What if Kerry wins?

If Kerry wins, what should the US do?

  • Say “screw it” and pull out the day after Kerry’s inauguration.
  • Start pulling out while begging China, France and Germany to help.
  • Continue the current strategy.
  • Re-install Saddam Hussein as President of Iraq and promise never to do it again.

0 voters

Let’s say Kerry wins. No doubt champaign will be flowing here at Forumosa, Berkeley and the Champs-Elys

IMO, you should redo your poll. The options aren’t good.

For instance, I don’t think any evidence exists in support of the idea that Bush has ‘a current strategy’ in Iraq. Maybe the war in Iraq was rather a tactic designed as underpinning, one to result ultimately in his reelection; frankly that makes as much sense as anything I’ve seen this administration do there.

If that’s the case, then Kerry’s win would seem to rather effectively negate both Bush’s strategy and this option.

:idunno:

Unless, of course, this thread was designed as a platform from which to punch Kerry? In that case, never mind: sorry to interrupt, carry on!

:laughing:

[quote=“flike”]IMO, you should redo your poll. The options aren’t good.
[/quote]

I have to work with what I’ve got since Kerry’s plan is “secret” a la Nixon 1968. And what was Kerry’s plan for Vietnam?

Well, you could redo it and acknowledge that getting co-operation from the rest of the world is more that “begging China, France, and Germany.” That attitude is exactly why the NZ government told Bush where he could stick his war.

The best and only option would be to talk directly and genuinely with the Iraqi people and find out what the majority of them want for their country and then help them do it during a transition period of six months to one year.

During the talks, assure them in writing that at the end of that short transition period, not a single US soldier would remain on Iraqi soil.

It’s no more complicated than that. These two steps are crucial to gaining the trust and cooperation of the Iraqi people – or of any people on earth – but they haven’t been taken.

The reason the Bush Administration hasn’t taken these two obvious common sense steps is because it doesn’t have any intention of allowing the Iraqi people to choose their own destiny independently and it doesn’t have any intention of ending the permanent military occupation of Iraq.

Who here wouldn’t take up arms against a country that invaded and occupied their homeland without provocation and insisted on overseeing their government?

Common sense, honesty, self-determination. These should be the guiding principles but they’re completely absent in any of the options either Bush or Kerry are contemplating and so the fool’s errand carries on towards its inevitable end – chaos and political disintegration.

It is absolutely hilarious to watch these attempts at turning this into a ‘serious discussion on why Bush is wrong’ thread…again.

Face it people, no matter what pretense of intellectual superiority you adopt, Kerry is a mistake.
He was a traitor and liar during his military service, his persoanl life has been one of manipulation of women for his social/financial gain, he record as a Senator from Mass. is one of almost complete dereliction of duty and lack of attendance, he has continually seperated himself from his constituency while being nothing more than a kept gigalo and his election organization has acted in a manner reminiscent of organized crime.

And those are just the highlights.

I am not saying all of you should suddenly change your tune and become Bush-bots or even vote for Bush. Vote your beliefs. The simple facts are you cannot justify Kerrys election to the POTUS.

The Democratic Party screwed the pooch with their nomination of Kerry. But thats who they were told to promote and thats who they, and numerous 527 groups have put their money behind.

I will be the first to say that Pres Bush ain’t perfect. I strongly disagree with several of his policies. But he damn sure beats what is being offered as a replacement.

Look at his enemies, are these groups that have the best interests of the USA in mind?

Are these the groups that you wish to ally with?

Real life ain’t always nice. Sweet talk and touchy-feely may be nice in group-hug sessions and theraphy, but it only shows weakness to people who wish to kill you, your family and think they will go to paradise if they die doing it.

Comrade…my apologies for using your thread to get a rant off.

Great idea. Who represents the “Iraqui” people? The Coalition Forces are in the process of helping the Iraqui people form just this type of representative body. Trouble is, remnants of the old regieme and foreign terrs are working their hardest to keep this from happening. Thats reality.
Timetables are nice on paper. When does the clock start? What sequence of events says the clock stops? That is what is being worked out now.

[quote=“spook”]During the talks, assure them in writing that at the end of that short transition period, not a single US soldier would remain on Iraqi soil.[/quote]Talk with who? Why a ‘short’ transition period’? What if it takes a ‘long transistion period’? Do we walk away and leave them hanging? Thisis not a strong position for an ally to assume. What if they request a continued Coalition Force presence to ally their new government and fight foreign terrorist insugency?

[quote=“spook”]It’s no more complicated than that. These two steps are crucial to gaining the trust and cooperation of the Iraqi people – or of any people on earth – but they haven’t been taken.[/quote]Sorry, maybe in a textbook, or over a cuppa latte’ while smoking a Gauloise, wearing a black turtleneck and a beret. But in reality its a matter of negotiation. And first you have to have a platform from which to start negotiations. And have the negotiations with an indigenous group or groups that will carry out the terms and policies they have established.[quote=“spook”]The reason the Bush Administration hasn’t taken these two obvious common sense steps is because it doesn’t have any intention of allowing the Iraqi people to choose their own destiny independently and it doesn’t have any intention of ending the permanent military occupation of Iraq.[/quote]Your personal opinion. You are certainly entitled to it.
Reality is at odds with your interpretation. And reality is what counts. And reality ain’t as simple as your cafe’ two-step dance.

Anyone who’s been paying any attention at all to Iraqi public opinion polls knows that roughly 90% of the Iraqi people believe the US will not relinquish real behind-the-scenes control over the Iraqi government and will not withdraw US troops from Iraqi soil anytime soon.

I repeat my question. Is there anyone here who wouldn’t take up arms or support resistance if their homeland was in a similar situation?

Who but an abject fool would expect any less of anyone else?

There could be a backlash if Kerry made any drastic changes to the current strategy in Iraq. But he will necessarily make minor improvements slowly, to improve the quality of US involvement in Iraq. As for the US quantity in Iraq, Kerry wants to draq other countries into Iraq, so he’ll offer them oil contracts, etc, and they can do the nation building.

Bush didn’t want to let US forces get under UN command, but I don’t feel like that is an overwhelming concern for Kerry. Perhaps nations would be willing to support the US if they felt the US was willing to subordinate itself to a certain extent.

Part of the current fear is that Saddam Hussain will be found innocent of most of the charges against him. If he gets to use his lawyers, he will have excellent lawyers. He has a lot of support from his relatives and heads of muslim states, at least legalwise. The UN won’t touch the case, because the Iraqis allow the death penalty. I don’t know how you can have a fair trial in those conditions, but how can the US allow a free trial to take place? Once Saddam gets on the stand, his supporters will grow more violent. Kerry will have a big decision to make about what to do with Saddam.

Kerry must stay the course and make steady changes to improve the situation. What else can he do?

[quote=“spook”]
I repeat my question. Is there anyone here who wouldn’t take up arms or support resistance if their homeland was in a similar situation?[/quote]

Let’s see…if my country had just been liberated after being under the yoke of a psychotic murderer like Saddam Hussein…hmmmmm…good question!

Why don’t you take alook at some of the Iraqi blogs like Iraqthemodel and see what middleclass, educated Iraqis think? You might be surprised. But then again, you could probably care less.

iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[quote=“twocs”]
Kerry must stay the course and make steady changes to improve the situation. What else can he do?[/quote]

Leave the Iraqis to hang in the breeze like he wanted to do (and accomplished) to the South Vietnamese?

:bravo: :laughing: :bravo: :laughing:

Saddam is long gone. What American here would accept permanent occupation of the US by a foreign power as the price for freedom from an oppressive US government?

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”]Why don’t you take alook at some of the Iraqi blogs like Iraqthemodel and see what middleclass, educated Iraqis think? You might be surprised. But then again, you could probably care less.

iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/[/quote]

[color=blue]The voice of an educated, middle-class Iraqi, Baghdad, October 25, 2004:[/color]

"I

[quote]spook wrote:

I repeat my question. Is there anyone here who wouldn’t take up arms or support resistance if their homeland was in a similar situation?

Let’s see…if my country had just been liberated after being under the yoke of a psychotic murderer like Saddam Hussein…hmmmmm…good question! – Comrade Stalin[/quote]

Well you seem awefully sure of yourself there Comrade Stalin.

But have you ever been in the situation that spook is talking about? Have you ever actually lived under a murderous dictator and then seen your country liberated? I doubt you have – and I thus doubt that you can understand how aweful the transition from terror-based servitude to freedom really is.

Spook is absolutely right: Who among us, if we had been living in post-war Germany and Japan, or in post-liberation Kuwait or Afghanistan – would not have picked up a gun and done whatever we could to kill the liberators who were rebuilding our country?

You are also ignoring spook’s second question: “Who but an abject fool would expect any less of anyone else?”

In other words, even if you personally would not react with violence to being liberated from a corrupt and evil dictator who was oppressing you – can you not admit that it is unreasonable for us to expect the Afghans or the Iraqis to sit idly by and let their countries go the way of Germany and Japan without putting up a fight?

Do you really think that the Afghans are just going to sit there and accept free elections when they could be taking-up arms against US Army engineers and killing innocent hostages in an attempt to re-install a torture-based dictatorship? Do you really think that the Kuwaitis are not secretly plotting to kill the American troops there, break Saddam Hussein out of prison and install him as dictator of their country?

So, Comrade Stalin, by all means continue to stick with your dubious story of [color=blue]“No, I would actually be happy if my homeland had been liberated from a genocidal tyrant.” [/color]

Just don’t expect that spook or I will actually believe your answer.

So you think the situation in Iraq now is similar to the situations in Japan and Germany after the Second World War?

I think a better analogy would be the situation in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union ‘liberated’ it in 1979.

Exactly. Fucking Marshall Plan. What a crock.

The fundamental problem here is twofold.

  1. You people really believe your own lies that Iraq threatened or attacked the US somehow and your only goals there are to bring freedom and self-determination to the Iraqi people.

  2. The Iraqi people don’t buy any of your lies.

Anyone who believes the Project for the New American Century is another Marshal Plan is either a profound fool or an abject liar.

What I love most about this argument - and while it does come from both sides, it’s more from the pro-Bush side - is the assumption that every single ordinary Iraqi, just like every single American soldier stationed in Iraq, thinks exactly the same about everything. What are they, a bloody hive mind? Some Iraqis - and I don’t mean insurgents, I mean the common, average Iraqi citizen - will approve of the US’s actions, some will not. Some soldiers will be pro-Bush and agree with the way the war was executed, some will not.

Tetsuo…I agree completely. Such an over-simplification is indeed short-sighted.

It is the newly found freedom brought to Iraq & Afghanistan which will allow such diversity of opinion and political view to blossom.

As it has in the US and other free countries.

wow, 3 have voted for reinstate saddam and it is running at #1.

I opposed the war, but now that it’s started we have a responsibility to make sure our exit is carried out in a way that harms Iraq least. We’ve already taken the main risk, so we may as well take whatever blows are yet to come for the sake of the reward.

[color=blue]Something to keep in mind if you’re considering picking the “continue the current strategy” choice. They’d better hurry up and try Saddam before the body count gets much higher or things are going to get a little complicated at the trial.[/color]

"More than 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the allied invasion of Iraq in March last year, the first study of mortality in the country claims today. . .

The report was compiled by a team led by Les Roberts, a public health expert from the Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Statisticians who have analysed the data said last night that the scientists

[quote=“spook”]"More than 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the allied invasion of Iraq in March last year, the first study of mortality in the country claims today. . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,7374-1335002,00.html[/quote]

From that same article:

I went to
Iraq Bodycount’s site
and found among other things a link to an article by Fred Kaplan in MSN.com’s Slate:

[quote]
["]We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.["]

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English