Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

grphiw · 05-10-2004, 11:57 PM

The canidate John Kerry has decided that Iraq should be turned over the NATO direction. Check his website, and his stance on the issues.

Does anybody else see this as a cop out? Personally I was against the UN being brought into Iraq. It was a sign of weakness on Bush's part. However, after the Madrid bombings, many countries that sent troops to help keep the peace are withdrawing. So, once again the US is going to be very lonely in Iraq. Yet that should be the way: American and British troops fought, ultimately, alone to gain control of Iraq. Yes, Spain helped, but they didn't have a large enough force to compare to the US.

To turn to NATO under Kerry's plan is just a sign of cowardice. We're not liked by our aquaintances in the UN, so we have to turn to our obligated friends in NATO to help us deal with rising casualties? Please, don't even compare this to Vietnam. Vietnam was simply more brutal. There were over 47,000 killed, not casualties. Actually dead, dog tags taken. The US hasn't even broken a thousand yet in Iraq. Yes, it is a terrible fight in an urban setting, but casualties haven't reached levels it was in Vietnam.

epeemike81 · 05-11-2004, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grphiw

The canidate John Kerry has decided that Iraq should be turned over the NATO direction. Check his website, and his stance on the issues.

Does anybody else see this as a cop out? Personally I was against the UN being brought into Iraq. It was a sign of weakness on Bush's part. However, after the Madrid bombings, many countries that sent troops to help keep the peace are withdrawing. So, once again the US is going to be very lonely in Iraq. Yet that should be the way: American and British troops fought, ultimately, alone to gain control of Iraq. Yes, Spain helped, but they didn't have a large enough force to compare to the US.

To turn to NATO under Kerry's plan is just a sign of cowardice. We're not liked by our aquaintances in the UN, so we have to turn to our obligated friends in NATO to help us deal with rising casualties? Please, don't even compare this to Vietnam. Vietnam was simply more brutal. There were over 47,000 killed, not casualties. Actually dead, dog tags taken. The US hasn't even broken a thousand yet in Iraq. Yes, it is a terrible fight in an urban setting, but casualties haven't reached levels it was in Vietnam.

I wouldn't see it as a sign of cowardice, but rather a sign that the new administration will try to re-engage with the international community and try to reform our reputation around the world, which is a good thing. Unilateralism isn't a sign of strength, but rather of arrogance and stupidity.

btw, the duration hasn'treached the levels of Vietnam, either. doesn't mean it won't.

-m

Zelda · 05-11-2004, 01:34 AM

Sigh....its not a cop out IMNSHO. Trying to keep my own opinions out of this (the US shouldnt have rushed in in the first place and Johnny Howard should not have followed like an obdient puppy). The ultimate goal is to have Iraq governing themselves correct? Then handing over control to a multi national force without an obvious agenda can only help smooth that transistion. Besides arent the Iraqis supposed to be self governing from about June anway? A multi national force (be it NATO, UN etc) can act in a training role and give a more generalised training then a single country EVER could. This would allow the Iraqis to eventually develop their own systems etc which suit them.

Inquartata · 05-11-2004, 06:17 AM

"Supposed to be" is the operative phrase. It isn't going to happen, of course. A government of Iraqis may be installed, but it'll be accepted by no one, not the Shiites, not the Sunni, not the Kurds, not Iran or Syria or, probably, the Triumvirate of France, Russia and China, which means not by the UN as a whole. Expect to hear the words "puppet" and "Vichy" a lot in the next few years.

Anyway, this smells to me like another makeshift by the Kerry brain trust: insufficient numbers of people like the idea of turning things over to the UN, so we'll settle on NATO as a proxy, as most don't know or understand it quite as well and at least it gets the international foot in the door. Whether that's a good thing or not is another argument, but it just seems like a cynical political tack rather than an outgrowth of any real belief in the policy...it's emblematic of the sort of aura Kerry seems to be stuck with, partly though not entirely of his own doing: no real core beliefs, just pragmatic vote-seeking.

Skoodaloo · 05-11-2004, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epeemike81

btw, the duration hasn'treached the levels of Vietnam, either. doesn't mean it won't.-m

Or the Balkans for that matter. Mustn't forget that.

Gav · 05-11-2004, 08:45 AM

Turning Iraq over to NATO? How exactly is that going to seem less biased in the eyes if the world? <sigh> Sometimes I just wonder...

If you want to seem unbiased [real or not] then hand over to the UN. I see it becoming more and more likely as things go. One report by the BBC recently mentioned that the W word had been mentioned.

Tireur · 05-11-2004, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoodaloo

Or the Balkans for that matter. Mustn't forget that.

Glad you brought that up, I was about to.

Seems the UN has no moral credibility anymore. Not since the sex-slave non-scandal in the Balkans. Apparantly only a handful of UN "police officers have been dismissed for engaging in sex trafficing of girls as young as 11. None have faced prosecution.

I guess I missed the worldwide outrage over this.

jeff · 05-11-2004, 10:10 AM

I see no problem of transitioning to a multi-national force to maintain order in Iraq. NATO seems to be a reasonable choice. I agree with Tireur that the UN's credibility stinks and their usefulness in armed confrontations negligible (or a good way of supplying hostages); the only good thing going for them is the illusion that the "international community" is working together on it. We need a new UN. At any rate, NATO seems a better alternative.

I mean, don't we already have a multinational "coalition of the willing" there?

D+F+P=Hadouken! · 05-11-2004, 10:10 AM

Hand it over to NATO, and let them screw it up, I dont fricking think so. Its americas war, not nato's. And just because that ball o scum kerry is a puss and cant stand the thought, of, oh no, a war, is no durn reason to abort the operation in iraq. Those soldiers thought that they might get shot at, so its only the soldiers problem. They signed up for the hooha, thats the way things go. I would and will die for my country, and I understand that if I join, I could get shot at. I think that our people overseas understand this, they are not stupid. If we give this war to nato, were cowards and hypocrites. I dont want america to seem like a coward country just cause some cat up in the oval wants to give up.... so we can have nato soldiers die? Thats insane! Its our mess, we should get ourselves out of this.

Inquartata · 05-11-2004, 10:12 AM

Quote:

the sex-slave non-scandal in the Balkans. Apparantly only a handful of UN "police officers have been dismissed for engaging in sex trafficing of girls as young as 11. None have faced prosecution.

I hadn't heard of that one.

Of course, it doesn't involve the Most Dangerous Country in the World
( formerly the Great Satan ), so why would the world press want to make any waves over it?

epeemike81 · 05-11-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I hadn't heard of that one.

Of course, it doesn't involve the Most Dangerous Country in the World
( formerly the Great Satan ), so why would the world press want to make any waves over it?

given how ridiculously we outgun the rest of the world, it's hard to argue with the contention that we're the "most dangerous coutry in the world."

whether you think we'll fulfill the potential danger, that's a whole different can of worms.

-m

prototoast · 05-11-2004, 01:03 PM

Why does NATO even exist anymore? The cold war's over and NATO seems to have admitted half the countries it was created to oppose.

PeterGustafsson · 05-11-2004, 01:42 PM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tireur

Glad you brought that up, I was about to.

Seems the UN has no moral credibility anymore. Not since the sex-slave non-scandal in the Balkans. Apparantly only a handful of UN "police officers have been dismissed for engaging in sex trafficing of girls as young as 11. None have faced prosecution.

I guess I missed the worldwide outrage over this.

Well, the UN enjoys good ratings outside USA far in excess to what it has in USA. Or put the other way: I do not think that there is any country (except Israel) where the UN have so many detractors as USA - not by a long shot. The USA and Israel are really the odd men out here. Whether the UN deserves this is another matter. An example: In Sweden, the UN has a better standing in the polls than our own politicians have among the voters of their own parties - and they have at least good ratings among their voters as the american politicians have.

Given that, the UN has a lot of good-will outside USA to sap from - it will take more than a scandal like that to kill, or even noticeably dent, its credibility outside USA.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Tireur · 05-11-2004, 01:47 PM

Whatever....

Tireur · 05-11-2004, 01:50 PM

I guess the "Oil for Food" or "Food for Oil" can't dent them either.

laughingduelist · 05-11-2004, 04:06 PM

Quote:

just because that ball o scum kerry is a puss and cant stand the thought, of, oh no, a war, is no durn reason to abort the operation in iraq.

When you have served in the military and been decorated for valor, then you are welcome to criticize someone who has; until then, would you kindly shut up? I don't think that Kerry has a great exit strategy either. But the man served his country honorably and the fact that you would dare say such an idiotic thing is inexcusable. Once again you have shown your ignorance and immaturity. Congratulations.

D+F+P=Hadouken! · 05-11-2004, 04:13 PM

Lets go throw our medals away together!

laughingduelist · 05-11-2004, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Lets go throw our medals away together!

Do you honestly believe that throwing them away invalidates what he did to earn them?

Soldier · 05-11-2004, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Hand it over to NATO, and let them screw it up, I dont fricking think so. Its americas war, not nato's. And just because that ball o scum kerry is a puss and cant stand the thought, of, oh no, a war, is no durn reason to abort the operation in iraq. Those soldiers thought that they might get shot at, so its only the soldiers problem. They signed up for the hooha, thats the way things go. I would and will die for my country, and I understand that if I join, I could get shot at. I think that our people overseas understand this, they are not stupid. If we give this war to nato, were cowards and hypocrites. I dont want america to seem like a coward country just cause some cat up in the oval wants to give up.... so we can have nato soldiers die? Thats insane! Its our mess, we should get ourselves out of this.

You will? Then go, do it now! Go enlist.

You're too young? That's right, you're only 13. So SHUT UP!!

D+F+P=Hadouken! · 05-11-2004, 07:27 PM

I dont have a choice about whether or not I enlist now, I cant. So I'm stuck with the civil air patrol. If I could enlist now, I would. But you know what, I CANT! When I turn 18, I'll enlist, in the marine corp, but until then, your the one thats gonna have to shut up! Why should I? I have every right to voice my opinion.