"We have to succeed in Iraq," says Kerry. (No turning back now)

Replace US with NATO: Kerry

(AFP) - US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry today proposed replacing the US-led military force in Iraq with a NATO force under US command. "We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate.

"We have to succeed in Iraq," said Kerry. "We simply can't allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. "To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it."

Kerry sure sounds like a hawkish Bush Lite to me. Notice he says, "NATO force under US command." I do believe that's the only disagreement our Fortune 500 oligarchy has with Bush: Bush should have relied more on our allies to do the dirty work in Iraq. Otherwise the American people will get cranky when too many of our troops start getting killed.

:kick:

When He Picks Gephardt for a running mate my worst fears will be realised

I don't hear much difference. Very disappointed that there are no true leaders with vision in the US.

Same shit, different spokesman.

But there is no acknowledgement of some truths about this situation. Until we achieve (and act like we want) justice for the Iraqi people, the situation will continue to spin out of control. More troops, yes. More force? No.

When insurgents are captured, they should be treated respectfully as prisoners of war. They are warriors. Treat them as such. Show that, hey, our guys are warriors too ... so we know what you guys are ... worthy adversaries deserving of our respect. Former adversaries can, in my experience, make the strongest of friends. Oddly, the line between hate and love can be as fine as the line between love and hate.

We must not use Israeli type tactics. Too much breakage. Too many innocent bystanders get hurt. We will not need such brutal deployment of firepower if we add manpower.

Kick out the contractors. Hire the Iraqi's to rebuild their own country. Put them to work. Give them a significant voice in their future. Quit letting Cheney's friends feed at the trough.

We (America) made this mess. It is our moral duty to clean it up. But we need to abandon the notion that this is part of the war on terror and stop treating the people like terrorists.

Because I, for one, think that "succeeding" in Iraq is simply impossible.

You can't turn a crime into an act of goodness.

We were the bad guys for attacking Iraq. How can it possibly go "well?"

to accomplish whatever evil ends they have in mind.
This is VERY disappointing.

But just as I suspected. I think I will sit this election out.

No matter how much I hate what is going on in Iraq, I know we can't just pull out and throw the Iraqi people to the various thugs there waiting to take over. I disagree with Kerry in that I think this needs to be a UN effort not a NATO effort, since Iraq is not in Europe. The Iraqi people will need help to clean up the mess we have created. We attacked them, and dismanteled their government. We cannot pull out entirely and leave them in anarchy. We need to admit our mistakes, go before the world community with some serious humble pie and ask for a TRUE coalition to rebuild Iraq.

Vietnam would have made that lesson clear. I'm sure he must have seen "The Fog of War" but maybe he should watch it again.

we have to "succeed" because, well, we're Americans, and Americans can't lose . . . it's not American, dammit! . . . unfortunately, there is no scenario whereby "success" is possible in Iraq, at least not by American standards . . . we lose if we stay, and we lose if we leave . . . and if the outcomes are the same, I say let's take the option that doesn't involve more killing, both of U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis . . . the getting out option is looking better and better every day . . . and the alternative worse and worse . . .

it's quite obvious most Iraqies don't want the US there; the US has lost all credibility as a peace maker.
And now you think staying in Iraq some more will somehow decrease terrorism? Who's going to believe that?

but what a prettier face he puts to it.. :eyes:

Though it is true that nothing better can be expected from one in his position.

(short version)

Cause I'm all ears.

The problem is Bush's refusal to turn over the governance and reconstruction to the UN. There's NO problem with having NATO forces under US command, we always have an arrangement like that. But what we usually have is local control under UN command. That's the difference.

And success is defined in whatever way the UN controlled governing council decides success. Kerry has already defined success as Iraqi stability, not some American made democracy.

He and Bush are as different as night and day on Iraq and it's just sickening to me that people are so hateful that they can't see it.

...I am talking the man and woman on the street ... want to see their people get shot to bits in the hellhole numbnuts has created? The Iraqi people want their country back. They don't want any more foreigners shooting at them or telling them how to run their country or their government.

The people of Europe would -- and should -- take to the streets. It also would increase terrorist acts against them. Why the hell should they clean up our mess?

Bring them home now!

There's desirable and there's doable. You'll never realize the first unless the second is true. And it ain't. We can face that now or endure more conflagrations and bloodshed, and face it later.

Were the Americans into extremism to oust the British in the beginning of this nation? What is Kerry doing?

The plain fact is that Iraq wants their country back and the U.S. out. Why can't we respect that?

after we've laid waste to another country and destroyed the lives of thousands of people. God! I hate politicians!! Kerry is just another Washington insider who guards his political ass first! And we stupid sheeple went along to give him place rather than trying to get some one with the real courage to say "enough!" Why the hell didn't we give someone like Dennis K or Dr. Dean a real chance? The more I hear from Kerry the more I believe for us Democrats getting Kerry in will be no different from continuing with the Bush regime.

The more confirmation I get Mike Ruppert was correct in his assesment of the situation.

July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW) -- Let's just suppose for a moment that George W. Bush was removed from the White House. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rove too. What would that leave us with? It would leave us stuck in hugely expensive, Vietnam-like guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would leave us with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and Total Information Awareness snooping into every detail of our lives. It would leave us with a government in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution. It would leave us with a massive cover-up of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 that, if fully admitted, would show not intelligence "failures" but intelligence crimes, approved and ordered by the most powerful people in the country. It would leave us with a government that now has the power to compel mass vaccinations on pain of imprisonment or fine, and with no legal ability to sue the vaccine makers who killed our friends or our children. It would leave us with two and half million unemployed; the largest budget deficits in history; more than $3.3 trillion missing from the Department of Defense; and state and local governments broke to the point of having to cut back essential services like sewers, police, and fire. It would leave us with a federal government that had hit the debt ceiling and was unable to borrow any more money. And we would still be facing a looming natural gas crisis of unimagined proportions, and living on a planet that is slowly realizing that it is running out of oil with no "Plan B". Our airports however, would be very safe, and shares of Halliburton, Lockheed and DynCorp would be paying excellent dividends.

This is not good management.

Leaving all of these issues unaddressed is not good management either.

And this is why, as I will demonstrate in this article, the decision has already been made by corporate and financial powers to remove George W. Bush, whether he wants to leave or not, and whether he steals the next election or not. Before you start cheering, ask yourself three questions: "If there is someone or something that can decide that Bush will not return, nor remain for long, what is it? And if that thing is powerful enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough to have put him there in the first place? And if that is the case, then isn't that what's really responsible for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired CEO who is about to be removed by the "Board of Directors". Who are they? Are they going to choose his replacement? Are you going to help them?

Beyond Bush Part I

The race now is to stabilize Iraq in time to rebuild the infrastructure, and bring its 11% of proven world reserves online. The US majors won't invest there until it is safe. On October 11, The Arabic News reported on a recent World Bank report stating that the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure would require four years and more than $50 billion (US). This is another reason why the Bush junta is in jeopardy. There are few left anywhere who believe that they have the cachet to pull it off. The oil companies have lost confidence in the oil men.

Had the US not invaded Iraq, however, French, Russian and German companies would currently be working on billions of dollars of contracts to refurbish the oil infrastructure, thus increasing the amount of Iraqi oil (priced in Euros rather than dollars) reaching world markets by legal or extralegal means outside of UN sanctions. Since the occupation, we have learned much about Iraqi oil being smuggled through Syria, and by other means. As a result, Europe and Russia would have been getting economically stronger and "marking territory" for the day when oil for food sanctions were inevitably lifted. Europe's economy is now sustained by the speed with which Russia can sell its diminishing oil reserves - estimated at just under 60 billion barrels (Gb) - something that it appears eager to do. This will inevitably force Britain into the EU at an accelerated pace, especially if BP can't get any supplies out of Iraq. (Note: Russia's 60 Gb is enough to supply global needs for just under two years excluding all other sources, and it is now being pumped faster than ever. According to Reuters, on August 4, 2003 Russian exports had reached 8.5 million barrels per day.) Since Russia has long passed its production peak, it is problematic as to whether these levels can be sustained for more than ten years.

<snip>


There are thus two major tests for a Democratic Party presidential challenger from this perspective. One: Does the candidate address the issues that are really important? And two: Is it possible to get the candidate into office? Every major Democratic challenger had made it a point to say that not only will they continue to support the war on terror (war for oil), they will do it better than Bush has.

While so many people are getting excited about one candidate or another, FTW has remained firm. We will not endorse any candidate who does not address all of our issues. These include:

Peak Oil and Gas
US Government Complicity in 9/11
The Criminal Fabrication of Intelligence Justifying the Iraqi Invasion
More Than $3.3 Trillion in Taxpayer Money Stolen From the US Treasury
Repeal of the Patriot Act, Mandatory Vaccination Laws, and Protection of Civil Liberties

It is also imperative to see what connections exist between the major candidates and entities like the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. From that point, a look at the histories of the serious contenders will provide stark clues as to what can be expected. That provides a framework to rationally assess each candidate and to see that the whole process is destined to give us more of the same, exactly as Richard Nixon did after he replaced LBJ.


Beyond Bush Part II

to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Remember that, Mr. Kerry?