Iraq could make JFK (Kerry) into LBJ.

I honestly think Kerry needs to seriously take a better stand on Iraq.

The stand I am talking about is a pullout of all U.S. forces and officials from Iraq. The United Nations should take over particularly those from Muslim and Arab countries. To continue this mess in Iraq would be a disaster. Kerry better not send more troops and start up the draft. Iraqis do not want Americans there and it's time for a pullout. It would be ironic for Kerry to intensify the situation considering that he started Vietnam Veterans Against the War.


John

to intensify the situation. People keep saying it here, yelping about a draft and what-not, but it's just hysterical kerry-hating.

No, Kerry should NOT propose an immediate pull-out for two good reasons. The first, and most important, is it's an awful idea. Second is that it would lose him the election.... in a landslide.

Do it after he takes office.

John

We broke it. We gotta fix it. We need a lot of help from others to do so, but just withdrawing without any plan to leave Iraq better off than when we found it would benefit no one.

Don't you get it? It is very obvious. They are just going to keep kindapping, bombing, and killing Americans. How on earth can we fix anything when they keep doing these things????


John

and by that, I mean we need to get non-Americans to provide the bulk of security.

Just pulling out with no other plan would hurt Iraq more that it's being hurt now. It would also be politically untenable in the US.

We ended up running away there, the sooner the better.

Just because there are similiarities between the Iraqi occupation and the Viet Nam War, that doesn't mean that they are identical is every way. Unlike Viet Nam which was thousands of miles away from Europe and of no strategic value to them, Iraq lies near to Europe and is of strategic value due to their natural resources, namely oil. Because of that, unlike Viet Nam, many European nations would be interested in stabilizing Iraq, compared to Viet Nam, where they had little interest in intervening.

He would need to address the world.. Something to the effect of :

I think we can all agree that the "former" _president of the US made SERIOUS mistakes regarding Iraq.. He was a danger to the whole world, and thankfully , he is GONE now.

We can all agree that Iraq is a better place without Saddam, but the lies told, in order to get us there, are reprehensible.

We are calling for an immediate Security Council Meeting, where the UN will decide what is to be Iraq's fate.. If they choose to have a Shi'ite controlled Islamic government, then that is the will of the people..

America, from this day forward will be a friend to all and enemy to none.

The time for war and killing should be a thing of the past. It has no place in the lives of our children and grandchildren.

We have been a faithful friend to some in the middle east, and have been perceived as an enemy by others, just because of our friendship, so beginning on .....,..,2004, we will reconvene peace talks. They will run for X # of days, and after that, all parties will have to negotiate without the auspices of the US. A new policy of neutrality and evenhandedness will be our policy.

America is going out of the munitions business. Our country needs an infrastructure update, and the countries around the world need help with theirs as well. We will concentrate on those things that bring health and well-being to the inhabitants of the planet, instead of death and destruction.

We will still be ever-vigilant, however, and will NOT allow genocide to occur, but we will act in concurrence with the other countries of the world.

The UN doesn't want any piece of Iraq, the Iraqis don't want Arabs there, NATO isn't going to jump in and help just because Kerry's elected, withdrawing would be a disaster for everybody...I don't see what he's going to be ABLE to do differently, however much he wants to. We're kinda at a tar-baby stage. The situation in Iraq in 2005 is going to be dictated by the events that occur in the latter half of 2004, and I don't think the occupant of the White House is going to have too much to say about it.

edited for typo

and that's why this war was such a godawful idea in the first place, and why I opposed it so vehemently. Once in, we're committed - there are no "do-overs". We fucked up greatly, and we need a new president to fix it. But running from it does NOT fix it.

It's going to be very difficult, but with diplomacy and humility, it CAN be done.

IMHO his stand should be:

1) Turn over control to the UN and only supply the troops the UN requests. If he does this Germany, France and Canada would supply troops.

2) Make a promise to the US troops that max time in Iraq is 1 year.

3) Make a promise to the US troops that after a tour away from their families they would have at a minimum 1 year with their families and not stationed at any post that did not provide family housing etc. No Iraq to Poland for example.

4) edited to add this one. Offer any military willing to stay beyond a year, 30 days vacation, plus double time for retirement and promotions for every month they stay in Iraq or a hot combat zone.


Kerry should be able to get 65% of the military vote with the correct stands. Like with the general public, there will always be 35% that will vote Bush even if they had been in Iraq for two years with no end in sight.

yesterday. how things has progressed and what bush created, kerry could go in there and it be totally bogged down and a mess and he end up being the president that gets blame for pulling out creating chaos and uncertainty. actually thought a second might need to keep bush in so republican holds on to the mess.

only a second though

If Iraq really goes bad, and I don't mean this piddling stuff we're seeing today but goes REALLY downhill, Kerry might very well get stuck with the blame for it.

Say we manage to prop up this interim government with violence at or below what we've seen before April after the June 30 handover until the end of Bush's term. Kerry gets in, general elections in Iraq are scheduled for mid-2005, and three way civil war breaks out, with two of the three factions shooting at Americans. Who will the public blame? The Repubs will sit back and say that everything was going well when Bush left office.

That's by no means a reason to keep Bush in the WH, but it's a discomforting scenario to think about. Quite a sticky wicket.

Bush has created a huge mess.

I don't think Kerry will do this even after winning the presidency, but if the situation gets much worse he might end up not having a choice. American public support is dropping rapidly for Iraq occupation and the more deaths every day the more pressure to draw down from there.

See my "President Kerry's first official act" thread.