Kerry Quotes on Iraq from April 13,2004

I don't like these. This is the Peace candidate?

"The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission."

"If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them."

"We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers."

"We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust."

BRING THEM HOME NOW!

Even the strong anti-war people I know here in Canada say that if the US were to leave we would look awful, because we will have messed up Iraq without doing anything to fix it. Now that we are there we cannot leave.

You don't rebuild a country from behind the barrel of a machine gun. We should pay reparations. We should offer humanitarian aide. We should facilitate NGOs.

We shouldn't participate in the forcible military occupation of a country that doesn't want us occupying it.

We are breeding terrorists and making the world a more dangerous place.

It seems that Bush is the Commander-in-Chief right now, not Kerry. It seems to me that Kerry will first have to win the office from Bush first.

Iraq will devolve into civil war reminiscent of Bosnia. Millions will die. The world will blame us, and rightly so. That is why we can't leave.

Why is a war with the US (and the Spaniards, Italians, Poles, Brits etc.) is better than a civil war? Are we not being blamed for the people we are killing now?

When we do leave, what guarantee will have about a civil war then? (Answer NONE, one way or the other)

That's why we must leave.

we can't pay reparations, give humanitarian aide, etc., until a secure government is in place. We HAVE to make sure of this because a civil would further facilitate the breeding of terrorists.

WE destabilized Iraq. We must work to stabilize it now.

Iraq will devolve into civil war reminiscent of Bosnia. Millions will die. The world will blame us, and rightly so. That is why we can't leave.

I agree with you that we are breeding terrorists and making the world a more dangerous place, and that is why we shouldn't have gone into this war in the first place. However, if we leave now things will go from bad to worse. If there's a civil war, next thing you know the terrorists will be blaming us for allowing it to happen and that would also get them new recruits. This is why I support America finding new sources of oil and getting renewable energy and then just ignoring the middle east.

allow us to redesign their country with our "agenda"? HOw do you "fix" something by killing more people. If this is the best we can come up with then we are pretty stupied people.

someone to help in the effort to defeat Bush?

:shrug:

I don't really think people on Du support killing more Iraqi's I'm challenging the policy that this is our only option. considering our choices for President come November it looks as though the killing will continue. It doesn't mean that there are no other policies that can help Iraq then to have us continue down the path we've started. I am not a political science major but people are just spouting that we can't pull out etc etc. let the war continue. It's interesting to me.....I wonder what these same folks will say 2 years down the road. Oh yeah I forgot Kerry might get some support. I'm sorry I expect more from Kerry then we are getting. I can care about Iraqi's dying and getting Bush out at the same time....can't you?

What is it? What candidate supports it?

The Inevitable Sectarian Bloodbath in Iraq -- True or False? from dpibel's thread.

By the way, we can't hardly said that US troops are a factor of security and stability recently. Could we?

Could you please articulate this other option? I am asking you what course of action you think the US should follow in Iraq, and what candidate agrees with you.

On edit: oh, I didn't realize you were someone else. But you are welcome to say what course of action you think the US should follow in Iraq, and what candidate agrees with you.

My apologize to the confusion that I've provoked (and for my poor English by the way).

About candidate: I can hardly say as I'm not an American. But from an external point of view it seems that people should be allowed to speak freely even if it's not the official position of the democrat candidate. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't vote for him, but it's not fair to say that to be against * is enough.

About Iraq: is simple. Leave. Don't give up Iraqis, only stop occupation. It's difficult to say what will happen after but it's easy to see that US occupation is a source of trouble. Anyway, US will have to leave. It's better to do it from one's own initiative that to have to do it under the pressure of event.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that I should just accept this as there are no other alternatives and keep my mouth shut? What is your point exactly? That we should just proceed as Bush and then Kerry see it and have no opinions? That we should accept the senseless slaughter of Iraq's and our troops?

It sucks that we have no other choice....but I can make a choice to voice my concern and opinion. I said that I'm not a political science major and am not sure what the alternatives are.....but I'm sure there are some....I know you will attack me on that. I don't care...what's your opinion?

Is is that you care more for Kerry winning then the people's life's who will be destroyed by the continuing action in Iraq?

I don't really see your point. why don't you enlighten me so we can talk more.

I haven't heard you articulate this 'other option'.

What is it? What candidate supports it?


That isn't a 'point' I'm trying to make -- it's a question. A request for information. An opportunity for you to voice your opinion. Nobody is asking you to 'keep your mouth shut' - just the opposite. I want to know what it is that you are advocating.

and Kerry in. . .
before they'll even reconsider helping us with troops and other aid.


:kick:

If we leave Iraq now, we leave them much worse off than they ever were.

I wasn't for going in, but we do have to see it through now. Bush made a big mess but it is our responsibility to clean it up or see to it that it is.

From George Bush's position?

No, Kerry and Bush are not the same, but Kerry's arguments against the war in Vietnam are also applicable to this war. He's playing politics with people's lives.

There is a difference between blue and yellow, but if someone sees the world in black and white, you'll never be able to explain the difference to them.

Quit being condescending. This is a discussion forum after all. Let's discuss.

Give it a shot. Explain how these statements differentiate the positions of Kerry from Bush on the issues to which they pertain.

I don't care whether it's condescending or not, it is the simple and unvarnished truth -- if you can't tell the difference between Bush and Kerry's Iraq policy without my help, you won't be able to tell the difference with my help either.

..after we turned a stable country into an unstable one. Bush used words like this to justify an invasion, and then to justify the fuck up there.

Kerry is speaking the truth. We broke it. We have to fix it.

Now, let's don't let this discussion sink into another IWR one.

The fact is, if your child broke something, you'd be responsible for fixing it or getting it fixed.

This country broke something. We have to fix it.

If you are looking for a candidate advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq, you'll have to go outside the Democratic party. Even Kucinich never held that position as far as I know.



Kerry is articulating the same position he has all along.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

from his VVAW days.

I'm not accusing him of waffling. He has been remarkably consistent in his position on Iraq.

What is the point you are trying to communicate? That Kerry is not a pacifist? We all know that already.

I'm not a pacifist either. I am however opposed to the continuing war in Iraq. My hope is that post-election, Kerry will sound less like politician-Kerry of 2004 and more like activist-Kerry of the early 1970s.

There has to be room for antiwar folks in the Democratic party.

Sorry to tell you. Iraq isn't Vietnam. Vietnam didn't become a breeding ground for terrorists who intended on going around the world planting bombs in railroad stations, hotels and flying planes into buildings. Al Qaeda probably wasn't in Iraq before, but they are now. We can't have another terrorist state in the ME, no matter what caused it to become that way. We aren't going to cut and run and that's the position of the majority of the Democratic Party. Which is why Kerry won the nomination, by the way, he has the support of the majority of the Democratic Party.

If you are saying that the majority of the people in the Democratic party feel the way you do.

"Cut and run" is a Bushism. It's a meaningless emotionally laden piece of propaganda. The notion that Iraq is part of the (real) war on terror is also IMO not a position shared by most Democrats.

People like you, good Johnson Democrats, also sold the war in Vietnam by selling fear. The whole absurd notion of the Domino Theory was a scare tactic akin to the one you are using. We left that war after 58,000 Americans and 2 million Vietnamese died and guess what, the Commies didn't take over the world.

I'm voting for Kerry. Those of you who freak out when someone questions his position on something give people the idea that he's to weak to take criticism. That's not good.

by characterizing them as 'freaking out' when they disagree with you does not lend any credence to your views.


Then attempting to smear them as 'Johnson Democrats' who are 'selling fear' and trying to use the deaths in the Vietnam war as some kind of twisted, callous debate point -- that just makes me sick. :puke:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have a conscience and I don't?

You are sick about the deaths in Iraq, and I'm not?

The idea that someone who pretends to be against war, would devote their energies to attacking Kerry, instead of trying to defeat Bush, does not exactly bolster the notion of their moral superiority.

And that's why Amerpie identifies as "anti-war" (in order to misportray you as "pro-war". That's why you're asked "How many deaths...?"

Ask Amerpie, "How many Iraqi deaths do you want to see?"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Could you please just state it so I don't have to keep guessing?


My hope is that post-election, Kerry will sound less like politician-Kerry of 2004 and more like activist-Kerry of the early 1970s.

I accept the idea that you are hoping for something that is impossible by its very nature, but I don't see what it has to do with anything. I could hope that next year I look like the me of the early 80's, but it won't change the fact that I'm 20 years older.



There has to be room for antiwar folks in the Democratic party.

This sentence I don't understand at all. What does it mean?

while others on DU are "pro-war"

will not work ,whether they stem from democrats or republicans.That Bush , with the almost unanimous support of the democrats, made an awful decision to invade Iraq cannot possibly be denied except byt he most diehard of consrvatives and imperialists. That democracy can be installed with violence and weaponry upon a people who have never known such an institution is a ludicrous concept..

There is only one way to extricate ourselves from what will be a continuous cycle of violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan and that is to subborn our own efforts there to a true coalition run by the UN and staffed by Islamists. The alternative is to be bogged down in Iraq for decades.

American forces are in the process of leveling Faluja(sic) as we type our opinions here. Is this being done to win the minds and hearts of Iraqis? Is installing aAmerican puppets forcefully into their government designed to show them the true meaning of the democratic process?

So exactly many Dems voted for it and how many voted against it? Do you know, or do you just make this stuff up?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Inappropriate.

was his solution to Vietnam just adding more troops?
EARTH TO KERRY: IRAQ WANTS US OUT.

My question to you waldenx is, what Iraq policy do you support, and what candidate for the Presidency agrees with you?

and put this type of responsible action at the TOP of his list.
The 'I'm a BETTER war president' approach is BS.


http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0409-13.htm

Win Without War Proposes Emergency International Summit & Transfer of Management Authority to UN
Calls for End to US Military Occupation of Iraq

No Resolution in Iraq Possible as Long as US Retains Political Control


WASHINGTON - April 9 - Win Without War called today for an end to the US led military occupation of Iraq and for the United States to seek an immediate transfer of authority to the United Nations to oversee the transition to Iraqi self-rule. The mainstream coalition of 42 national organizations called for the convening of an emergency session of the UN Security Council and an international summit on Iraq.

“Our nation is in a death-spiral in Iraq that continues to be fueled by a stunning degree of arrogance and ignorance by our government,” said Win Without War National Director Tom Andrews. “From insulting our allies, dismissing the United Nations, declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ last May, goading Iraqi insurgents to ‘Bring ‘em on!’ to shutting down a Baghdad newspaper ten days ago, it is clear that this government hasn’t a clue and that is has become a dangerous impediment to resolving the tragedy in Iraq.”

“There is no military solution in Iraq because we have lost legitimacy in the minds of Iraqis who perceive us as occupiers who plan to hand authority to a government we control and that will serve our interests,” Andrews said. “Our reliance on fire power simply pours gasoline onto a raging fire.”

“We are in a dangerous hole in Iraq and the first principle when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. The risk of civil war is growing, and it will intensify as the chaos deepens. The longer the US remains and attempts to impose its will by military force, the greater the danger that the situation will spin completely out of control,” said Robert Edgar, Win Without War Co-Chair and General Secretary of the National Council of Churches.

Win Without War called on the US to ask the UN to immediately convene an emergency session of the Security Council to increase its authority and address the immediate crises while setting a date for an international conference on Iraq. The international conference would include nations who opposed the US led invasion, following the model of the December 2001 Berlin conference that provided international support for the transition in Afghanistan. Germany, France and Russia have called on the UN to convene such an international conference.

A recent report by the International Crisis Group argued that “ultimate oversight responsibility for the political/constitutional process should be given to the UN . . . Such a transfer of responsibility from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the UN is required to endow both the governance and the constitutional processes with the necessary domestic and international legitimacy.”

Win Without War argued that the involvement of the UN would also provide valuable technical expertise.

“The UN has considerable experience in nation building and post-conflict political transitions—in Cambodia, Mozambique, Namibia, and East Timor—and it has played a key role in creating and assisting the transitional authority in Afghanistan. The UN’s knowledge of electoral and political transitions in war-torn countries could be helpful to Iraqi officials. The support of the UN will also ease the suspicions of those in the region and beyond who believe that the United States intends to dominate a future Iraqi government,” said Susan Shaer, Co-Chair of Win Without War and Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND.)

“Taking these steps does not mean abandoning American responsibilities,” said Robert Edgar. “As the occupying power the United States is bound by international law to guarantee the security and well being of the Iraqi people. The US will remain responsible for helping to finance humanitarian relief and economic reconstruction. Substantial US economic assistance will be necessary to facilitate Iraq’s economic recovery. These obligations will continue even after the transition process is complete and a fully representative elected government is established,” he said.

http://www.winwithoutwarus.org /