Oh dear what will Kerry’s plan for Iraq be now? Apparently, the French and Germans want nothing to do with him. Surprise. Surprise. Read on.
[quote]Despite John Kerry’s efforts to ingratiate himself with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Paris and Berlin avail themselves of every opportunity to disabuse the Massachusetts Democrat of his No. 1 foreign policy fantasy: that, if he is elected president, they will significantly increase their assistance to Iraq and enable the United States to reduce its presence there.
Last week, Mr. Kerry declared that the United States “must make Iraq the world’s responsibility” and “I will lead our allies to share the burden.” Mr. Schroeder promptly punctured Mr. Kerry’s balloon: “We won’t send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that’s where it’s going to remain.” French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said his government had no plans to send troops “either now or later.”
A participant in discussions, held in Berlin in June between Kerry adviser Richard Holbrooke and Mr. Schroeder, said that the German leader “asked Holbrooke what Kerry would do if he were elected. Holbrooke replied that one of the first things would be to get on the phone and invite him and President Jacques Chirac to the White House. The chancellor laughed out loud. Then he said, 'That’s what I’m afraid off,’” the newspaper reported.
In the end, Mr. Kerry is left with this: He says he wants to start pulling American troops out of Iraq by next summer, with a goal of withdrawing all of them by the end of his first term. His European “friends” have essentially told him to go jump in a lake, making it clear that they have no intention of doing anything to help him. The reasons for this are not terribly difficult to understand. Under M. Chirac, France forged an intricate web of political, economic and military ties with Saddam; it remains angry and embittered by his demise. As for Mr. Schroeder, he would not have been re-elected two years ago if he had not run a demagogic anti-Bush campaign focusing on Iraq. Mr. Kerry’s fantasies aside, no matter who is elected president, don’t look for substantial help from Europe.
[/quote]
Why don’t we appoint Kerry as Bush’s ambassador to France? Carter can be Bush’s ambassador to the UN. With these two safely ensconced in positions taht do not matter, we can set about accomplishing our goals with less noise. Does anyone seriously doubt that either of these two and their “moral” concerns would easily be coopted with a plum position? Let’s just make sure that they are positions that don’t really matter, hence the two empty posts mentioned above.
There have been several pointed comments made in editorials claiming that since the US is so important, other nations should have the right to vote in its elections. I am not saying France or Germany should change their minds, but Kerry has gone around criticizing nations that have allied with us in hopes that France and Germany will support him. Now, that we know that this will not be the case, what does he have to offer? What is his foreign policy going to be based on? And isn’t it dangerous to threaten our relations with those allies who are there supporting us now?
I think that the Germans learned their lesson in the 1980s and did not supply much in the 1990s but the French certainly did and cannot help but be angry that all those lucrative (see it really is all about oil) contracts are now null and void. That means 50 to 100 billion in losses to state-owned French companies which is just another euphemism for meaning that those in charge of the state pull the levers and benefit financially from the proceedings.
Fred
i don’t know what Kerry has to offer, nothing for me i guess. But for Bush it is the same thing. So who ever might win the elections it sure will not influence the foreign policy in Europe.
Fred, please explain why on such an emotional issue the hopeful change of leadership in the White House should lead to a change in other countries policies.
France and Germany were - for whatever reasons, good or bad - against the invasion when it happened, why should they change that stance and get involved now.
I never said France and Germany should get involved (at least not in this present conversation), but Kerry is offending those allies who are supporting us to curry favor with those that were against. I do not believe that France and Germany should or would get involved, but then if that is the case, why vote for Kerry? Obviously, his plan is a poorly thought out one that would be dead in the water before it was even attempted. Hence we should all vote for Bush.
Germany, I will give the benefit of the doubt, though I think Fischer’s stance has less to do with Germany’s pacifist constitution and everything to do with his juvenile hatred of America. It ain’t the 60s anymore little Joschka. Time to grow up.
BUT for France, the move was calculated, deliberate and malicious, an attempt to set up a rival power base (as if anyone would follow France?!) at great cost to world stability and the unity of the West. All for what? Some kind of pathetic grandiose posturing by a poncy little shit who dreams of Napoleonic grandeur. He appears to be tall enough but perhaps he suffers (de Villepin) from a different kind of “short coming?” Wink nudge. If you know what I mean.
NO. As always, it will be left to the US to soldier on and soldier on we will. I do not see anyone here giving us credit for the 3 million Afghan refugees that have returned home. I do not hear thanks for the 1.5 million refugees and Iraqis that were displaced (both internally and externally) who have been able to return home. All I hear about is Abu Ghraib. Ironic given the much greater abuses under Saddam when France was most keen to sell him anything and everything and the 24,000 that have been killed (as if these deaths can be laid directly at America’s door and that the deaths that have indirectly resulted from insurgents and guerillas are somehow more morally reprehensible then Saddam’s murder and rape machine). Incredible.
[quote=“fred smith”]…but then if that is the case, why vote for Kerry? Obviously, his plan is a poorly thought out one that would be dead in the water before it was even attempted. Hence we should all vote for Bush.
[/quote]
Fred, in that case the poorly thought out plan by Bsuh should also exempt him from receiving any votes, personally the two are as bad as each other, and whils tthe US electoral system is structured as it is then there is realistically only ever the choice of two.
[quote=“Traveller”][quote=“fred smith”]…but then if that is the case, why vote for Kerry? Obviously, his plan is a poorly thought out one that would be dead in the water before it was even attempted. Hence we should all vote for Bush.
[/quote]
Fred, in that case the poorly thought out plan by Bsuh should also exempt him from receiving any votes, personally the two are as bad as each other, and whils tthe US electoral system is structured as it is then there is realistically only ever the choice of two.[/quote]
Bush’s plan was the worst possible choice, EXCEPT FOR ALL OF THE OTHERS.
Waiting longer? Just giving Saddam more time to prepare.
Diplomacy? Failed for twelve years.
Ignore Saddam? He’d just revive his programs to full-steam-ahead.
Nuclear strike? No guarantees and far more civilian casualties.
We have the “in a perfect world” brigade always chiming in but what are their solutions? When have they offered any? I cannot think of one solid concrete suggestion ever offered by Traveller and ilk. It is always just America bashing, America bashing. At least, we act and people do benefit. Ask anyone in Europe, though lazy spineless Western Europeans may have forgotten our sacrifices, those in the East have not. Ask the 3 million refugees who returned to Afghanistan and the 1.5 million Iraqis displaced internally and externally who have returned. Some mess. AND now Saddam is no longer a threat, but we have terrorists. Gosh. That’s something new. Didn’t have that before during the Clinton years did we? Even when he was sucking Arafat’s ass?
[quote=“MaPoSquid”][quote=“Traveller”][quote=“fred smith”]…but then if that is the case, why vote for Kerry? Obviously, his plan is a poorly thought out one that would be dead in the water before it was even attempted. Hence we should all vote for Bush.
[/quote]
Fred, in that case the poorly thought out plan by Bsuh should also exempt him from receiving any votes, personally the two are as bad as each other, and whils tthe US electoral system is structured as it is then there is realistically only ever the choice of two.[/quote]
Bush’s plan was the worst possible choice, EXCEPT FOR ALL OF THE OTHERS.
Waiting longer? Just giving Saddam more time to prepare.
Diplomacy? Failed for twelve years.
Ignore Saddam? He’d just revive his programs to full-steam-ahead.
Nuclear strike? No guarantees and far more civilian casualties.[/quote]
MaPo, from a timing point of view i might agree, if the plan was only ever to get rid of Saddam then it worked fairly well, but i would still state that the total plan was ill thought out as proper consideration of effects post Saddam were not calculated properly, but hell, nothing the intelligence did in Iraq was right.
It is quite obvious that the Administration totally underestimted various factors such as insurgency etc when formulating their plans. Hell even Fred was toeing the party line in the early days despite what others were saying as obvious comments certain people would not see them saying it would not happen, but it has.
Iraq is still on a knifepoint where it could topple into civil war, and in doing so endanger the stability of the entire region, which is ironic considering this was supposedly one of the cornerstone reasons for the US taking Saddam out.
How was fred “toeing the party line” earlier? I said we would leave 35k to 50k in for the next 60 years to stabilize the country and ensure neighboring states were “balanced.” We have lost 1,000 troops in a war and an occupation. Sorry, but this is not a record. Ask the Russians about Chechnya. We are doing very well to date and every time the naysayers preach gloom and doom, we seem to manage to well manage.
What happened to the Stalingrads?
What happened to the looted museum?
What happened to no power/water?
What happened to economic collapse?
What happened to civil war?
What happened to no constitution?
What happened to never catching Saddam?
What happened to we’ll never beat Sadr?
What happened to we will never get the UN to approve the government?
What happened to there will never be elections?
What happened to the Shias will go fundamentalist?
So many what ifs that never happened but because the insurgency is going on longer than we planned, etc. and now in hindsight most people say we need more troops but remember what Rumsfeld said and I think that it is still applicable.
We do not want to be responsible for the day-to-day security of this country 10 years down the line. The UN still is in charge in Bosnia and Kosovo and Rumsfeld wanted to force the Iraqis to take over earlier by deliberately keeping our footprint small? If you have such a beef with this poor planning, why aren’t you moaning about the Balkans where your nation and many other European nations are similarly “bogged down?” and that all these nations acted without UN approval? Why is this such a beef of yours because the Americans in concert with 50 other nations acted in Iraq?
Fred, you mentioned on several ocassions reiterating the Administration stance that numbers would be reduced from th einitial 140+K to 90K within the space of a few short months, your timing is a little out is it not.
Many of us said at the time you would not be able to do it in that timescale, but no, like Bush you stuck to the party line. Your 140+K will be still be there 2 years after the initial invasion.
Are you asleep at the switch. I said we were off target a long time ago, but the 90k was for 1.5 years after the invasion. We are only there now. So we are at 130K for US troops. Big fucking deal, an extra 40K men for a few more months longer? Gosh, guess we have totally lost our credibility then but how about this art looted from the museum? How come we don’t hear about that anymore. If the media could present that as such a disaster when the truth was so very different, what makes you think that we can count on any of those organizations for any credibility. So are you still listening to the media the same one with all the what ifs that have never come to pass as the main source of your knowledge of what is going on in Iraq? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and then that just makes me a F***ing poor excuse for no brains leftist Chomskyite wonder. haha