bush for starting the mess).

The fact is, Bush has alienated many of our NATO allies beyond his ability to work with them in the future.  Most of them will simply not cooperate with him.  The simple fact is, because of the arrogance of manner in which Bush went into this war, a new face on the scene can and will be much more effective in working with these allies, even if the approach were to try EXACTLY the same things that Bush would try.  Sometimes, the leader himself has burned the bridge, and only a new leader can repair the bridge.  We are in that situation in Iraq.  Even if Bush had the recipe to repair it, the fact that it was Bush's mess in the first place prevents him from being able to repair it.  A new man can and will repair it, and the most important step in that direction is to show our allies that we recognize the mistake we made, by delivering the man who made the mistake on a platter as a sacrifice.  And that is what we must do here.

Getting out of Iraq without causing a big problem will be a lot harder than invading the country was.  I have turned the issue of how to succeed in that country over in my head a lot. My guess is that to stabalize it, we will need far more troops than are there now, putting these men and women in will require the expenditure of a lot of political capital.  I do not have a lot of faith in the Iraqi security forces at this point and I don't see any nation other than Great Britain putting enough troops in to make a difference. And even in the case of Great Britain, political realities in that country makes additional large troop commitments somewhat unlikely.  We bit into this loaf at the wrong time, I am afraid that we are going to have to chew it by ourselves - not an impossible task, but certainly difficult.

He'd b*tch slap them- that's what he'd do and he'd clean this mess up in 45 days!!!
Remember Mohimar Quadaffi of Libya. He was causing all kinds of trouble and the Gipper b*tch slapped him and Mohimar was shivering in his tent in the desert for over a decade(causing no trouble) and Mohimar was dressing like a woman too and then when G.W. got Saddam, he really got scared.
P.S.  Iran is gonna get b*tch slapped if they don't straighten up and fly right.
P.P.S.  I bet Saddam was wearing a barka to be incognito.  hehehe

He has a plan but it's super secret:

[Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."]

It's really too bad he's not already an officeholder, a person with some official standing in the government, or he could already be working on America's behalf. Damn it man!

Then, later in the Post article, there's this jewel:

[On domestic issues, Kerry gave a "rock hard" pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though he said a national emergency or war could change that.

Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, "We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country."]

He needed to be reminded that we're at war? The man is not serious about fighting islamic terrorism.

RLTW

He has said this numerous times, the only way you can see a resolution to this mess, is by getting the international community involved. I am not talking about little banana republics who have sent maybe 10 soldiers there, I am talking major ones.

"I am afraid that we are going to have to chew it by ourselves"


I'm afraid your right. Our allies understand that this was a war for Israel, egged on by a few crazy and rabid jews. ( it may seem like I took a shot at the jews, but it is brutally true)

They will not come to our aid.

For better or worse, we are on our own.

-- Modified on 8/3/2004 6:22:09 PM

It's a fact and I can't understand why it's not brought up more often in the media.  All this talk about getting Europe to shoulder more of the burden is sheer balderdash.  They can't help and their support isn't worth much more than lip service.  There was a huge in-depth report on this topic a year or two ago -- I can't recall if it was the Times or Wall Street Journal -- that spelled out no European nation has ANY military to speak of.  With the exception of the UK, no country in Europe is capable of engaging in a military conflict outside its own borders.  California spends more on its national guard than Germany does on its armed forces.  The entire country of France has exactly ONE aircraft carrier, and it ISN'T EVEN SEA WORTHY! The rest of the fleet is WWII vintage.  The article gave a couple of reasons for why Europe's forces have become so debilitated:  Europe geared their military to fight a Soviet invasion.  Another reason is with the rise of social democratic politicians over the last few decades, and the end of the Cold War, the nations of Europe (except the UK) have severly under-funded what little military they had.  Also, the mind set of soldiers in Europe is entirely different, the article reported.  There, the military is viewed more as a make-work jobs program than a fighting force.  It was pointed out that a lot of European countries haven't engaged in a significant military exercise since the Cold War's end.  The article reported that NATO and our armed forces enabled Europe to ignore its own armed forces, confident that the U.S. would shoulder any burden.  In the Afgan conflict, the strategy of the participating nations was to show up and then get out of the way of the U.S. forces.  This is because, the article reported, the U.S. forces were so much more advanced, and faster, and better equipped with functional, reliable materiel, the other countries couldn't contribute anything of any substance.

Sorry for the rant, but maybe someone here will find this enlightening.  Every time I hear someone calling for better relations with France or someplace to shoulder more of the burden, I laugh.  Who ever is saying that is either flat-out lying or is severely misinformed.  I mean, I know better and all I do is read the papers.

GOPGeezer, don't get me wrong.  I get a kick out of reading your posts.

-- Modified on 8/3/2004 10:48:27 AM

Everyone talks about "cooperation" among allies as the Holy Grail of World Peace.  Yet, no one says anything about what form that cooperation will take, once we have it.  Please, tell me what these key strategic allies will offer the U.S., that's worth anything.  What?  Belgium, that military super-power, will take on Iraq?  Heck, Belgium would have trouble taking on Lichenstein.  The entire EU has a military fighting force comparable to -- California.  I'm not kidding. (see my post below)  So, what do we get from sucking up to France?  The French will say nice things about us?  Please, I'm open-minded.  I REALLY want to know what do we GET for this COOPERATION that the Dems see as all-important? What does cooperation get us?

...and that thing he says about not raising taxes on the middle class.  HA!  How often have we heard this?  For guys like Kerry, the "middle class" means everyone living in a sod hut in Oklahoma or working for the minimum wage.  If you don't meet these criteria -- BINGO -- you're taxes are going up, bustah!

... my post above.  The politicos holding out the hope that the nations of the EU have the military power to offer any significant help are really misinformed or are being very disingenious.  European nations like France can manage some bombing runs over a neighboring country like Bosnia, but they are totally unequivocally incapable of sending forces any distance.  That is, even if there were public support in these countries to do that.  And there isn't.  Having other countries help out is a false misleading fantasy.  They can't. Kerry knows this.  Heck, I know this and I only read the papers.  

-- Modified on 8/3/2004 11:04:31 AM

Cooperation is not the same as "Sucking up"!  Once you start looking at it as teamwork and not sucking up, then you'll realize that there is alot to do and more can be achieved by working with the other countries rather than alienating ourselves from the international community.

This is exactly what the Bush administraion has done.   Look at the Israeli26Page=1&Messageid=7880&FromEdit=1ars ago. Not only the situation hasn't improved, it has actually deteriorated over the past few years.  Our Commander in Chief can and should do a lot more on that front because I believe, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the core of all these issues.  if we help get that resolved or at least under some control we will gain more strength and credibility in the middle east.  


-- Modified on 8/4/2004 10:39:22 AM

BTW, You, like must right wingers, are very quick to dismiss the French as not being of benefit to us.  But if we had listened to and acted upon,  the intelligence which the French provided us with respect to Zaccarias Moussaoui and his links to Al Qaida during the summer of 2001, there is a very REAL possibility that we could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.  THAT is the type of cooperation which we damn well need to encourage, and not denigrate like Bush and the rest of his cowboys are wont.

And, the French also have one of the finest covert intelligence services in the world.  They knew about Zacarias Moussaoui's links to Al Qaida, and his travels around the world.  They told us about it in the summer of 2001, but we ignored the information.  Much to our detriment, as, had we acted on what the French told us, in a timely manner, we might well have foiled the 9/11 plots.  Instead, it got lost in a stack of files at FBI HQ in Quantico, until after 9/11 happened.

So apparently, your reading the papers has NOT helped you to know better.

Bush has merely raised the taxes on all of our children, by spending $445 Billion more now than he is currently taking in.  That money has to get paid off somehow.  It will either happen through taxes or de-valuation of our monetary base through rampant inflation.  So, under Bush, we know FOR CERTAIN that BINGO, your taxes are going up, bustah!  Because the future taxes have already been spent.

The fact is, it's going to be an extremely tough mess to get out of.  It's only a small starting point to get rid of the person makeing the mess, and try a new approach.  A small, but absolutely fundamentally necessary step.

The first rule of holes is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!  In this case, we need to get rid of the guy with the shovel, and the already proven predisposition toward more shovelling.

Did you know the French have Carriers?  And a few Airbus Transports?

That their Paras have a rep almost as good as ours?  The Legion is legendary- and more veteran than most american units?

So we provide the heavy lift- no big.  The Euros and the Canadians and the Aussies etc. are not the wimps you seem to think.  And we haven't really seen what the "New" Easter Euro armies are about yet.

The German army was the soul of NATO.  They might be useful if used in numbers.  They used to be the best army in the world in terms of fighting capability (1936-44).

and its a real pity we can't get the Israelis to take a sector.....

You need to get out more!  And not just to SPs!

I said the European forces are under-equipped with outdated equipment and not in sufficient numbers or strategic sophistication to be of significant value.  Yes, France has carriers - the Charles DeGaulle, which is in port most of the time because it keeps breaking down.  They have other carriers, from WWII.  Heck, our WWII carriers are in seaport museums!  The French Foreign Legion is a bunch of moral degenerates (wonder if they have TER VIP memberships?) who haven't had to fight anything for like -- when?  An old Bogart movie?  Tough guys? Yes.  Effective by modern standards?  Come on.  

Your most egregious error:  The GERMAN army was the soul of NATO?  The GERMAN army?  Where?  In the Bizarro Superman universe? The SOUL, BRAIN, HEART, LIVER AND KIDNEYS OF NATO WAS THE ARMED FORCES OF THE U.S. OF A.   To write that Germany was the soul of NATO is plain wrong in pure fact.  But you probably meant something else here, and I'm giving you a really generous out.  And I'd like to see what the new eastern european armed forces can do.  My guess not much.  They are all close to bankrupt.  Just as most liberal arguments are bankrupt.  WHOOPS!  Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Uh, dude the US contingent liker the BAOR, was a trip wire force to slow down the commie onslought.  The real US forces were to come by ship from the US or C-5 into the UK.  The Germans were to be the main cannon fodder to do the slowing.  They would be stiffened by Dutch, Belgian and French troops as the defence went on.

The Leopard is a fine tank.  Marders fine vehicles.  Not M1's but good stuff.  When one group is about 120K and the other is a couple of million, the millions are the soul, even if the 120K are the sharpest teeth (not sure I agree to that either).

Pretty much all professional soldiers have some bit of moral degeneracy to 'em.  And we can't cast aspersions here, can we?

And what we need in Iraq is NOT the latest and greatest- havnig that there right now is getting us into all sorts of force protection problems.  A few HUNDRED Thousand other low-tech guys there would be very helpful.

Your denigratory attitude to anything not american is a HUGE PART  OF THE PROBLEM.  IF WE ARE TO BEAT TERRORISM, THAT ATTIITUDE IS THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO CHANGE.

... I'm making the point that the difference between European armed capability and the U.S. is huge.  To your point about a couple million German reservists, I see now what you were saying before. I took it to mean you were talking about standing German forces, which were relatively small.  Even then, the U.S. taxpayer supplies most of the firepower to NATO and bears the brunt of the responsibility.

That would be to schizophrenic for everybody.   Israel is our chained dog and if they have to, they will unchain themselves and solve problems in big big way.  Hopefully, Yasar Arafat will be gone.  That man is an evil gangster with over 125 million in Swiss banks. Israel has shown heroic restaint.

-- Modified on 8/3/2004 7:46:39 PM

when I wake up, I will see some logic in your post.

happen when hostile action takes place.  The death of Qaddafi's child was simply one instance of that unfortunate reality.

And why it is a bunch of B.S. to denigrate leaders who recognize that War is and ought to be a last resort, and who don't dress up in flight suits to make up for inadequacies on their resumes.

I didn't say they don't have troops.  Sending troops abroad entails more than an airplane ride -- a whole logistical support network is involved. European armies (except the UK) aren't  set up to do that on any significant basis.  They are set up to defend against a Soviet attack.  They are not set up to sustain any type of substantive overseas operation.

And, BTW, I answered two different posts.  YOUR post dealt with Medicaid - which is for low income FAMILIES, the OTHER post dealt with Medicare (which is for 65+ year olds).

And I needn't be a military expert to know more about other nations' capabilities than you apparently do.  BTW, those logistical requirements you mention - that's what we have NATO for.  But Bush has been unable to get our NATO allies to agree to support us on Iraq - which is one of many reasons that Bush needs to be dumped in the next election.

Not true - the French have possessions all over the place and a set -up to serve them- just can't send over a Div at a time.

BTW- I think you are a little mean about two easily mixed up gummint programs (one state and one fed- I know).

I was about to say you can't tell your political ass from a hatstand and YOU are sposed to be an expert on Stocks?- Then I thought I'd try to rise above.

But good on you for the relatively informed attempts- you are head and shoulders above most of the GOP posters. At the head of the class with RLTW(sp?).  Don't it feel wierd to be way more informed and cogent on a subject than your own candidate?  

I DO think we all owe the Shrubster a point for letting any person in American feel they are as smart or smarter than the president!

And yes- I'd vote for you too before I'd vote for Bush.  You make a little more sense- and you know where to get blown in NYC!  Now go get more informed and eat some Gingko- you can get into the Clinton class of pres.!