Kerry wins in November, What happens in Iraq??

[digiram]

I, myself, don't have an opinion, However. I'm just seeking the opinion of other's.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

He seems to focus on getting NATO involved.

 

[MidasKnight]

Was thinking of that myself. I think he reaches out to France / Germany and others and gets their help. He'll probably get the UN to take charge of a multinational force ( not headed by the US, maybe even US forces free ). What ever the election outcome we ( as in US people ) need to get fully behind the President ( Bush or Kerry ) and see this Iraq develop into a free nation. IMO.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Kerry goes on the DL to get world leaders to agree to send whatever forces are necessary to secure Iraq (including upgraded relations with Syria and Iran . . . b/c there's no way to secure the border of Iraq without Syrian and Iranian cooperation). Then Kerry basically falls on his sword in a very public display of contrition at the UN. Kerry pleads on bended knee for help in fixing the Middle East mess created by Bush, Sharon, and Arafat.

The renewed US committment to a legitimate peace process in Palestine prompts the Arab League to pledge unified (and useful) support. NATO rallies to the cause . . . and in the process dramatically reduces the toll on US troops.

Kerry tells North Korea that we will pay them for trained troops. Hell let's make it one big party by putting together a North Korean, South Korean, and Japanese unit under DPRK command in Iraq.

Kerry request Musharraf to transfer some of his troops that are trying their damn best NOT to find bin Laden to the Iraqi theater . . . obviously border patrol would not be their primary assignment.

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Who are you most likely to help, a guy who goes to the U.N. and basically gets No for an answer after trying so hard to convince them... /sarcasm=Bush.... Or a guy that goes to the U.N. and says hey we made a mistake we know we screwed up and now I need your help please=Kerry.. So who do you think the U.N. Nations like France and Germany will be more susceptible to?

I think Kerry will be go about things the right way, and not the screw you I'm doing it anyways kind of person like Bush basically did.

 

[NightCrawler]

You guys are living in a dream world, France and Germany will never send troops due to 80% of their people being totally against.

Just because Kerry says he will get the UN and other nations involved doesn't mean he can actually do it. Also the insurgents were attacking other nations fighters to drive them out like they did to spain.

 

[arsbanned]

You guys are living in a dream world, France and Germany will never send troops due to 80% of their people being totally against.

It's this thing called "Diplomacy" that Bush never employed in his dealings with the ROW. It can be done. I don't think it'll be the same approach as Bush, which is why I believe it has a chance of succeeding.

 

[Bowmaster]

Yeah, I think Kerry will use diplomacy. The French and Russians can say "we told you so" and can look like they will come out ahead - oh, and they'll start to smell the money again.

We CAN NOT count on Syria or Iran to help - they have a great deal of interest in democracy failing in Iraq.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The renewed US committment to a legitimate peace process in Palestine prompts the Arab League to pledge unified (and useful) support. NATO rallies to the cause . . . and in the process dramatically reduces the toll on US troops.

Getting NATO involved wouldn't drastically decrease the amount of U.S. troops. It would help get peacekeepers in, but I doubt it would be enough to see a drastic decrease. Hopefully there will be some kind of awakening on the 30th(It's worth hoping) so that even less of our troops will be needed over there.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's this thing called "Diplomacy" that Bush never employed in his dealings with the ROW. It can be done. I don't think it'll be the same approach as Bush, which is why I believe it has a chance of succeeding.

Fact is even if Kerry goes in their smoking everyone's pole as so many here suggest he will do the countries mentioned (France especially) will not get involved in assisting with cleanup, as Nightcrawler said their consitituancy is against any involvement and I highly doubt that would change solely based on some hardcore brown-nosing and a change of administration...Kerry gets into office and either we pull out and let them be screwed, or taxes take a serious jump to cover the financial aspects of the occupation, also a good chunk of that will get diverted into the pockets of his corrupt massachusetts cronies pockets like Teddy K.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's this thing called "Diplomacy" that Bush never employed in his dealings with the ROW. It can be done. I don't think it'll be the same approach as Bush, which is why I believe it has a chance of succeeding.

Fact is even if Kerry goes in their smoking everyone's pole as so many here suggest he will do the countries mentioned (France especially) will not get involved in assisting with cleanup, as Nightcrawler said their consitituancy is against any involvement and I highly doubt that would change solely based on some hardcore brown-nosing and a change of administration...Kerry gets into office and either we pull out and let them be screwed, or taxes take a serious jump to cover the financial aspects of the occupation, also a good chunk of that will get diverted into the pockets of his corrupt massachusetts cronies pockets like Teddy K.

So instead of going to the Dub's cronies it will go to Kerry's Cronies? Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's this thing called "Diplomacy" that Bush never employed in his dealings with the ROW. It can be done. I don't think it'll be the same approach as Bush, which is why I believe it has a chance of succeeding.

Fact is even if Kerry goes in their smoking everyone's pole as so many here suggest he will do the countries mentioned (France especially) will not get involved in assisting with cleanup, as Nightcrawler said their consitituancy is against any involvement and I highly doubt that would change solely based on some hardcore brown-nosing and a change of administration...Kerry gets into office and either we pull out and let them be screwed, or taxes take a serious jump to cover the financial aspects of the occupation, also a good chunk of that will get diverted into the pockets of his corrupt massachusetts cronies pockets like Teddy K.

You're confusing going to war and invading a country with repairing the damage done during that war. As long as Iraq is secure and safe, I don't foresee the great numbers of protests as we saw last year leading up to the invasion.

Kerry would work with the leaders of the major powers. Kerry would actually travel or, at the least, host a summit to involve those leaders as well as Iraqi representatives.

Bush has been driving this train wreck via remote control. He should have gotten involved. He should have led.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
You're confusing going to war and invading a country with repairing the damage done during that war. As long as Iraq is secure and safe, I don't foresee the great numbers of protests as we saw last year leading up to the invasion.

Kerry would work with the leaders of the major powers. Kerry would actually travel or, at the least, host a summit to involve those leaders as well as Iraqi representatives.

Bush has been driving this train wreck via remote control. He should have gotten involved. He should have led.

So basically Bush did the "dirty work" and Kerry will be seen as doing the cleanup, also who is to say that Iraq will be secure and safe come Kerry's indoctrination should it happen?...sorry but I still disagree, summits or not the people of those other nations, france especially will not want to get involved, and like any good politician they will abide by the will of their consitiuency and not assist us in any effort no matter who is in charge. The only thing kerry will do is smoke some pole and bitch about the shorcommings of the previous admin, plead for assistance and either get something considered marginal at best or will be told to fawk off and that it is his mess to deal with....I love all these posts talking as if NATO involvement is some kind of salvation, now thats a laugh.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
You're confusing going to war and invading a country with repairing the damage done during that war. As long as Iraq is secure and safe, I don't foresee the great numbers of protests as we saw last year leading up to the invasion.

Kerry would work with the leaders of the major powers. Kerry would actually travel or, at the least, host a summit to involve those leaders as well as Iraqi representatives.

Bush has been driving this train wreck via remote control. He should have gotten involved. He should have led.

So basically Bush did the "dirty work" and Kerry will be seen as doing the cleanup, also who is to say that Iraq will be secure and safe come Kerry's indoctrination should it happen?...sorry but I still disagree, summits or not the people of those other nations, france especially will not want to get involved, and like any good politician they will abide by the will of their consitiuency and not assist us in any effort no matter who is in charge. The only thing kerry will do is smoke some pole and bitch about the shorcommings of the previous admin, plead for assistance and either get something considered marginal at best or will be told to fawk off and that it is his mess to deal with....I love all these posts talking as if NATO involvement is some kind of salvation, now thats a laugh.

You keep metioning that Kerry will "Smoke some Pole" Do you know something we don't or are you just using the homosexual accusations to express your disgust with him?

 

[chess9]

I don't see Kerry being any more successful than Bush. I may be wrong. Perhaps a new administration would be more adept at getting our former allies to contribute now. But probably not.

-Robert

 

[TapTap]

Kerry will do nothing.
He will flop around saying Bush this and Bush that, but in the end zero.
He is a "poll watcher" and will perform like the media whore he is according to whatever those polls say.
Clearly evidenced by his constant efforts to be all things to all groups.
Thats IF he wins.
As bad as the effort in Iraq has been and media pounding the President has taken, Kerry is not running away in the voter's opinion surveys.
That speaks volumes about Kerry's percieved integrity to the "average" (not media-spouting elitist snob) American.
And all this whiny brown-nosing of Nader (if YOU run WE wont win) is doing nothing but completely disenfranchising the voters Kerry needs most-the centrist element of both parties.
When Iraq improves, and the economy stays at its current rate, Kerry will stagger in to Nov without a true tool to impress the average folk, and this "repealing Bush's tax cuts" agenda will doom him.

 

[PingSpike]

Kerry has a better chance of getting something done than Bush at this point. All I've seen out of Bush lately is 'stay the course' and buck passing. The Europeans are understandably not to happy with him, and are not likely to ever work with him. Kerry might use a little diplomatic action or 'smoking the pole' as bozack puts it to get us a little much needed help over there. Either way, a fresh face that hasn't said 'fvck you' to France and Germany in recent memory has a hell of a lot better chance at getting some support than Bush does.

The bridge may have already been totally burned though, and there may be no way to get them to help. They are in their right IMO to let us stew is this mess of our own production, but hopefully a little humility will go a long way.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
You're confusing going to war and invading a country with repairing the damage done during that war. As long as Iraq is secure and safe, I don't foresee the great numbers of protests as we saw last year leading up to the invasion.

Kerry would work with the leaders of the major powers. Kerry would actually travel or, at the least, host a summit to involve those leaders as well as Iraqi representatives.

Bush has been driving this train wreck via remote control. He should have gotten involved. He should have led.

So basically Bush did the "dirty work" and Kerry will be seen as doing the cleanup, also who is to say that Iraq will be secure and safe come Kerry's indoctrination should it happen?...sorry but I still disagree, summits or not the people of those other nations, france especially will not want to get involved, and like any good politician they will abide by the will of their consitiuency and not assist us in any effort no matter who is in charge. The only thing kerry will do is smoke some pole and bitch about the shorcommings of the previous admin, plead for assistance and either get something considered marginal at best or will be told to fawk off and that it is his mess to deal with....I love all these posts talking as if NATO involvement is some kind of salvation, now thats a laugh.

NATO should have been brought in months ago. Esp. after Baghdad fell. The sooner the U.S. name is off of the occupation, the better.

Kerry will be forced to clean up the mess left behind by the ideologues.

And what is your fascination with homosexual oral sex? It's ok. Go ahead and come out of the closet. You know you want to.

 

[CrazyApe]

A better question is:
If Bush wins in November, what happens in Iraq?

 

[DoubleL]

He would get three paper cuts and call the troops home

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: conjur
And what is your fascination with homosexual oral sex? It's ok. Go ahead and come out of the closet. You know you want to.

Leave it to bozack to bring up fellatio in a discussion about the Iraq war...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's this thing called "Diplomacy" that Bush never employed in his dealings with the ROW. It can be done. I don't think it'll be the same approach as Bush, which is why I believe it has a chance of succeeding.

Fact is even if Kerry goes in their smoking everyone's pole as so many here suggest he will do the countries mentioned (France especially) will not get involved in assisting with cleanup, as Nightcrawler said their consitituancy is against any involvement and I highly doubt that would change solely based on some hardcore brown-nosing and a change of administration...Kerry gets into office and either we pull out and let them be screwed, or taxes take a serious jump to cover the financial aspects of the occupation, also a good chunk of that will get diverted into the pockets of his corrupt massachusetts cronies pockets like Teddy K.

You're confusing going to war and invading a country with repairing the damage done during that war. As long as Iraq is secure and safe, I don't foresee the great numbers of protests as we saw last year leading up to the invasion.

Kerry would work with the leaders of the major powers. Kerry would actually travel or, at the least, host a summit to involve those leaders as well as Iraqi representatives.

Bush has been driving this train wreck via remote control. He should have gotten involved. He should have led.

I tend to agree. I think Germans, Russians, and certainly the French would LOVE to come to our rescue . . . assuming we make it clear that we cannot succeed without their aid.

As for Iran and Syria, many of you are painting these countries with the same broad strokes that lead the international community to believe most Americans think like Wolfowitz and Feith. Iran and Syria certainly support someterrorists. But it's ridiculous to believe there's significant support for the random anuses blowing up Iraqis at five a pop. Some are accidents but in many cases the intent was to kill Iraqi police or just cause carnage.

Iran has NOTHING to fear from Iraq. It will be decades before anything resembling representative democracy truly develops in Iraq. Iran has a ready-made infrastructure for transporting Iraqi oil . . . which will be vital to the country once they stop suckling off the US taxpayers tit (that's not a naughty word). Furthermore the REAL authority in Iraq is still Sistani and I seriously doubt he's on bad terms with Iran.

Syria has NOTHING to fear from Iraq. They also have several pipelines capable of carrying export Iraqi crude. The resumption of somewhat normal relations between the countries is long overdue.

I posit that an oligarchy is a far more likely near term outcome in Iraq. And under such conditions Syria and Iran stand to benefit significantly. As for the internal tensions within Iran and Syria . . . the Bush Regime's War on Islam . . . has strengthened the hand of hardliners and left moderates holding the bag.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
You're confusing going to war and invading a country with repairing the damage done during that war. As long as Iraq is secure and safe, I don't foresee the great numbers of protests as we saw last year leading up to the invasion.

Kerry would work with the leaders of the major powers. Kerry would actually travel or, at the least, host a summit to involve those leaders as well as Iraqi representatives.

Bush has been driving this train wreck via remote control. He should have gotten involved. He should have led.

So basically Bush did the "dirty work" and Kerry will be seen as doing the cleanup, also who is to say that Iraq will be secure and safe come Kerry's indoctrination should it happen?...sorry but I still disagree, summits or not the people of those other nations, france especially will not want to get involved, and like any good politician they will abide by the will of their consitiuency and not assist us in any effort no matter who is in charge. The only thing kerry will do is smoke some pole and bitch about the shorcommings of the previous admin, plead for assistance and either get something considered marginal at best or will be told to fawk off and that it is his mess to deal with....I love all these posts talking as if NATO involvement is some kind of salvation, now thats a laugh.

NATO should have been brought in months ago. Esp. after Baghdad fell. The sooner the U.S. name is off of the occupation, the better.

Kerry will be forced to clean up the mess left behind by the ideologues.

And what is your fascination with homosexual oral sex? It's ok. Go ahead and come out of the closet. You know you want to.

NATO? Who the hell do you think NATO is? Who do you think provides the vast majority of funding for NATO, troops for NATO, supplies for NATO? NATO is involved, WE are already there. NATO is Europe's assurance we will bail them out if they fail to deal with their own problems again.. NATO does very little for us in return.

 

[Crimson]

I love the comments from the Kerry Supporters: "Kerry would do it RIGHT".. "Kerry would get UN support".. "Kerry would not make the terrorists angry".. "Kerry would get something done!"


Notice, no specifics.. WHAT is Kerry going to do differently than Bush? "He will use diplomacy".. Ok, and when that fails, then WHAT is his plan? WHAT IS HE GOING TO DO? Nobody can answer that because Kerry has not said what he is going to do. What is Kerry going to do when a dozen American soldiers are killed in an ambush? Talk to the terrorists? And when that fails?

"But, he will do it different than Bush"... Ok, WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?!

I don't expect an answer because there isn't one.. Kerry doesn't have a plan..

 

[JellyBaby]

Kerry wins in November, What happens in Iraq??

Whatever it takes to win in 2008.

Of course there's always an outside chance for a sincere, long-term effort to help get Iraq back on its feet but after all that has happened it's probably best a third-party takes our place. Still, I wonder if anyone can truly help them until the oil runs out.