It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Preview of Kerry Foreign Policy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
In this article by Jim Lobe, he discusses a report issued by the Center for American Progress on a possible post-handover strategy for the US in Iraq. Seems pretty solid. What are your thoughts, ATS? How many think Kerry would do a better job?


June 30, 2004
A Preview of Kerry Foreign Policy

by Jim Lobe
An influential Washington think tank with close ties to the Kerry presidential campaign is calling for Washington to send 25,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq, even as the U.S. supposedly gives the Iraqis more authority.

In a 12-page report released as the Bush administration formally transferred limited sovereignty to the interim government, the Center for American Progress (CAP) argued for changes in U.S. strategy in Iraq. Some of these are likely to coincide with those urged by senior State Department officials who, with the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the establishment of a huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad, will play a much more critical role in devising U.S. policy.
www.antiwar.com...




posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
As a non-American, I'm diffident in expressing an opinion on this, but these are my first impressions:-

This one could cause a furore IMO


Podesta said, "Iraq today represents a greater national security threat to the United States than when Saddam Hussein was in power,"


Er, is this likely to happen?


Optimally, according to Korb, U.S. forces should report to NATO.



I like these recommendations, as I feel these would do a lot towards improving the rather tarnished image that America has developed in Iraq


On reconstruction, the report calls for much greater transparency in the awarding and implementation of contracts, and the elimination of favoritism toward large U.S. companies such as Halliburton.


while the interim government should be encouraged to create an oil trust fund with a board consisting of both Iraqis and international representatives, and another independent body should be established to monitor oil revenues and how they are spent.


And I feel that this also would go a long way towards restoring America's reputation, but can anyone see it happening?


The U.S. should also remove civilian contractors from U.S.-led interrogation teams and order an independent investigation of all U.S. prisons abroad.


I hope my comments don't upset you real Americans too much, they're just the views of an outside observer. This proposed post-handover strategy seems pretty fair to me.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Not at all, Bastet. Thanks for commenting. I think they sound like pretty good ideas, myself.

As for NATO, they're doing their best to resist getting involved. I don't see them changing their minds any time soon. But who knows what will happen.

What will be interesting is to see whether or not the Iraqi people accept their new leadership or not. If they do, they may be on track to put their nation back together finally. For them, I hope so.

I would love to go back to a secure, thriving Baghdad. It was once a beautiful city.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
There's usually heated debate in this forum whenever Kerry or Bush is mentioned, but not a peep here.

This then leads me to one of two conclusions.

1. Kerry's foreign policy is sound & ATS members agree with it, or
2. Both Kerry's & Bush's foreign policy are very similar.

I'm very impressed with the apparent fact that the usual completely divergent opinions on these two men don't apply in this instance.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

On reconstruction, the report calls for much greater transparency in the awarding and implementation of contracts, and the elimination of favoritism toward large U.S. companies such as Halliburton.


All I can say about this is I believe that any contracts in Iraq should be given to Iraqi businesses. Of course that would depend on whether the Iraqi company in question would be able to perform the necessary tasks. There are some tasks that are going to need - at the very least - American led guidance or planning or implementation. But I believe the proper way to start up and support an economy is to put the jobs in their hands, not ours. They need money, they need jobs, and they should be running their own affairs whenever possible.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
A preview of Kerry's Foreign Policy? Oh this is an easy one. Here's Kerry's quote -

'I'm an internationalist. I will send American troops overseas only at the direction of the United Nations.'

If elected (God forbid) he will be the first United States President to break the oath of office - the ONLY job the President swears to do is to defend the Constitution. Handing the keys of the Oval Office and America's defense over to the UN (Useless Nations) is NOT upholding the oath of office.

Kerry's foreign policy - to obey the UN. (that's the same mis-organization that allowed the Sudan, Rwandan, and Iraqi slaughters)

to Kerry's foreign policy



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Well, we've seen Bush in action...Kerry, I dunno...it's a no win.

I'm voting for Navin Johnson



[edit on 6/30/2004 by muckminer]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Oh dear, it seems I spoke too soon!

Forgive a non-American's ignorance, FlyersFan. Could you please explain to me how Kerry's idea of sending American troops overseas only at the direction of the UN, would contravene his oath of office [saying he were elected]? What I mean is, how would American troops be defending the US if they were sent overseas?



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Flyers, you are in fact correct. I hadn't even gone down that road at all...

For a President to perform any action that is not in the best interest of the United States is in fact a violation of his oath of office.

It certainly is preferred to be on the same page as the UN. But what if the UN insists on something that would be harmful to the US? What would the "internationalist" Mr. Kerry do? Follow the UN? Well...

Quote from the oath as per Library of Congress website:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


The President of the United States has a duty to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the USA. If an international interest wants him to do something that would go against those ideals or responsibilities set forth in the constitution and the President follows the UN instead he becomes impeachable, as set forth in the Constitution.

If I were Mr. Kerry I would be VERY careful when making statements like this. You are not a king. You do what the Constitution says. Not the UN. Someone who's paid by the citizens of the USA should specifically state that his priority is American interests FIRST. That's your damn job. Read it.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

What I mean is, how would American troops be defending the US if they were sent overseas?


There is a small fact that is ignored by the UN as a whole. That fact is that the United States of America and other nations as well had foreign policies before the UN existed. Amazing isn't it.

How can American troops defend the US by going overseas? Well, it depends on your definition of defending against a threat. If you believe that the only thing considered a threat is a direct attack against the homeland, then you are entirely correct.

I personally would prefer not to have to wait for an attack against the homeland. Reaction is a problem. A country the size of the United States can not protect itself simply by reacting to attacks on its home soil. That simply doesn't work. Building a wall works for a village of 130 people. Not the United States.

There have been many cases where deploying troops to other countries has been necessary to defend ourselves. Had we not deployed troops for World War 2 do you think the Axis would have been happy coexisting with America? I think not.

In any event my point is that Mr Kerry's responsibility as President of the United States (a job who's temporary holder is elected and paid for by citizens) is to report to the people of this country and do what's best for this country. Not the United Nations. If that's too hard a concept for him to understand he should drop out of the race.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
You guys naturally have the advantage here with your knowledge of Kerry's previous statements.

But in my defence, I have to say that I was looking at this only in the light of the proposed post-war handover strategy - as mentioned by the original poster, ECK. Had I realised that this was going to be a discussion on the whole of Kerry's foreign policy, I wouldn't have posted.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Bastet, please don't take anything I said personally at all, you just happened to raise an issue regarding Kerry's "internationalism" that is VERY important in this election.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Djarums' first post in this thread made perfect sense! It should be Iraqis rebuilding their country, not Cheney's Haliburton goons, lining their pockets, taking Iraq two steps back for each step forward. What happens next: It is arrogant egocentric comments like Djarums' and FlyersFan's who make me ashamed to be an American! I don't particularly care for John Kerry myself, but I would vote for a baked potatoe if that was the only choise vs. shrubya. Navin Johnson's character is far and away a more desirable figure than the bought and payed for pawn: G.W.

The vitriolic B.S. that eminates from the hateful keyboards of these redneck narrow-minded plebians just goes to prove how vastly missinformed they are. The allegations of unconstitutional behavior are at best, divisive.

Grasp away at the last few straws remaining to your tenuous hold on power. Better yet, U2U me with your address so that I can come personaly to your home and slap some sense into you.


Being as Kerry has been in public service for over 30 years, his statements are easy to misconstrue, take out of context, or simply misrepresent.

I have read many posts by these miscreants, why they are allowed to continue with their hate mongering is a great mystery to me. How about a little constructive criticism for a change!

It is because we are ensconsed in the quagmire that is Iraq, due to short-sighted, ill-conceived, hegenomic wrong-think that any future administration will be handcuffed into perpetuating the folly that is present.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Gee I wonder why the U.N. is a little hesitant on doing what the U.S. wants. Most countries that are a member of the U.N. didn't support a preemptive strike. Then Bush tells them to basically go F#$K themselves and then when it's getting too expensive for him he wants the rest of the world to pay for his destruction of Iraq.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq hated the U.S. But with all the surveillance of Iraq from post Gulf War #1 it would have been hard for them to get anything done. Bush Sr. wasn't too happy about the defeat he took after the last one. And given the Bush family history of serving the U.S. why would you want him in there again?

Kerry seems to have a better grip on what's really going on with the people. Bush just tells them what to do and you better accept it or you're "Anti-American". What kind of President clamps down on free speech. I don't know your constitution well by I'm pretty sure that that is protected.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Djarums, I didn't take offence at all! What I meant was that, not being an American, my knowledge of Kerry's foreign policy is insufficient for me to debate on it, so I confined myself to the topic in hand - the proposed post-war hand-over strategy.

I do like what is outlined in this proposal, the points raised seem very sound, & one that I particularly like is




On reconstruction, the report calls for much greater transparency in the awarding and implementation of contracts, and the elimination of favoritism toward large U.S. companies such as Halliburton.


And now I'm wondering what possessed me to assume there was agreement on this topic in the first place!



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Wow... I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.


It is arrogant egocentric comments like Djarums' and FlyersFan's who make me ashamed to be an American!


I was explaining the duties of President of the United States as stated in our Constitution. If you have a problem with that take it up with it's authors, don't waste my time.


The vitriolic B.S. that eminates from the hateful keyboards of these redneck narrow-minded plebians just goes to prove how vastly missinformed they are. The allegations of unconstitutional behavior are at best, divisive.


1) I have lived in Manhattan my entire life. I wonder what megametropolis you come from to call me "redneck".

2) I actually work in politics and have studied the Constitution and it's ramifications for years. You obviously haven't, based on what you wrote.

3) If you would relax a bit you'd see I was commenting on claims of Internationalism vs. duties of the President. I don't care if you like Bush or Kerry. I wasn't talking about if I like either of them. I was talking about the policies. You lack that capability.


Better yet, U2U me with your address so that I can come personaly to your home and slap some sense into you.


If you're serious about this do let me know.


Being as Kerry has been in public service for over 30 years, his statements are easy to misconstrue, take out of context, or simply misrepresent.


And welcome to the world of politics where every single elected official deals with the problem you just mentioned. You just only mention it at your convenience.


I have read many posts by these miscreants, why they are allowed to continue with their hate mongering is a great mystery to me. How about a little constructive criticism for a change!


I have argued with no less than 500 people on this board over various topics. None have called me a miscreant, none have accused me of "hate mongering" which leads me to the conclusion that you either are insane or are interested in picking a fight.

If you can interpret my constitution analysis of the duties of the president as hate mongering then I suggest you go to the part of the forums that allows you to contribute fascinating fictional stories. You'd do far better there than you will here with an attitude like that. Try not to let your imagination run wild. All valid points you make become dirtied when you throw in a maniacal personal attack into your post.

I suggest finding a better way to phrase your ideas in order to be taken more seriously. If you like, rather than talk like a thug online and ask for my address, you may u2u me for tips on constructive styles of posting.

Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

On reconstruction, the report calls for much greater transparency in the awarding and implementation of contracts, and the elimination of favoritism toward large U.S. companies such as Halliburton.


All I can say about this is I believe that any contracts in Iraq should be given to Iraqi businesses.

But I believe the proper way to start up and support an economy is to put the jobs in their hands, not ours. They need money, they need jobs, and they should be running their own affairs whenever possible.


Djarums, I agree with you 1000% on this. I also believe it would go a long, long way in establishing trust and re-establishing good relations with average Iraqis. The only way we will ever see a free and prosperous Iraq is to throw out the war profiteers and demand honesty and accountability in dealing with them.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
A preview of Kerry's Foreign Policy? Oh this is an easy one. Here's Kerry's quote -

'I'm an internationalist. I will send American troops overseas only at the direction of the United Nations.'



I am inclined to believe this comment, if correct, is taken out of context. Please cite your source.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

I am inclined to believe this comment, if correct, is taken out of context.


That is a definite possibility, as I said in my earlier post politicians are probably the people most often quoted out of context.

I do however stand by my statements, whether they be directed at a policy considered by Kerry or anyone else. The taxpayers of the USA pay their president to look out for their well being first, not the UN's.


E_T

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
The taxpayers of the USA pay their president to look out for their well being first, not the UN's.

Isn't it also there's something like this in constitution (or this is ideology behind it) that your president and government are there to serve your country and its citizens, not to rule them and serve money/big corporations.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join