Kerry urges NATO help for Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040623/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_iraq&cid=1506&ncid=1473

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) urged the Bush administration to step up its pressure on NATO (news - web sites) to help out in Iraq (news - web sites) in various ways from training troops to providing security for elections.

The Massachusetts senator also called on the 26-member alliance to invite new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to attend its summit in Istanbul next week and discuss NATO's role in his country.


"That will put NATO countries to the test: Will they respond to an appeal from the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people?" Kerry said in a statement.


He criticised what he called President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s "failed diplomacy" on Iraq that has left the United States bearing about 90 percent of the costs in money and manpower for the occupation force.

more

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. NATO "will consider, but no commitment"...

according to an e-mail from a cousin in Luxembourg.

[MattNC]

2. Afghanistan

I'd rather see NATO play a larger role in Afghanistan. NATO - along with the U.S. - has dropped the ball there on its promises. That being said, I'll take more NATO support wherever we can get it.

[oblivious]

3. "the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people"

really

I say there's not one chance in a million NATO would get involved.

[Zhade]

4. He actually called Allawi "legitimate"???

Jesus.

Why even bother to fight, John? You keep giving away all the attack points!

I cannot fathom why Kerry said this. Allawi is clearly NOT legitimate.

How about, instead of attacking b*sh's "failed diplomacy", you mention, oh, I don't know - the fact that the war WAS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL?

No one can say this would hurt Kerry - the public is turning away from this war. Now, if ever, is a good time to speak the truth about it.

[Spazito]

5. WHEN Kerry is President, NATO will act, imo, until then, as long as...

bush is in office, NATO will "consider, no commitment". The world will only act in Iraq when the US concedes control, not until, imo, and the fallacy of this "interim" government is obvious to all.

[CHIMO]

6. NATO

New Arab Treaty Organisation.
Do we have any other members signing on?

[Rochambeau]

7. What's going on with John Kerry ??!!??

The repuks call him "flip-flop" and I always thought it was stupid but....
His position was as far as I know to promote involvement of the UN that would mandate adequate means to help securising Iraq.....and now it's NATO with no other mandate than Bush's "pressure" ??!!!?? More, Alawi is supposed to be legitimate ??!!?? And last but least I do hope he wants to put NATO countries (a.k.a as Europe and Canada) "to the test" about involvement in Iraq after no other mandate than Bush's PRESSURE ??!!??

:wtf:

If Mr.John Forbes Kerry wasn't our best chance to kick the chimp out of the WH I would clearly say : F**k O*f you, your "test" and your "legitimate representative" !!

Pissed off, really pissed off ! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[demoman123]

8. Here's more from the article--how is this any different from Bush?

Two prominent Kerry advisers, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright (news - web sites) and national security adviser Sandy Berger, seconded Kerry's call for a new approach to NATO despite the refusal of countries such as France and Germay to provide troops.

(snip)

"If we are driven out of Iraq by violence it will send a chilling message to all our adversaries that if they kill enough of us we retreat. That's not acceptable," Berger said.

[oblivious]

9. Yes, Sandy, but how does that sound to NATO?

You think they want or need a piece of that? Send their soldiers in to be killed along with yours just because retreat is not acceptable to you? Put yourself in their place. It's a no-brainer.

[demoman123]

10. The Europeans told us not to do it. So now we want them to help us do it?

Let's just NOT DO IT.

[Zhade]

11. What the FUCK?

He's been advising by ALBRIGHT and BERGER?

Holy Jesus.

This is "500,000 dead Iraqi kids is a price worth paying" Albright we're talking about here! And Berger's no picnic either.

Berger is basically saying "WE'LL decide when to leave, not the Iraqis."

This is soooooooooooooooooooooooooo fucked.

[shadu]

13. This is very disappointing

Sometimes Kerry looks like Bush lite.
He needs to start exposing the truth.
Democrats want to know that he is fighting for us!

[Zhade]

12. Hmmm. Thread's dropping like a rock.

I guess Kerry's declaration of Allawi as "the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people" is a bit too uncomfortable for some to acknowledge.

Well, it's not something to ignore. Here's a kick for the sake of being informed about the man we hope will replace b*sh. He ain't pretty, but he's "ours", so...KICK!

[Aidoneus]

16. Still dropping like a rock

The defender bots appear to be having trouble coming up with a response. :shrug:

[Zhade]

18. "Defender Bots" - good one!

It is something of an indefensible statement.

Allawi is not legitimate.

Kerry should know this. I suspect his more fervent boosters here on DU realize this, and are not speaking out - maybe because they don't want to get jumped on over this.

I can kinda understand this. What I don't like, however, is their willingness to attack dissenters but not face the fact that Kerry is not a savior.

An acknowledgment of this reality is all I ask. Too much to ask, I suppose?

[Aidoneus]

14. thanks, asshole

Those who hold W's ear may seek solace in the fact that their "opposition" puts up nothing of the sort.

"What American troops cannot do today, NATO troops won't be able to do later on. Everyone must know: Western troops will be regarded by Iraqis as occupiers. This is something that George W Bush and his faithful ally Tony Blair will do well to think about. If they have won a battle, they have not won the war yet. The great battle is still to begin. The liberation of Baghdad is not far away."

[geek tragedy]

15. In defense of Kerry

he's going to inherit whatever situation Bush leaves him. He has to walk a very, very fine line between criticizing Bush and delegitimizing him.

[Zhade]

19. In defense of the truth - Allawi is NOT legitimate.

It's one thing to walk a fine line. It's another thing altogether for Kerry to concede b*sh's talking points. Besides, Kerry can't delegitimize b*sh - the traitor squatting in the White House is no more legitimate a leader than Allawi. Neither was legally elected in the first place.

Allawi was hand-picked, not by Brahimi or the Iraqi people, but by the IGC in cooperation with the CPA. He will never be "the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people".

There is NO defense of Kerry's statement. He is flat-out WRONG.

[hang a left]

24. If I may....

You know I have been thinking about this for almost 24 hours now. The way things are going for this criminal cabal right now does not look good.

We have torture-gate, Plame-gate, No Iraq=Al Queda-gate, F911-gate.

We supposedly have indictments coming down very shortly.

It is like everyone knows they are going down in flames. Olsen announces he's leaving, Tenet has bailed. Even the SC kicked the Cheney case back to the lower court, which is not a win for Cheney, it is just a delay (maybe they know something).

Something really BIG is about to happen, I feel it. We are seeing the beginning of the end, I think. I don't know what it is, I can guess, and have. But I just really feel like something huge is getting ready to explode.

Something that will make * lame. I am starting to wonder if he will even be on the ticket come November. I feel like we are being set up, primed for something.

Don't mind me I don foil for every ocassion.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. Just like in Afganistan

and, we will extract our committment to Iraq by foisting if off on others to control

Yup--good idea.

Hit em, screw their country up, make sure American buddy business people are firmly installed, and then try to throw it all over to others

and tyat was the Bush plan from the beginning--like in Afganistan.

I am ashamed of all of them

[Disturbed]

20. J. Kerry is not many people's choice.

"I cannot fathom why Kerry said this. Allawi is clearly NOT legitimate."

It's BULL!!!It's US Puppet Govt., period.

Kerry's foreign policy is similar to the Neocons. Diff. is he wants more Western Allies support. Iraq will be the Vietnam of this decade. I predict that unless the Iraqis rise up with a Mass Uprising in the millions storming the Green Zone that the US will be in Iraq for decades or until the American people rise up. The American people are mostly apathetic so that is doubtful.

I wish the Dems would draft Al Gore and that Al would pick Kucinich for VP. But wish in one hand and ....

J. Kerry is not my choice at all. Lucky for me that I don't have to vote because CA. is locked up.

[Mechatanketra]

21. Anatomy of voter apathy.

Yep, it's a depressing time to be a real human being (i.e. one who acts humanely), since there are so many pretenders to the title right now.

I've said from the day the Iraq resolution passed, Kerry disturbs me deeply because he doesn't seem concerned for a moment that the Iraq war (and the inevitable toll in both American military and Iraqi civilian lives) was a bad act rather than merely an act performed badly. And people who can't grok that distinction, frankly, are people who can't be trusted with power over human lives.

But hey, he won the primaries -- and why not? Apparently, most of the country agrees with him. Why, if you do have a problem with the actual snuffing of human lives without any conceivable necessity, rather than just that it's going so sloppily and inefficiently, you must be some kind of cowardly pansy, if not just a Communist or a terrorist sympathizer.

I tell myself, he's still the lesser of two evils. I tell myself, in the words of Jim Hightower, "First we get rid of Bush, then we get rid of Kerry." But in the end, I don't believe it. Bush may get unseated, but if he does, it'll be by people who finally decided his killerin' skills weren't up to snuff, and maybe Kerry will do better. So we'll get four years of different unfounded foreign interventions, and maybe they won't be as bad or as numerous because we won't go in unless we can get someone else to share the blood on our hands. But they'll be there, and we'll crow about our "muscular internationalism", and after that it's going to be that much harder to keep a Neanderthal like Bush out of office because we've lost the ability to make being a Neanderthal a political liability.

So come November, that's what I'm going to be wrestling with when I try to wring up the effort to hit the polls and vote when I know no name on the ballot will be someone I could trust to throw me a rope if I was drowning unless it was because I was weighted down with money -- and when I know that empty choice is the result of the country I'm supposed to be so worried about the future of is inundated with just too damn many of the same empty-souled people. If neither the candidate nor the people who support him are willing to forward me this slimmest basic common agreement -- "killing is wrong" -- why do I care if the next four years is miserable for them? Call it my secularist take on damnation: instead of going to hell when you die, Hell comes to you.

[2cents]

22. If we share the plunder...

they'll share the risks/costs.

Nothing for nothing.

[Rochambeau]

23. kick

:kick: