Allies Not in Formation on Kerry's Troops Plan

[Dover]

Allies Not in Formation on Kerry's Troops Plan

By Paul Richter and Maria L. La Ganga, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry has staked much of his campaign on a proposal he hopes will convince voters that he can extricate the United States from Iraq more quickly and at less cost than President Bush.

But Kerry's plan, which promises to effectively shift much of the Iraq war burden from America to its allies, so far is failing to receive the international support the proposal must have to succeed.

Kerry in recent appearances and interviews has been intensifying his effort to spotlight what he sees as the Bush administration's mistakes in Iraq — especially the failure to broaden international involvement — as a fundamental difference between the two candidates. But Kerry's proposals depend on changing the minds of foreign leaders who do not want to defy their electorates by sending forces into what many consider to be a U.S.-made mess.

"I understand why John Kerry is making proposals of this kind, but there is a lack of realism in them," Menzies Campbell, a British lawmaker who is a spokesman on defense issues for the Liberal Democratic Party, said in a typical comment.

Many allied countries may welcome a new team in Washington after years of friction with the Bush administration. But foreign leaders are making it clear they don't want to add enough of their own troops to allow U.S. forces to scale back to a minority share in Iraq, as Kerry has proposed....>>



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerryiraq9aug09,1,7671568.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Bush was AWOL]

1. Well, I'm shocked to learn this...

By contrast, there is a widespread belief in Russia that a Kerry win would launch a new era of U.S.-European goodwill — a prospect Russian leaders view with alarm.

The Russian government is happy with tensions between Bush and Europe, which gives Moscow an opening to build its own relations with European governments and distracts world attention from its own difficulties, analysts said.


"The Kremlin feels very comfortable with the notion that Bush is playing the enfant terrible in the world arena, because of his Middle East policy, and thus he keeps distracting the world from, for example, problems in Russia," said Stanislav Belkovsky, general director of the National Strategy Council, a think tank considered close to Russian security services. "The Kremlin is not at all interested in the Democrats' victory in the presidential polls."

I knew they were supporting the sock puppet for a reason.

[union_maid]

3. Kerry's going to have to offer Europe a stark choice

The choice is to help him succeed or risk getting another Bush. Because that's the reality. Europe wants the US to be headed by someone sane, someone who will not act irresponsibly and basically someone who isn't a drunk-with-power driver at the wheel of the US machine..well, they better not leave the sane guy hanging in the wind.

[aneerkoinos]

8. LOL

Nice threat, do what I say or my guys will elect someone even worse than me!

Thanks but no thanks, Bush is a uniter, he's doing great job uniting Europe, uniting European people's political awereness for the need of strong Europe that is truly independent from America.

Bush/Kerry Iraq plans are beyond repair and no sane people will take part in that against their own best interests. Why don't you people elect some sane leaders who'll sign into Kyoto, ICC etc. and start behaving responsibly and stop the imbecill wars against consepts (drugs, terrorism), instead of throwing stupid threats at us Euros?

[progressivebydesign]

17. And why don't you butt out of American politics...

.. as it seems our choice of Kerry doesn't please you? Sorry... when YOU have to live under Bush's rules for four years, then feel FREE to criticize our ONE hope of sending Bush back to his pig farm. You "hate" Kerry? Really? Based on what, really? How has Kerry affected YOUR life? We'll pick our leaders, you pick yours... how's that?

[Zhade]

27. Where did the poster state that s/he "hates Kerry?"

I don't see it.

Your post reminds me why the rest of the world often despises us - the sheer arrogance.

Our elections matter to the rest of the world, because the United States has clawed its way to the top and crowned itself leader of the world. It might bode well to listen to other countries and their citizens, rather than lecture them.

[aneerkoinos]

31. Why should I shut up?

I, with the rest of the world, have been living under Bush's rule. Believe me I have lot of sympathy for you who have been watching it most closely and understand your pain, but I also understand that you can only blame yourself for letting things get the way they are. Not only because of Bush, but because of Clinton's bubble-economy, because of Reagan initiated deficits, because of oil-addiction, unrestrained capitalism and continuous wars to support them, because of military-industrial complex, because, because, because. Because of the whole karmic system of cause and effect, because of being blind to it, because of blaming Bush for everything.

Bush is OK, because he's so unabashedly showing the true face of the ugly America, and especially because he and his administration is incompetent beyond belief. Too bad for the sorry buggers in Iraq, Afganistan, Palestine and elsewhere, but it's not possible to do anything constuctive as long as US is hellbent on selfdestructing in the stupid war. No, like they say, when your enemy is self-destructing, don't interfere.

Kerry is not going end your suffering, he will only make the things worse by betraying the false hopes you bestow upon him. Or maybe it's a good thing, your hopes taken away and not being able to blame the boogyman for everything?

[poliguru]

37. Because, because, because

Because of the U.S.'s assistance to East Berlin through the airlift? Because of the Marshall Plan? Because of the use of U.S. intelligence to track down terrorists who hijacked European planes? Because of millions of American tourists you depend upon each year and smile to their faces and then say nasty things behind their backs? (That last one is an "apparently" - judging from your post. I would not characterize ALL Europeans as such.)

Ugly things can be found in great supply in every country. Ours are more obvious because we are a superpower and therefore under the microscope pretty constantly. But we here in the States feel that things can always improve - it's called "optimism." And we have the work ethic and the willpower to make those great things happen if we are only given the opportunity. I won't tell you to shut up - I feel everyone has a right to state their opinion - but I will tell you to pull your head out of your ass and stop characterizing us as another "evil empire" when you benefit so much from us.

[aneerkoinos]

39. Blame games and self-gratifications

"Because of CIA terrorist campaigns in Italy and elsewhere? Because of US support for fascist dictators in Greece and elsewhere? Etc."

These kinds of exercises are not only futile, they are damaging and I don't wish to continue them. No-one is without blame, everybody has done something right sometime, history is only usefull when trying to understand the present and the causes of our problems, so we can do something about them.

And neither is making up strawmen helpfull. You are free to refuse to understand what I am saying to answer intelligently and beat your strawmen blue in your patriotic fervor, but as long as you insist on doing so, the discussion goes nowhere.

[poliguru]

40. I'm pretty sure you're confused...

...did you by any chance partake in some of that Prozac-water?

1. I always refute intelligently - reread the post. I gave specifics and explained my position.
2. I fully understand the purpose of history, being, as I stated, a student of history. In fact, I have an actual degree in history and politics. In fact, I actually teach it to others.
3. I don't believe anyone on this board supported our less-than-stellar efforts to interfere on the wrong side of so many nation's politics. I'm quite positive, in fact, that if you would actually go through and read this board, you will find that we often call for it to stop. We also take actual productive action against it, like voting, campaigning, writing editorials, teaching, etc., as opposed to the non-productive actions of posting on a message board that an entire country deservs to sink in its own shit.
4. It is unfair, inaccurate, and ethnocentric to accuse an entire country of being terrible for the world, etc. because of its poor actions while ignoring its good actions. This is what you have done. The negative about the US is the only thing you insist upon seeing. That is like the US refusing to deal with thoose damn Nazi Germans! Look at what they did! And the French! We all know about their anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant history. And don't get me started on Britain's firebombings and Italy's civil wars. See how that can work both ways?
5. By the way - use "strawmen" in the correct way next time.

[Zhade]

26. Odd. I think Europe would LOVE to see the American Empire fall.

I mean, doesn't that just make sense? They're not happy with the U.S. being a hyperimperialist state, barging around the world taking all the best resources for itself and imposing its will on other countries - and that's under presidents both Democratic and Republican.

Why wouldn't they want us to fall?

[yardwork]

34. The freepers ought to take a look at that

Freepers are descended from the Red-baiting Soviet-fearing hordes of previous decades. Are they happy that Bush is making the world safer for Russia?

[Wright Patman]

2. During WW II the U.S.

"pacified" the Europeans with terror bombing from the skies, e.g. Dresden. They did the same thing to Tokyo and then dropped the 'big ones'--twice.

The European and Asian publics in general actually do not see war or occupation as a solution to anything. And they are right. Ironically, it is our own war criminal government which brought about this sea change in public opinion.

I find it amusing when even liberals call those who are military noninterventionists "isolationists." No, I prefer to think of myself as "European."

[Jim Sagle]

13. Boo fucking hoo for Dresden.

So sorry if our winning WWII ruffles your feathers.

[Wright Patman]

14. Only a bloodlusting, war-crazed

lunatic would defend what was done to the 135,000 civilians (which is a conservative estimate; it may have been much higher) who were firebombed to death in Dresden, a city of no military significance which was serving as a place of refuge for civilians.

"On the evening of February 13, 1945, one of the most controversial air-raids of all time commenced over the skies of Dresden, Germany. Within two days, over 1,300 allied bombers had completely destroyed the medieval city with a massive firestorm, killing well over 200,000 people. However, a storm still rages in academic circles as to the true results of the bombing and the necessity of the attack.

"In early 1945, the population of Dresden had more than doubled due to the massive influx of refugees fleeing the advancing Russians. Due to the lack of housing, many of these people were living in the streets. However, people continued to pour into the overwhelmed city because many concluded that since Dresden was primarily a hospital city, it had virtually no military value and would escape the area bombing campaigns of the allies. This idea, coupled with the rumor that a niece of Churchill lived in the city and that Dresden was to be spared as an administrative center for the Allies after the war, left the residents and administrators of the city with a strong sense of security and safety. In fact, the impression of the safety of Dresden was so pervasive, the German general staff had the city’s flak batteries transferred to the Eastern front and air-raid shelters were not strengthened. These assumptions were to have fatal consequences unmatched in the history of warfare - a death toll that was significantly higher than the 71,879 at Hiroshima."

http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.htm

[Parche]

16. WWII

I dont know if you remember, but we were at war with
Germany and Japan, a real war
Japan and Germany were very brutal on POW's
All of the bombings were necessary to end the war

[bpilgrim]

21. carpet bombing whole cities is sick

i don't care who does it.

and NUKING a defeated, ready to surrender nation's cities fillied with innocent men, women and children... TWICE is barbaric.

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

"Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon succeeded only by Nagasaki." - K. Vonnegut

peace

[Jim Sagle]

24. Leahy was a lying isolationist, pro-fascist conservative, as were most of

the anti-Abomb crowd at the time.

Hardly an authority to quote on a Democratic board.

[bpilgrim]

29. all the military leaders in theater at that time say the same thing

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . . THE DECISION, p. 350.

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. THE DECISION, p. 331.

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. . . . THE DECISION, p. 4.

On the other hand, what little contemporaneous evidence we do have strongly suggests that BEFORE the atomic bomb was used at least two of the four members of the Joint Chiefs did not believe that military considerations required the destruction of Japanese cities without advance warning. Here, for instance, is how General George C. Marshall put it in a discussion more than two months before Hiroshima was destroyed (McCloy memo, May 29, 1945):

... he thought these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers.... Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill-considered employment of such force. THE DECISION, p. 53.

The President's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy--the man who presided over meetings of the Joint Chiefs--noted in his diary of June 18, 1945 (seven weeks PRIOR TO the bombing of Hiroshima):

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. THE DECISION, p. 324.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[Bush was AWOL]

41. Geez, you won't give this up will you?

You would prefer that instead of the bombings in Germany and Japan that we send in troops and prolong the war a few years in order to avoid killing innocent civilians. Sorry, but war is war, and war is ugly. We did what was necessary to finish off an enemy as fast as possible and reduce the American Casualties as much as possible. Was it humane? Absolutely not. Did it save American lives? You bet it did. So, was it worth it? Yep.

[bpilgrim]

42. r u channeling rummy

"Was it humane? Absolutely not. Did it save American lives? You bet it did. So, was it worth it? Yep. "

how many lives would have been saved if we had accepted their 1 condition earlier?

IWO-OKINAWA

think about it...

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[Jim Sagle]

23. The real Wright Patman would be spinning in his grave like a top if he

could how his name is being used here.

[Chelsea Patriot]

25. So Sorry about the Swan Service, Sugar!!!!

Maybe Dresden should have stuck with putting porcelain into ovens, instead of Jews.

[Zhade]

28. Dude, Jack loves ARIEL SHARON!

Figure it out. It's pretty easy.

FWIW, I totally agree with you. It does take a "bloodlusting, war-crazed lunatic" to feel apathetic to (or worse, endorse) war crimes.

As long as Americans are willing to forgive our own atrocities, things will not change. Self-blinded war crimes apologists hold this country back from living up to its ideals.

[bpilgrim]

18. what a sick comment

but i have come to expect such when i see your handle :hi:

peace

[JohnOneillsMemory]

38. Um, US corporations built Hitler's war machine. Sorry, Europe.

So sorry, France and Poland, but there were big bucks to be made on war profiteering.

And US corporations backed Mussolini and Hitler for years. They even tried a coup against FDR to install fascism here in 1934.

Oh, and Hitler modeled his 'Final Solution' for the Jews on the US genocide against Native Americans which was very effective.

Boo-fucking-hoo, indeed. But we won!

Your post is grotesque in its shallowness and I hope it was merely glibness with nothing behind it.

[The Zanti Regent]

4. More disinformation from the Lies Angeles Times

I do not believe these liars for one minute, especially since they are now owned by the same liars that run the Chicago Fibune!

[aneerkoinos]

9. Being European

I can confirm the article is not lying.

[Jacobin]

11. I don't blame Europe at all

The U.S. got itself into this damn mess against the protestations of most of the rest of the world. I'd MUCH rather have Kerry cleaning up Bush's messes, but asking Europe to jump in the quagmire is going to be problematic.

[progressivebydesign]

20. I honestly think Kerry is thinking more of a peacekeeping force..

.. which we've done before. I think it's in the best interest of the world to make sure that Iraq doesn't fall into complete hell. It's NOT Kerry's fault that Iraq has disintegrated, nor is it the Europeans. Kerry voted for the war, in that he gave Bush some power to do the right thing, if all other efforts failed. It's not Kerry's fault that Bush abused that power, but I think Kerry realizes it will take more than our troops to fix the mess and stabalize Iraq.

I do think that allies will help out when the scope of the job over there changes. Geez. You know, I have no idea exactly why we're over there right now, other than as targets. But, at some point, there will need to be some stabilization. I don't understand why the US is building military bases there.. though I suspect that's why we did this in the first place.. for strategic attacks spots in the Middle East. I think once we have a US leader who's head is not up his ass, or Cheney's ass, we'll get some help in getting Iraq functioning. Bush really did screw it up, didn't he??

[Jacobin]

30. That only works in a country which is under some semblance

of control and order.

IraqNam is an active war zone, 83% of Iraqis want westerners gone today.

"peacekeepers" are not needed in IraqNam. Foreign forces leaving is what is needed.

There is no way Europe is going to jump into this quagmire. it is FUBAR and they know it.

[Dhalgren]

5. No sensible European leader is going to say shit

until the election is over and Kerry is actually in the WH. None of the anti-Bush Euro leaders can say publicly that they would support Kerry, but not Bush, in Iraq. This is a stupid suggestion.

[yellowcanine]

6. Kerry will have to sell his plan when he is President - and he will do it-

unlike *, he won't say "go cheney yourself, Old Europe."

[Native]

7. Kerry's Plan Makes Sense...

During a phone interview with Kerry on the Imus in the Morning show around the time Kerry was running for the democratic nomination, Imus asked Kerry why he was so sure he could get the international community to help out in Iraq when Bush wasn't able to do so. Kerry reminded Imus that Bush, prior to asking for support, made it publicly known that France, Germany, etc... would not be able to bid for any of the reconstruction efforts. Kerry said something along these lines, "how can one expect these countries to send in troops to risk their lives when they won't be getting any monetary incentive or recompense - not to mention the fact that cutting them out from any possibility of making any money on the reconstruction efforts totally alienated them." He then said that he would open up the bidding process to all countries helping out. He also asked Imus if he really thought that the European countries wouldn't do anything about Iraq if the U.S. pulled out. And he reminded Imus that the leaders of these countries aren't stupid. They know that they can't leave Iraq in the state that it currently exists, i.e., a breeding ground for terrorists. These countries are Iraq's neighbors and are much more likely to bear the brunt of future attacks. Kerry said they (the other countries) have a vested interest in seeing a stable Iraq....If the U.S. pulled out, they would have to do something, so why not cooperate. Right now we're going it alone, so they don't have to participate, and there's no incentive for stepping in. Kerry made a lot of sense.

[aneerkoinos]

10. Kerry is projecting

He's cheap so he thinks Euro's are just as cheap. Oh no, we are not THAT cheap! ;)

Offer a deal of replacing petrodollar with currency basket for oil trade (euro and dollar having equal weight), of getting serious about Israel, of signing Kyoto and ICC, and we might consider... ;)

Seriously, don't you even realize how disgusting insult Kerry throws at Euros? Nice way to start building trust...

And what that tells about Kerry's understanding of democracy and respect for European democracy? It's your business to elect one warmonger after another if you so will, here in Europe we vote out corrupt warmongers and out political leaders are getting the message.

Shees, I'm starting to hate that guy more and more...

[Petrodollar Warfare]

32. EU in Iraq requires a "petroeuro" system...no doubt about it...

<<<Offer a deal of replacing petrodollar with currency basket for oil trade (euro and dollar having equal weight), of getting serious about Israel, of signing Kyoto and ICC, and we might consider... ;)>>>

Yes, your first suggestion is perhaps the only way the EU would ever involve inself in Iraq, along with conession to some of the oil fields per contractual agreements w/ Saddam pre-2003. I hope Kerry will "re-sign" the US to the ICC, and pass something like Kyoto as well.

Here are a couple of exerts to ponder about the US and Iraq..


“The thrust is clear: Once it has seized the oil wells of west Asia, the US will determine not only which firms would bag the deals, not only the currency in which oil trade would be denominated, not only the price of oil on the international market, but even the destination of the oil.”

“In the late 1990s Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq struck massive deals with foreign firms for major (oil and gas)) fields. Even Saudi Arabia invited proposals for development of its untapped natural gas reserves, a move that oil giants responded to with alacrity in the hope the country’s mammoth oil fields too would later be opened to foreign investment. However, American firms were shut out of Iran and Iraq by their own government’s sanctions; French, Russian and Chinese firms got the contracts instead. Chavez’s increasing assertiveness threatens to shut American firms out of Venezuela as well. The Saudi deal—which the American firms were to lead—stands cancelled, apparently because of the Saudi government’s fear of public resentment. Thus, if it does not invade the west Asian region, the US stands to lose dollar hegemony by losing control of the major oil field development projects in the next decade.” (emphasis added)

- Aspect’s of India’s Economy, Behind the Invasion of Iraq (Nov/Dec 2002)
“A multilateral approach to these core problems is the only way to proceed. The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily. Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt. The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic retribution. They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for propping up the failing British pound.”

-Dr. Peter Dale Scott, author and Professor at the University of California at Berkley, May 2003

*****

The price will pay for Imperial Hubris in Iraq is the loss of our Superwerpower status, loss of dollar supremacy, and the retrun a nation state of equals with the G7 or G8 (if you include Russia). The necons would rather go down fighting than compromise, so it will be interesting to see what Kerry does...

[Larkspur]

12. Europe didn't help us with Vietnam, JFK ii, so why should they

help clean our mess in Iraq?

JFK ii forgets that to the Vietnamese, their war was first one against French colonialism and then against American Cold War delusions, and that is how most of Europe saw the Vietnam War. Since most of Europe opposed our misadventure in Iraq, which Kerry voted for, why should the bail us out?

Israel, I'm sure, would eager to help, but then their overt help would only create a wider chasm between USA and the Muslim world.

Tough choices JFK ii.

[progressivebydesign]

22. Because Vietnam didn't threaten to become a cesspool of terror.

The unfortunate by-product of Bush's failure in Iraq, is that the region is now threatening to become a hub of terrorism and extremism. There is NO question that Bush screwed this up royally. Iraq is now poised to become a danger to the world if it remains out of control. Ironic that NOW the country is a threat... not before we attacked. I guess the point is, that as President, Kerry has no choice but to hope for bilateral support from the world community if Iraq is ever going to function again. The US has blown their credibility there... And I honestly don't know what we're still doing there offensively. All we seem to be doing is causing more problems.

I wonder if we can simply withdraw and leave the Iraqis to clean up the mess we've created. Or, knowing, the pedigree of our hand-picked Iraqi leaders, will it dissolve into another dictatorship with a large dose of terrorism.

I appreciate that Kerry is trying to do something to convert our offensive stance in Iraq, to one of REALLY rebuilding the country. I'll take Kerry over Bush any day.

[Larkspur]

35. The French will send Kerry a copy of the movie

Battle for Algiers about their fiasco-laden colonial misadventure that happened around the time of the Vietnam war against French colonial rule.

Deja vu!

[progressivebydesign]

15. When I read the first quote from Britian, I realized what this was..

.. Blair is, and always WILL be, Bush's poodle. Anything I read against Kerry that starts out with a British lawmaker criticizing Kerry, I realize how this story was planted... and by whom.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I'm not sure what you're saying

Campbell is the foreign spokesman for the Liberal Democrats - who opposed the war (but accept leaving British troops in Iraq on the 'we broke it, we own it' Colin Powell principle).

So how do you think this story was planted? By whom?

[Zhade]

43. It sounded more like a rationalization, than evidence of planting.

You know, because so many are assuming that Europe will rush to our aid in Iraq once Kerry is in office.

I'll believe that when I see it.

And why is it okay to offer rebuilding contracts to other countries to entice them into sending troops, rather than paying Iraqis who need work to rebuild their country?

[Bowline]

19. Extricating ourselves from Iraq is simple.

Pack up our shit and bring our troops home. Every single American stationed outside of U.S. territory. Middle east, Europe, Asia. Every one.

We'd have far fewer enemies and far fewer dead Americans if we could simply learn to mind our own f*#king business!

[kwolf68]

33. Well Im not surprised

Europe wants no part of this war. If Kerry's viewpoint doesn't contrast that much from Bush's viewpoint on the war then how can we expect any of those nations to come rushing to Kerry's side?

Kerry's stance on the war may help get him elected, but it won't do shit to mend the fences with the foreign community. And this is what is missing here.

The Europeon politicians don't care about "D" or "R", they care about not being involved in that geopolitical mess Chimp has us in the middle of. If Kerry suspects he will gain suppport by asking for "them" to take on more of the burden of this war (THE UNITED STATES started) then he's mistaken.

He's talking a good game, but unless he begins making serious moves toward getting us out of Iraq then hopes of any kind of support from the Euro-community is basically a game of fools gold.

[Zhade]

44. One of the BEST POSTS I've read lately.

Logical. Concise. Honest.

Thanks for adding rational thinking to the clusterfuck we're all in. It's appreciated.