Dean & Kucinich People: Do You Disagree With Kerry's Foreign Policy?

[DrFunkenstein]

I recently saw a hit-piece post slamming Kerry's "progressive internationalism" from the Left. It was made to seem that Kerry was just pretty-ing up Bush's imperialism. But does it sound that way to you?

Here's Kerry:

"So how would this approach, this bold progressive internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer starts by understanding the nature and source of the threat we face.

While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond - broadly speaking the western Muslim world - what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs, no prospects, no voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values.

From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe. We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world - a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[DrFunkenstein]

1. How Kerry Would Help "Drain The Swamps"

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people? But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[Taeger]

14. I believe in Roddenberry diplomacy !!!!

That is,the Prime Directive rules!!!!!

Hasn't anyone considered that the dictatorial rulers of the Middle East LIKE the economic regression of their people???? How could we possibly FORCE them to help their people when we are effectively dependent on their oil sources.

Our best bet is to help the reformists in Iran. This administration has it's foot in it's but by making a scapegoat out of Iran. They strengthened the hands of the Iranian hardliners with their caustic rhetoric. Instead of acklowledging the nascent democracy in Iran, they potrayed Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" which spread terrorism and WMD across the world.

As it turns out, our new ally Pakistan was the great proliferator of nuclear technology. The administration has narry a word to say against these guys. Why should they. They have a compliant military dictator who will take corporate payoffs and do what they want.

I seriously doubt that the Bush administration will help the reformists in Iran. Iran is too valuable as a scapegoat to let them flourish into democracy ONCE AGAIN!!!! Heavens forbid we push the stone of democracy over hump in Iran when we can push it uphill in Iraq. Heavens forbid that we empower the Iranians when we can paint them as a source of evil and scare our American citizens with their evil.

[boobooday]

2. It is a preference

I have a preference for a candidate who:

Stood against the war
Stood against the patriot act

For these reasons, I am less than enthusiastic about Kerry, and will support Kucinich until there is no other choice. Ultimately, I will vote ABB.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[DrFunkenstein]

4. I Understand That, But I Asked A Specific Question

Do you disagree with what Kerry is saying here?

[boobooday]

5. No, I don't disagree

Globalization's dark side has been dragging down workers all over the world.

Like I said, I agree with many of Kerry's positions. Those things I mentioned bother me. I'm also SICK and WARY of the Yale/Skull & Bones boys.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[corporatewhore]

3. Yes the Roadmap is just peachy and we should support israel nomatter

what and we should continue american occupation in iraq because magically when we get a dem in office the iraqis will love being an occupied people :eyes:

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Thank You For Ignoring My Question (And Here's Kerry On Israel)

From the same speech, Kerry supports parallel concessions, which Dean did not support, and go further than the road map:

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace.

Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process.

American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism.

[mstrsplinter326]

7. Point Blank

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq. That's wrong.

DK for prez... Wellstone for prez...

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Another Non-Response?

What's up?

[mstrsplinter326]

13. jeopardy

What is no.
(I don't agree with Kerry's foreign policy - that's the answer to your question. It cannot be a non-response. I assumed it could be inferred from my earlier post, sorry about the mix-up)

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Any Particular Reasons?

I inferred that you disagreed with Kerry's vote - as did I - but I was wondering what part of Kerry's own policies people at DU take offense at.

[mstrsplinter326]

20. fair enough

But I just wanted to weigh in, not restate what someone already said, but now that you've asked for it -
Reasons: (not 'liberal enough' on the following)
Iraq
NAFTA/GATT/WTO
Saudi Arabia
AIDS
Debt relief


I understand that Kerry has rhetoric concerning these issues, but his votes don't reflect his talk sometimes.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Let Me Take Some Of These On

Iraq:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

NAFTA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=373102

AIDS (same speech):

The threat of disintegration and chaos rises steadily in Africa as the continent is increasingly devastated by HIV/AIDS. More than 29 million people there are afflicted with that disease. Africa has 11% of the world's population but 70% of all the people in the world living with HIV/AIDS.

Responding is not only morally right, but deeply practical and fundamentally important to the cause of global stability and ultimately our own safety. How can countries -- or whole continents -- torn apart by an untreated epidemic successfully resist the call to violence, terror, and the trade of weapons of mass destruction?

There is much that we can do. We have learned that we can change behavior through prevention and education programs, and if we make treatment available for those already sick. We can stop the transmission from mother to child. And we can reduce the growing number of AIDS "orphans" if we start adding voluntary counseling, testing and treatment of parents and care givers to children.

Yet the Bush Administration, intent on appeasing its right wing, assails population control while it neglects AIDS control even as that disease threatens to destroy whole populations. We must put our national interests in the claims of compassion ahead of political calculation and conservative dogma.

The United States must be a leader in assembling an international coalition with other governments and private sector partners -- a coalition with the will and resources to confront the pandemic of HIV/AIDS with the same determination that we bring to the war on terrorism.

I challenge the Bush Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to help the countries in Africa win the war against AIDS in their own backyard -- backed up by substantial increases in resources, beginning with $2.5 billion for the upcoming fiscal year.

Saudi Arabia:

Kerry is no fan of the House of Saud. A big underlying rationale for creating energy independence is that we no longer have to kiss these guys ass. Kerry is also a long-time fan of supporting pro-democracy forces already existing within a country (like in Egypt), rather than imposing democracy from without.

[mstrsplinter326]

34. its true

i agree he's better than bush. But his voting record does not make him better than dennis k. And that's the crux of what you were asking.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. Kerry will use military force to stop Arab "self-pity and victimhood"?

Kerry like the good politician he is ignores two central facts - the US collaboration with the repressive government and of course the OIL. When Kerry says he wants to "finish the job" in Iraq, does he mean "finish getting all the oil"?

This almost sounds like Ronald Reagan talking about welfare recipients:
"The streets are full of young people who have no jobs, no prospects, no voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values."

Yes - Kerry's "progressive internationalism" is really just a pretext for wars about oil and other natural resources, just like Bush's "War on Terrorism".

[DrFunkenstein]

10. You Are Right On The Money

Kerry is going to bomb them out of feeling sorry for themselves, although really he is there to suck up all the oil.

That's why he has made energy independence from Middle East oil a hallmark of his candidacy.

Did I mention you were right on the money?

[dkf]

11. My problem with John Kerry is that he has reversed himself so many times

that I have a hard time taking his words seriously.

Those two constituent letters to the same constituent expressing exactly opposite positions on the 1st war in Iraq was too much.

After that I don't know what to believe when it comes to John Kerry.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. But You Agree?

That is a lovely anecdote, and no one with more than 20 years in office is without them, but I was just asking if you agreed with his position.

[diamondsoul]

15. The way you've framed the question

makes it a little more difficult for me to respond.

This is not overall foreign policy you've posted about, it's policy on terrorism and the Middle Eeast, and yes, I absolutely take exception to it for several reasons.

First, I'm aware that he wants to increase our military ranks by at least 40,000 and send them to Iraq. He specifically stipulates Active Military and not NG or Reserve, now my question is WHERE is this 40,000 strong increase in manpower going to come from?! Unless he reinstitutes a draft, it ain't happening in a war situation that much of the country disapproves of.

He speaks of "hunt(ing) down and destroy(ing)those who are plotting mass murder against Americans". Well, Senator, those would be extremely angry people, better served by addressing the causes of their anger. I have serious problems with anyone who talks about "hunting down and destroying" other human beings.

He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the best way to "win the peace" is to take care of our own citizenry and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations so much. I am quite honestly fed up with the United States' chicken/egg style of govering and controlling international situations. **Well let's see there's this guy running that country and bugging us. I know we'll install this guy in power in the country next door cuz he hates that guy as much as we do. Stage a coup and help him build up some strength to attack that guy we don't like. Ok cool, now the guy we don't like is out of power and his country is bombed into the stone age....whassat? The guy we installed next door is threatening to attack an ally? Uh-oh, time for another coup!**

It's disgusting and going on Senator Kerry's statements I don't see as he intends to alter that style of governing and controlling international situations.

[DrFunkenstein]

18. Now Here Is Someone Who Genuinely Disagrees (Which Is Cool)

Let me respond quickly, though:

1. Kerry said that we need 40,000 more troops on the ground. He also said - very specifically - that he opposed conscription.

2. You actually reiterate Kerry's point that we need to address the causes of Arab anger. As for hunting down & destroying existing terrorists, I guess we disagree there.

3. I can understand that you are more isolationist than Kerry (as is Kucinich). But your suggestion that Kerry would stage a coup, and even a series of coups, flies in the face of everything Kerry has ever stood for. If you can produce anything at all backing up your imagination, I will say otherwise.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. "Isolationist" is an insult thrown at people

who don't believe that the United States has the right to control the world.

If that's the case, than I wear the epithet proudly. We do NOT have the right to control the world, and our attempts have not been pretty, whether under Democrats or Republicans.

You can't impose "help" on people or nations. You have to see their point of view, find out what they think they need, and then cooperate with them to make it happen.

The true "isolationists" are the people like the Busheviks who believe that the U.S. can and should be the unchallenged superpower and never have to listen to anyone else's concerns.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. Here Is Kerry On Isolationism And Unilateralism

Same speech:

We face a renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the urgent imperative of our time.

A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them." Between those who want America to go it alone, and those who want America to lead the world toward freedom.

The debate over how the United States should conduct itself in the world is not new.

After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world - that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others - and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals.

I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries.

Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world.

-----------------

PS - I didn't mean to insult you. If you can think of another term for not wanting to stick our nose in other nations' business, I'll use it.

[diamondsoul]

30. response to your response.

:evilgrin:

1. Kerry said that we need 40,000 more troops on the ground. He also said - very specifically - that he opposed conscription.

So in effect he's rendered his own position useless. If he opposes conscription (and I'm certain he does), he ought to know it will be impossible to garner 40,000 active duty soldiers to send to Iraq. They are not now enlisted and aren't likely to enlist without coersion. What that tells me is he has no possible plan for dealing with the Iraq situation at all because his own statments invalidate the plan he keeps putting forth.

2. You actually reiterate Kerry's point that we need to address the causes of Arab anger. As for hunting down & destroying existing terrorists, I guess we disagree there.

I agree with the initial comments about dealing with the causes of the anger. I'm just not so certain Kerry's plans are sufficient to do so.

As to the hunting down of terrorists, here's the thing- WE are not the legal authority of the entire planet. The way he phrases this makes it sound to me as if he thinks the United States has some sort of moral imperative to impose our own authority over the residents of other nations. I also haven't seen anything from Senator Kerry about rejoining the World Court, have you? That would go a long way toward alleviating some of my misgivings about that statement.

3. I can understand that you are more isolationist than Kerry (as is Kucinich). But your suggestion that Kerry would stage a coup, and even a series of coups, flies in the face of everything Kerry has ever stood for. If you can produce anything at all backing up your imagination, I will say otherwise.

I also take mild exception to the term "isolationist". I have no desire to isolate the United States from other nations. Rather my position is that we need to become cooperative and arrange our priorities as most other nations do- with our own citizzens' BASIC needs at the forefront of our policies. Once those things are addressed then we can set about becoming more of a cooperative force in the Global society. It's a case of putting your own house in order before criticising or interfering in the houses of others.

I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that Kerry would maliciously do anything. What I'm saying with the bit about staging coups is that it's the way our government has always conducted these matters, and I'm not hearing from Senator Kerry that he would absolutely alter that practice in a very significant way. IOW, I'm not putting it forth to say that he's a horrid or hateful person, but that it seems to have become accepted practice from this country and I fear he may be complacent about it.

[Mairead]

19. You speak for me, too, DS!

Kerry's characterisation of US foreign policy is at odds with John Foster Dulles's: 'somehow we find it hard to sell our values,
namely that the rich should plunder the poor'.

I believe the evidence supports Dulles's characterisation.

Kerry is not even close to being the same liberal patrician he appeared to be 30 years ago.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Does This Sound Like Kerry Supports "Plundering The Poor"

"(Arab) countries are among the most economically isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from the oil royalties which flow to those at the very top."

Kerry's whole point is that he wants to open up and diversify Arab trade, and encourage inter-Arab trade so that people besides the ruling class have the economic stability to create a better life.

As for Dulles, this is one of the guys who engineered secret coups in both Iran and Guatemala. Hardly the same as the guy who fought for years to end the secret, illegal war in Nicaragua.

[Mairead]

38. Yes, it does

Has he pledged to pull out of NAFTA and the WTO? I don't think so. And as long as they're in force, 'trade' will mean 'plunder' because US companies will set up sweatshop operations just as they have everywhere else.

See whether you can find 'Money makes the world go round' by Barbara Garson. It details the temporary prosperity and permanent poverty that follows Capitalism as it extracts wealth from poor countries.

[EXE619K]

17. It's simple actually.

Americans need to understand that more they intervene in any of the International affairs, more they will be viewed as self-preservationists out for their own interests, rather than the interests of other nations.

We have growing troubles at home that, not only, threaten our economy and stability...but, threaten the global economy and prosperity.

"Progressive Interventionalism"?

Does that include continuation of lowered domestic Interest rates and the fall of the dollar so that our multi-nationals are the only ones gaining benefit under a convenient banner of "Domestic Recovery"? While the "fair trade" initiative is more single-sided as US intervenes in every aspect of the geo-political scene?

By, putting the priorities for the matters at home (For example, reducing our national deficit as soon as possible), we not only help ourselves, but, help others in the process without an "Intervention".

No matter how many bombs we drop, or how many terrorists we lock-up....

No matter how much money we pour into the ailings of other country's failing economies....

We will always be viewed as the "ugly Americans" intervening into other country's affairs out of our own corporate greed, unless we fundamentally change the way we conduct business here at home.

We have enough of our own problems that contribute to the demise of International Stability, than to prusue a "Progressive Internationalism".

[DrFunkenstein]

21. Compare South Korea And Egypt (As Kerry Does)

From the same speech:

(Arab) countries are among the most economically isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from the oil royalties which flow to those at the very top.

Since 1980, the share of world trade held by the 57 member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference has fallen from 15 percent to just four percent.

The same countries attracted only $13.6 billion worth of foreign direct investment in 2001. That is just $600 million - only about 5 % - more than Sweden, which has only 9 million people compared to 1.3 billion people.

In 1969, the GDP of South Korea and Egypt were almost identical. Today, South Korea boasts one of the 20 largest economies in the world while Egypt's remains economically frozen almost exactly where it was thirty years before.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Apples and oranges

South Korea invested heavily in education and infrastructure, even under the Park Chung Hee and Roh Dae Woo dictatorships. The fifty years of Japanese colonization had paradoxically left it with a better infrastructure (that which wasn't destroyed in the Korean War) and a better educated work force than say, China.

Midway though its economic rise, South Korea overthrew the dictatorship and became a multiparty democracy. It's done even better economically since then.

Egypt's government has allowed an opening for the Islamic militants by not taking care of its people's needs. Since there are not enough schools or medical facilities and little social safety net, the Islamic militants step in with low-cost religious schools, free clinics, and free food distribution.

It gets a huge subsidy from the U.S., but unfortunately, that is almost all military aid, which does nothing to solve the country's basic problems.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Here Is Kerry Specifically Addressing Your Point

Kerry's whole point is that we need to invest - for our own benefit - in the infrastructure and education of Arab nations.

From the same speech:

We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies of terrorism. We must help bring modernity to the greater Middle East. We must make significant investments in the education and human infrastructure in developing countries.

The globalization of the last decade taught us that simple measures like buying books and family planning can expose, rebut, isolate and defeat the apostles of hate so that children are no longer brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers and terrorists are deprived the ideological breeding grounds.

I believe we must reform and increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for all.

[Mairead]

40. But our global "aid" always has strings attached, Funk. Lots of them

Kerry's using language in the same coded way Clinton did, the Bushes do/did, Reagan, everyone. It's all about US-capitalist hegemony because it's never been about anything else. What possible reason do we have for believing that Kerry means anything different?

[EXE619K]

31. Thank you Lydia!

Minnesotans think alike!

:hi:

[EXE619K]

29. Another simple answer for you.

The "Growth" of South Korean economy has to do with corporate corruption supported by the US during it's strangle hold during the 60's/70's.

On paper, South Korean economy is very strong.

South Korean national debt is growing year after year from the "intervention" of IMF and the US during the collapse of the Asian economy during the 90's.. South Korea has s HUGE debt problem resulting from the same "economic recovery plan" forced down their throats from, yours truly, the Americans.

Due to the continuation of the American policy over the years, natioal Debt has grown tremendously, Govt, kick backs and corporate mismanagement that led to the demise of many companies(including LG, Dae-Woo, Sam Sung, SBC...to name a few).

That was the legacy of American corporate policies who, supported brutal dictators like Park Jung-Hee, Chun-Du-Hwan, Noh Tae-Woo, and yes, even the so-called Democratically elected corporate traitors like Kim Young-Sam and Kim dae-Jung.
This has been going on for almost 40 years.

vast amounts of economic aid was given to SK during all these dictatorial regimes...in the name of defending capitalism on the Korean penninsula. While the American defence contractors like Lockeed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing...etc skimmed off the korean people and their tax dollars by allying themselves with to greedy and corrupt SKean officals that nearly bankrupted their nation.

Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush...all knew the facts well that the SK puppets they supported were monsterously corrupt politicians.

South Korea is a nation that floats on the sea of International debt. Their numbers may look great, but they're paying their debts with a International Credit card given to them by the IMF and the Americans.

South Korea is a bad example my friend...if your trying to justify the "Progressive Internationalism".

[LWolf]

28. I disagree with some of it.

Obviously, Kerry's take is miles ahead of GWBs. But, without taking the entire speech apart, paragraph by paragraph, here is just one area of disagreement:

I don't think I need to view the world as a threat. I think we need to view them as neighbors in the global community, and as potential allies in any trouble we may face. I am not so naive as to think we don't need a strong defense, and we don't need to pay attention to hot spots, etc.; I just don't think we need to fear them. Or fight them. Or eliminate them. I think we need to talk to them. To negotiate. To use diplomacy, with the real strength of our military behind us should we be attacked.

My ego doesn't require that I be the biggest, baddest dog on the block.

I am really uncomfortable with this part:

A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond - broadly speaking the western Muslim world - what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

It smacks of religious war; us (christians??? It doesn't say, but leaves that flavor) against the nation of Islam. I object to portraying a religion as the source of terrorism, as the enemy against the war.

I also object to the idea that it is hatred and intolerance rising to challenge America and liberal democracy. Perhaps it is anger and rebellion rising to challenge world domination, economically, militarily, and politically, by the United States. And, perhaps, if the U.S. didn't have a long history of such domination and empire building, the anger wouldn't have risen. I'd rather see us defuse the anger and opposition by respecting our own values when it comes to other nations; respecting their right to make their own choices, laws, decisions. Self-sovereignty.

I think we planted those seeds of "hatred and intolerance" ourselves, with our own global interactions. And I think we change it, not by eradicating opposition, but by making opposition less necessary.

I could go on, but this is enough for one post!

[DrFunkenstein]

32. I'm Glad We Can Have Dialogue, Let Me Address Your Concerns

1. The Global Community:

Kerry's big tag line for most of the campaign is about how we need to starting winning some friends in the world. Being totally honest, I wasn't sure at first if you were writing that passage or quoting Kerry.

Kerry is very big in making the connections between the war on terrorism (the need for international alliances) and things like the Kyoto treaty and the AIDS pandemic. He knows that you have to act like friends with the world, not strategic alliances (the Rumsfeld Doctrine). The benefits are not always immediate, but Kerry insists that you keep the American people focused that friendship (like in real life) has its payoffs as well.

2. The Clash of Civilizations:

"The U.S. should take a page from our Cold War playbook. No one expected communism to fall as suddenly as it did. But that didn't prevent us from expanding society-to-society aid to support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions and other groups dedicated to building a democratic culture from the ground up. Democracy won't come to the greater Middle East overnight, but the U.S. should start by supporting the region's democrats in their struggles against repressive regimes or by working with those which take genuine steps towards change.

We must embark on a major initiative of public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We must make avoidance of the clash of civilizations the work of our generation: Engaging in a new effort to bring to the table a new face of the Arab world -- Muslim clerics, mullahs, imams and secular leaders -- demonstrating for the entire world a peaceful religion which can play an enormous role in isolating and rebutting those practitioners who would pervert Islam's true message."

[LWolf]

35. I saw those.

And I agree.

It's the painting a religion with a broad brush, and the setting us up for religious wars that I am not comfortable with.

[mike_c]

33. I do appreciate Kerry's recognition that terrorism has a cause...

...and it's not "they hate us for our freedoms." I endorse his call to address the roots of terrorism. Two problems, however. First, like Bush Kerry frames the entire discussion within the context of a "war on terror." No rational foreign policy can be tacked onto a primarily militaristic approach, even if the militarism is nothing more than the meme. Although Kerry notes the importance of working on other fronts, he doesn't explicitly disavow militaristic, interventionist foreign policy.

Second, many of the problems that he recognizes in the Muslim world are themselves direct results of prior U.S. foreign policy, particularly support for repressive regimes that coincidentally served our interests as well as their own. Our foreign policy difficulties with radical Islamists are not going to go away until the social forces that stoke Islamic radicalism are damped-- and maybe not even then. The genie is out of the bag. That issue is ultimately tied into nearly every aspect of American and western European life. We want their resources and we want their labor in order to maintain our life styles. The U.S. must become a partner in global development, rather than the overseer whose interests always come first.

I don't think Kerry has the courage or the vision to advance a truely progressive foreign policy.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. Kerry Has Said Repeatedly That The "War" Will Be Police And Intelligence

Kerry is getting alot of heat from the right wingers who say he is pretending that terrorism can be solved with "cops and robbers." Of course, these knuckleheads don't explain how you can bomb away stateless terrorism.

Kerry - after 8 years or so as chair of the Committee on Terrorism - knows how it works structurally, and how they get their money (without the BCCI investigation, the CIA wouldn't know half of what it does about Al-Qaeda laundering money).

Kerry has made it absolutely clear that the military option will never be entirely taken off the table, but it will be a final, exhausted one.

As for the chickens coming home to roost, I think Kerry has made it clear that he wants to wean the U.S. off of Middle Eastern oil, while encouraging the diversification of the Arab economy and inter-Arab trade.

It is the curse of the third-world to rely upon one or two natural resources to export for revenue. It almost always - if not always - goes straight to the top, with corruption taking out chunks every step of the ladder. That's why Kerry says we must put in anti-coruuption mechanisms for transparency and begin to move these economies away from natural resources (oil) alone.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. PNAC-lite.

[DrFunkenstein]

48. Did You Lose Your Sense Of Humor?

You used to be one of the funniest people in the DU universe. Have you become so embittered as to have lost that? It would be a real shame. I used to love disagreeing with you!

[MercutioATC]

37. No, but that's just lip service...what will he DO?

Show me a plan. Dean had a comprehensive plan. To make it VERY simple, happy people don't blow things up. Insisting on a trade policy that considers workers' rights and an international minimum wage makes workers in, say, Pakistan, happy. Again, happy people don't blow things up.

Yes, it's simplistic, but so are the motivations that make people violently rebel against the system. As Dean says, countries with a strong middle class don't harbor terrorists. Shouldn't that be our goal?

[sangha]

39. That's not a plan either

"happy people don't blow things up" is not a plan

"Insisting on a trade policy that considers workers' rights and an international minimum wage" is not a plan

Kerry basically says the same things you just said. Why is it "not a plan" when Kerry says it, but it "is a plan" when Dean says it?

[MercutioATC]

43. How is Dean's plan not a plan? I think he outlines it well.

Insisting on trade agreements that take wages and environmental protection into account makes sense. That's what Dean proposes.

How is this any less concrete than Kerry's "plan"?

[sangha]

45. An outline is not a plan

Explaining how he would make sure that trade agreements take wages and the environment into account would be a plan. Saying "I will insist on trade agreements that take wages and environmental protection into account" is not a plan.

It's not a pan when Kerry says it, and it's not a plan when Dean says it. Even you said that Kerry's has no plan even though Kerry also says "I will insist on trade agreements that take wages and environmental protection into account"

How is this any less concrete than Kerry's "plan"?

And there you go. It's just as "unconcrete" as Kerry's position, which is also "not a plan"

[DrFunkenstein]

49. Very Well Put

This is, obviously, a broad policy speech that touches a great deal of subjects. But I think it is clear that Kerry is proposing exactly what Mercutio wants him to (but can't admit it).

Considering that Kerry has 18 years in the Foreign Relations Committee, overseeing the Jordan trade pact even, you might think that he would have some experience with the matter. Not only that, but he knows the Committee very well, and could work closely with issues like these to make them go through.

[hippywife]

41. It's more of a matter of

who you trust to make the changes. Votes for IWR and Patriot Act aren't conducive to trust. Not to mention 30 years in which the party has moved from left to right.

[killbotfactory]

42. This makes his support for the dumbest military blunder in US history

more confusing.

Or his denouncing Dean's proposal to increase living standards across the globe as "protectionism". Or attacking Dean for saying we should sanction the Saudi's, and then a month later proposing the same thing.

He'll be better than Bush, no doubt. But that's not difficult. I guess I just have difficulty in distinguishing his real beliefs from cheap political maneuvering.

Does he think the damage done by the Iraq war is outweighed by the capture of Saddam? I honestly have no idea thanks to his "my vote was right, and the capture of Saddam proves it, but Bush went about it the wrong way!" fence-straddling.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

44. My counterpoints

I know this is in no way a complete representation of John Kerry's positions on these issues. But let me dissect this particular speech:

"While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy."

--Wait let me read that again...

"hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy."

--That is the same as saying, "They hate us for our freedom". Just using bigger words.

--So I give Kerry anther chance to explain and read further, thinking he will address American imperialism as a root cause or at least a catalyst for terrorism...

"It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond - broadly speaking the western Muslim world - what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs, no prospects, no voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values."

--Yes I also think it is critical to recognize the conditions that breed terrorists. It is good that Kerry can see some of the causes of terrorism, but to ignore American imperialism as one of the catalysts of terrorism is disingenuous.

"State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting."

--Right on, now we are talking, way to blast the media! Oh wait he is talking about middle-eastern countries and not the U.S. ...:shrug:

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

Ok sort of on the money here. Good statement that focusing on war is not the answer. How do we 'win' the peace? Peaceful construction? Halliburton et al?

Honestly I find this particular speech very dissapointing. It does not represent my beliefs on this/these issue(s).



TWL

[IndianaGreen]

46. John Forbes Kerry's foreign policy is as imperialistic as Bush's

The only difference is that Kerry claims that he would have done it differently.

:eyes:

Is Kerry going to pull the troops out of Iraq? No, he isn't. Kerry is going to keep them in Iraq for as long as he has to in order to ensure there is a pro-American government in Baghdad. Kerry's call for international participation is mere window dressing.

Kerry supports and voted for Plan Colombia.

Kerry will support regime change in Venezuela just as Bush does.

[DrFunkenstein]

50. Do You Support The Talibanization Of Iraq?

There is a difference between supporting a pro-America government and a stable government that respects minority rights. We may disagree here - assuming you are being sincere, rather than spiteful - on whether or not Iraq should be left to it's own devices without the proper political infrastructure and stability.

If you want a metaphor to chew on, think about the looting of Baghdad. That was the effect of laissez-faire. Kerry has little intention of propping up a puppet regime, like Reagan wanted to do in Nicaragua. However, as Carol Moseley Braun said, "We broke it, and it's our responsibility to fix it."

I want even go into the rest of your post, because I think the level of sincerity to your conjecture is pretty evident to everybody.

[IndianaGreen]

51. I support the Iraqis running their own government, warts and all

over an American occupation like the one Israel has over Gaza.

If you are so worried about a fundamentalist Islamic regime being elected, you should have left Saddam in power!