blogic blogic

The Kerry Record: Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes

▼

The Kerry Record: Help of Allies Among Three Key Themes

from JoeUser Forums
The linked article is a balanced article on Kerry's beliefs regarding foreign policy, and his record. I recommend a look -- it's fairly short. For those of us who believe the Bush doctrine has failed, it's informative to get to know the alternative.

From the Washington Post:
In Senate debates and media interviews over the years, John F. Kerry has repeatedly returned to three axioms on the use of military force: Win as much allied support as possible before going to war, listen to advice from the professionals, and, most significant, heed the many lessons of the Vietnam War.

NATO and the United Nations appear to be touchstones for the Democratic nominee, not just the troublesome hurdles that they appear to be to President Bush. In speeches over the years, Kerry repeatedly has denounced unilateral action.

[snip]

A more recent theme for the senator from Massachusetts has been the importance of listening carefully to military advice. It is a subject he touched on in the past but seems to have emphasized more in the current campaign as he discusses the stormy relationship the Bush administration has had with the Army, particularly with Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who was that service's chief of staff until last year.

[snip]

But the most significant factor in shaping Kerry's views on the use of force appears to be Vietnam -- and not just the lesson that the conflict was a mistake. Indeed, some of his conclusions about the war are surprising, such as his praise a decade ago for President Richard M. Nixon's 1972 "Christmas bombing," the most intense aerial campaign of the war.

Kerry's reading of that war's lessons also leads, unexpectedly, to a similarity with Bush: an inclination to persist once he has chosen a course of action. His bottom line on Vietnam is that the nation must stick to commitments once troops have been sent in. The lesson from that war, he told author Gil Dorland, is that "I won't put American soldiers in harm's way unless the United States is prepared to win."
politics
11,649 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi CK,

I think I was fairly clear I was talking about Bush's popularity in other countries, not domestically. When we deal with other democracies, their leaders necessarily care about whether their constituents support alliances with America. In fact, European supporters of the Iraq War are now having political problems precisely because the war is so unpopular there


Actually when I used Bush domestic support numbers previously, I was not addressing you, I was addressing someone else (Myrrander). I will use your phase: "I think was very clear I was addressing Myrrander by putting that name in the front of my last reply" No, I don't think coalitions are simply build by popularity as you mentioned. If so, you will have a hard time to explain how Truman and Reagan built and maintained the coalition. How come popular president Clinton never got any grand coalition with him even in Bonsia, Yugolsalvia, Somolia.... You really should not come up with all these theories which are not at all backed up any historical facts or trends. As I mentioned before and before, coalitions are build by interest and strength. Europeans have interest to not see USSR invade them and both Truman and Reagan have great strength. This is the reason why the coalition was strong, not because Truman and Reagan are popular among European -- in fact they were unpopular. The opposite is true of Somolia, Bosnia, that is why Clinton couldn't get a huge coalition. Now you are telling me Kerry can build a coalition because he is simply popular?! Don't forget he calls this war and operation a mistake. I don't think he can build a grand coalition. Moreover I have every reason to believe he will reduce it. You really have to explain to me the fact Kerry campaigned for the opposition party in Australia, the party which promised to withdraw Australian troop from Iraq. He literally campaigned to have the Australian troop to withdraw. How do you exaplain that?
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi CK,

Sorry for my confusion over who you were addressing.

Please show me a link for where Kerry literally campaigned to have the Australian troops removed. Also, where's your evidence that Truman was unpopular during the mid to late 1940s?

I never said coalitions were built up by the popularity of Kerry in other countries. I said that Bush's unpopularity in other countries makes alliance building more difficult. That's clearly true in the UK. I agree with you that shared interest matters. We didn't convince the rest of the world that Iraq was an imminent threat, and now we have very few allies there. In my opinion, it was more important to convince the world that they are threatened by terrorism than it was to invade Iraq on our timetable. Then again, I think we disagree on whether Iraq is part of the War of Terrorism, and I doubt we'll convince each other here.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
You should able to find Diana Kerry activates during the Australian election on your own. Second, I did provide the links in my previous post #13. I would think you have read them by now..... I am also including another for you:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/knippenberg/04/diplomacy.html Yes, I doubt we can convince each other about the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror. That said, you still have to agree it is very inappropiate for Diana Kerry to have actively support Latham, right?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh and not only it is inappropiate for her to endorse Latham because US in theory should not interve foreign election. More importantly, how do you explain Kerry support a Australian party which promised to withdraw the Australian troop from Iraq. Is that a sign of building larger coalition? No.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think there's a single war in US history that Kerry would have fought according to his personal dogma. According to the rules he sets up I don't see him opposing Germany in WW2, and I doubt he'd have fought a war with Japan, at least not to their defeat. He's a Carter, a milktoast disguised as a "diplomat". Hamlet wouldn't make a good President, neither would Kerry.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
I haven't read the links yet -- I promise I will soon -- but unless you can show me Kerry's sister when as his representative, I'm not sure I'm going to buy the argument that he supported this party. Nor am I convinced that supporting a candidate implies that you support everything that candidate believes. Bush support Arnold Schwarzenegger, but obviously doesn't support all of AS views.

Regarding Kerry's sister, what little I know about her is that she's always been an activist, independent of her brother. Assuming she didn't go as his official representative, you're doing the equivalent of blaming George W. Bush for his constantly-in-and-out-of-scandal brother Neil.

Anyway, I'll take a look at your links soon. I'll be looking to see if your sentence "He literally campaigned to have the Australian troop to withdraw" is, well, literally true.