"Diplomacy backed by force"

[truthspeaker]

This was a phrase from Wesley Clark's speech yesterday and I think it highlights the fundamental difference between Kerry's and Bush's approach to foreign policy. It even explains how Kerry's vote for IWR does not mean he is the same as Bush.

"Diplomacy backed by force" recognizes that some regimes will only halt belligerent or hostile behavior when threatened with force. Note that the threat of force is not the same as using force. Kerry voted for IWR because he knew that the threat of force was the only thing that would get Saddam Hussein to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. You can argue that Kerry should have known better than to trust Bush - and I would agree with you 100%. But the IWR vote does not mean that Kerry supports unilateral wars of choice. It means he supports the concept of diplomacy backed by force.

Bush, as we all know, believes in force for the sake of force. He and his neocon henchmen think the best way to accomplish their foreign policy goals is to invade countries and install governments that will do what we want. This of course is both contrary to American values and completely unrealistic. The last time this worked was during the 19th century when the great world powers had empires of territorial possessions - territorial possessions which almost all broke free by use of armed rebellion or nonviolent resistance.

Kerry's current stance on Iraq is also unrealistic. But, again, that doesn't make him the same as Bush. Kerry, unlike Bush, will attempt diplomacy first with force as a last resort instead of the other way around. Kerry will attempt compromise with other nations instead of bullying and insulting them. Most importantly, Kerry, unlike Bush, will be able to recognize when his strategy his not working and work with experts (not yes-men) to formulate a new one.

Diplomacy backed by force is what got UN weapons inspectors back in Iraq at the end of 2002. If Kerry had been president, diplomacy backed by force would have averted a war with Iraq. We all know what happened under Bush.

Kerry is not a warmonger. He is a leader who recognizes that diplomacy backed by force is a powerful tool for defending the United States from the warlike.

[sushi]

1. In dealing with other countries

Kerry will get positive results because he is not arrogant. He also has a lot of foreign experience, unlike Bush who was quite ignorant of foreign affairs when he started in 2000.

[GreenArrow]

2. "Bush...quite ignorant of foreign affairs when started in 2000..."

And remains so to this day.

[BayouBengal07]

3. I think the news.bbc.co.uk poll says it all-

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3939895.stm?display=1


If elected president, what would John Kerry do for America?

Revitalise the economy - 10%

Improve international ties - 72%

Bolster social security - 3%

Beef up homeland security - 3%

Nothing - he's the wrong man for the job - 13%

7641 Votes Cast


I'm worried about that 3% Homeland Security, but this is an international poll so I'm happy enough to see that 72%.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. In March of 2003 when chimp's "diplomacy" failed to foist another

promised war resolution on the UN, he simply pretended that he never brought it up and proceeded to move third reich style into Iraq. The haste was necessary because the plan called for an invasion prior to the hot summer months and in advance of a "negative" report by Blix.

Discussing bush policy in terms of a sober analysis of how diplomacy may be or was applied is fruitless. We can only move on to a brighter day.

[wuushew]

5. No using the threat of force against a sovereign country is wrong

The bluff is either all or nothing. Either you are going to drop bombs on civilians or you are not. The IRW was an endorsement of the very likely use of force by the United States. Remember since Saddam had survived 12 years of similar or less pressure even the status quo was enough to satisfy the Bush's reason to use force criteria.


The United Nations only has the power to intervene in the affairs of a country when said country is unlawfully affecting the status of its neighbors. Such as when Iraq invaded Kuwait or when the DPRK invaded the ROK. Saddam was well within right to seek or even develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Depending on what international agreements he had signed. The response to all international crises short of war is always passive measures such cutting economic and diplomatic ties. The Iraq doctrine sets a dangerous precedent that increases the likely-hood of war with Syria or Iran. Also as we speak the genocide in Africa is continuing, the one moral case were the international community might argue to over ride the sovereignty of a country. That we do not is more evidence of racism and material greed in foreign policy.