General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKerry: "This is a time for diplomacy..."
<...>
STEPHANOPOULOS: Sir, are there any military options on the table? During the crisis with Georgia, President Bush moved military warships to the region, sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft. Is the U.S. prepared to do that now? Anything more?
KERRY: George, the hope of the United States and everybody in the world is not to see this escalate into a military confrontation. That will not serve the world well, and I think everybody understands that. The president has all options on the table, but the presidents preference was clearly stated yesterday in his hour and a half conversation with President Putin. President Obama made it clear that we are prepared to work with Russia. We understand that Russia has interests in Crimea. The Ukraine government is prepared to respect the base agreement. Nobody threatened those Russia interests. And we are prepare to stand up against any hooligans, any thuggery, any individual efforts with Russians in order to create stability in Ukraine and allow the people of Ukraine to make their choices for the future.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you have any indication at all that President Putin is taking heat (inaudible) as President Obama is saying?
KERRY: Well, they just had the conversation yesterday, and the president invited in to engage with the government. I understand there may have been one phone call. Were going to continue to engage diplomatically. This is a time for diplomacy, and we will engage diplomatically as much as we can in order to steal this away from the increase in the tension of the level of the crisis. Nobody wants this to spiral into a bad or worse direction. The fact is that there are many options available to Russia, by which Russia can see its interests met. And the most important thing to remember here is, this is not or should not be East-West, Russia-United States, Russia versus Europe. This is about the people of Ukraine, people who stood up against snipers, firing at them from the roofs, who are fighting against the tyranny of having political opposition put in jail. And President Putin I think needs to think carefully about Russia real interest here. You know, Russia may be able to invade Crimea, but in the end, Russia will isolate itself, there will be a cost to the economy of Russia, cost to Russian businesses, cost to Russia individuals, and ultimately I think Russia will isolate itself on a global stage that it just spent $60 billion through the Olympics to try to present a different face on. It seems to me that if Russia were to step back and look at where its interests are, we ought to be able to work this out through the diplomatic process. If Russia chooses not to, there will be serious repercussions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do those repercussions include the U.S. not going to the G8 summit in Sochi come this summer, sir?
KERRY: It is a distinct possibility. We would hope rather that Russia will choose to engage with us, to work with the government of Ukraine, choose a different direction.
Russia has cooperated with us on the START treaty ,on Afghanistan, on Iran. It ought to be possible to find legitimacy in this particular moment in order to be able to deal in a way that serves the world much better than this choice theyve made. Were open to that. We encourage that. President Obama made it clear he prefers that. But the choice is really up to Russia at this point.
-more -
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-john-kerry/story?id=22720806&singlePage=true
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Military confrontation is now bad evidently.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Is that bad or disappointing?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And that military confrontation cost America dearly in blood, moral standing and treasure as a crapload of people just here on DU predicted.
I'm so fucking weary of the blatant hypocrisy.
Not to mention Dim Son is still walking around a free man.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And that military confrontation cost America dearly in blood, moral standing and treasure as a crapload of people just here on DU predicted. "
...if things had turned out differently in 2004, the Iraq war would have ended several years before it did.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You might recall that Rumsferatu canned his ass for telling the truth.
http://articles.dailypress.com/2006-09-08/news/0609080088_1_central-command-defense-secretary-donald-rumsfeld-iraq
FORT EUSTIS Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding.
Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.
In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.
"Eric Shinseki famously told Congress Iraq was going to need far more troops to hold the peace
You might recall that Rumsferatu canned his ass for telling the truth. "
... I remember, but what does that have to do with the OP or my comment that Kerry would have ended it years earlier had things turned out differently in 2004?
Gen. Shinseki is currently Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But we did, no thanks to Kerry or Hillary either for that matter.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)use the Iraq war to deflect from the fact that, as you said, "military confrontation is now bad evidently."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And my statement was ironic in nature.. Hence the
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)of "hypocrisy" is flawed. By that logic, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern had no credibility to speak out against war.
Both voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964)
This joint resolution of Congress (H.J. RES 1145) dated August 7, 1964, gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to increase U.S. involvement in the war between North and South Vietnam.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=98
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98
There is no hypocrisy in speaking out against war. That should a charge left to those who want war.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)The only pure politician in that regard is Barbara Lee, who voted against both the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)God forbid people change their minds due to historic evidence.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In fact I think he did know better and lacked the moral courage to do what he knew to be the right thing.
Either that or he's too damn stupid to breathe without being constantly reminded to do so.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the fact that he never advocated that "military confrontation was good then."
He never did, and the fact that you can't accept that he's pushing diplomacy says more about you than him.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Kerry's saying that now after his IWR vote simply smacks far too much of hypocrisy for a reasonable person to ignore it.
But then not everyone on DU is reasonable.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Kerry's saying that now after his IWR vote simply smacks far too much of hypocrisy for a reasonable person to ignore it."
Kerry has always advocated diplomacy. The fact that you're saying "a reasonable person" should "ignore" his push for a diplomatic solution demonstrates flawed thinking.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)His vote was wrong, but it was given to give Bush leverage internationally. (Note how he used American power as leverage to get Syria to give up chemical weapons.)
He said it 2002 - and repeated it many times after that the US should never go to war except as a last resort. This is where he was from 1971 onward.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I have a bit more respect for Kerry's intelligence than you evidently do.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sure you do. That's why you're all over this thread name calling and making absurd statement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590090#post12
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)Just say Obama and Kerry are Gods at nth Dimensional chess and she'll be happy!!!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html
As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."
I don't believe the United States did that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Cha
(297,561 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Ah well. So long as he's learning!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)some were declaring Putin the Peacemaker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661265#post5
Stand With Putin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023654178
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There was a whole lot of fucking nonsense going on, wasn't there?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Do you have the first clue what that's referring to, ProSense, "our Munich moment"?
When you advocate hitting a state militarily (missiles are not a "political solution," for fuck's sake!) and try to urge support for doing so by referring to the opportunity as a "Munich moment" as Sec. Kerry does there, that is drawing a direct comparison between the person you are targeting, and Adolf Hitler. It's not the only time Kerry drew such parallels:
So, yes, Kerry certainly was drawing such comparisons.
So, yes, Kerry certainly was drawing such comparisons.
...you said he called "Assad Hitler." He said Assad "joins the list" of people who committed a specific atrocity. That's not calling him Hitler.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I presume you will tell me he had something else in mind with te "Munich Moment" comment? Perhaps he was thinking of starbeirzeit?
"I presume you will tell me he had something else in mind with te 'Munich Moment' comment? Perhaps he was thinking of starbeirzeit?"
...I'm not going to tell you that because he made a point, which was about looking away.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He was drawing a direct comparison to the Munich Agreement in which Assad is cast as Hitler and those opposed to pounding Syria with tomahawk missiles as Chamberlain-esque "appeasers" of this new Hitler.
it had nothing to do with "looking away" and everything with trying ot shame people against military action by casting them in this way... And the EU - to whom kerry was speaking - flatly rejected the comparison and implied accusation against them.
It was a fucking load of nonsense, and frankly it made me embarassed to have voted for the man in 2004.
But as i said, so long as he's learning that diplomacy comes before saber-rattling, it's progress.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Kerry drew a fucking dumb comparison that likened Assad to Hitler and the EU to Neville Chamberlain in an effort to pressure the EU to supporting military strikes against Syria. It didn't work. Them's facts, not opinions.
"Too bad we're not talking about opinions...Kerry drew a fucking dumb comparison that likened Assad to Hitler and the EU to Neville Chamberlain in an effort to pressure the EU to supporting military strikes against Syria. It didn't work. Them's facts, not opinions."
...we are. Frankly, the reason you consider it a "fucking dumb comparison" is that you're spinning it to suit your narrative.
"It didn't work"? Reality says fucking otherwise.
Cha
(297,561 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)There is something disingenuous and twisted about attacking a call for diplomacy.
I mean, the media and RW are beating the drum for war. Why exactly would calling for diplomacy be met with such disdain?
It's bizarre too, especially given the administration's attempts to preserve the diplomatic process with Iran in the face of attempts to sabotage it with a vote for stronger sanctions.
What is it about Russia that puts some people on the defensive?