Kerry introduces new group and lays out a strategy for fighting terrorism

[ProSense]

Audio: Kerry Calls for New Apporach to Fighting Terrorism
Senator Kerry delivered remarks at the Johns Hopkins University National Security Symposium on fighting terrorism and how we can make our country safer.

Prepared remarks posted here.

[whistle]

1. Kerry's speech failed to include the Bush administration, the neocons

...and the religious right wing as terrorists, but instead seeks to work with these crony capitalistic fascists in some sort of bipartisan way. Well, that is the problem, these people can never be bipartisan so the Kerry plan is fatally flawed and he knows it.

[globalvillage]

2. Thanks for posting the audio

The ASP is a great idea.

The American Security Project (ASP) is a 501C3 non-profit public policy research and educational organization, a think tank, dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security and foreign policy issues.

ASP is organized around the belief that the public discussion of national security issues requires an informed citizenry that understands the security threats of the twenty-first century and the spectrum of possible American policy responses.

The principal challenges to American national security are not unique to the United States, but are common to allies and other nations around the world. Terrorism and weapons proliferation, to cite just two challenges, are shared dangers that require a common response. ASP believes we must restore American leadership in the world and recommit to cooperation with other nations to enhance not only our own national security but to find common ground on strengthening security across the globe.

http://www.americansecurityproject.org /

This is a great way for these experts to come together to promote a reasonable approach to foreign policy and counter the neocon agenda.

Kudos to Sen Kerry, Gary Hart and all the ASP members.

[BlueIris]

3. Nice.

Good job, Senator.

[KG]

4. 'ASP believes we must restore American leadership in the world' um, why?

this is just pro-imperialism BS.

the world, and this country will be safer when america no longer thinks it can solve every 'crisis' with a carrier group.

[ProSense]

5. BS!

It may be pro-American, but no where does Kerry say we must impose our ideals on others, not even in situations where other governments ask for our help or aid.

[globalvillage]

6. I don't see anything wrong with it.

It says " ... we must restore American leadership IN the world...", not OF the world.
The rest of the sentence clarifies "... and recommit to cooperation with other nations to enhance not only our own national security but to find common ground on strengthening security across the globe."

Again, I don't see a problem with that statement. There's nothing wrong, IMO, with wanting to restore American leadership given our current status as global pariah (Albania excluded).

People of other countries used to point to the US as a country to emulate. Now they just point. I liked it the old way.

[blm]

7. moral leadership that is trusted because their word is good...big difference.

.

[MH1]

9. "Leadership" is not equal to "imperialism"

There are other kinds of leadership besides military.

As the richest nation on the planet, the US should lead in helping other countries in peaceful ways.

[beachmom]

10. Sorry, but if we don't lead no one will. This is why human rights

violations are popping up more in Europe now. In fact, when we the U.S. were violating human rights, the Europeans, even from countries that had vocalized dissent against the Iraq invasion, looked the other way, even participating in the cover up.

You lead by example, and that begins with honoring the Geneva Conventions. If we go down, we will bring down the world with us. Who else is going to lead? China?

[KG]

14. i'm not sure what history of america you've believe in,

but the facts show that human rights, at home or abroad, has never been a high priority in america.

if america goes down, the rest of the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

[ProSense]

15. Will you breathe a sigh of relief if America goes down? n/t

[KG]

18. i'm sure you think there's some point to that question, but i don't. n/t

[TayTay]

11. So that we can deal with other countries differently.

Sen. Kerry has spoken and written extensively on the mistakes that the US has made in the Middle East. These mistakes include propping up autocratic and repressive regimes because of the politics of oil. This is bad for us and very bad for the people in those countries.

Perhaps you might want to see what the Sen Kerry has actually said about this:

Changing the Middle East Requires Energy Independence for America; For Decades American Governments Have Spoken Softly in the Middle East Because of Oil:

"We must liberate ourselves and the Middle East itself from the tyranny of dependence on petroleum, which has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power.

And frankly, we've made that possible by signaling Arab regimes we don't much care what they do so long as they keep the oil flowing and the prices low. That attitude must not only end; it must be reversed. Energy independence is not just a domestic priority for our country. It's also essential to our national security, because our reliance on their oil limits our ability to move them towards needed reforms and props up decaying and sometimes corrupt regimes, including those that support terrorist groups. Any long-term strategy for winning the war on terror must therefore include a determined effort to reduce our dependence on petroleum. So many opportunities to do that are staring us in the face, but none have been seized with the urgency our security demands."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=14

[KG]

13. well, it seems he's bought into winning the phoney 'war on terror', too.

john kerry is just another establishment politico, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[ProSense]

16. Well, ignore him and enlighten us about who you consider an ideal leader.

Who would that be?

[KG]

17. nope. not going there. i'm not about hero worship.

[ProSense]

19. Didn't ask about hero worship, asked who you plan to vote for.

Is voting for a candidate considered hero worshiping theses days?

Simple question: Who are you planning to vote for or are leaning toward?

[KG]

20. for you this sub-thread about hero worship. i dissed your guy, and now you're all over me.

sorry, not playing that game. but have a good evening anyway.

[ProSense]

21. Why are you afraid to answer a simple question? n/t

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TayTay]

22. There is a war on terror

It is a clash of ideologies and it involves small groups of people who use violent means in order to bring about the changes they want. That is real, it is on-going and it will be with the global community for the foreseeable future. This needs to be fought, but not by armies on a conventional field of war. It needs to be fought by information gathering, good international police work and info shairng and by a recognition that there are conditions of poverty and hopelessness that make these fringe groups more attractive and able to pick up adherents.

There is a 'war on terror,' though it is really a war against a narrow minded ideology that seeks to install anti-democratic regimes based on particular interpretations of religious texts. (We have echoes of this in America in the struggle of the Christian Right to de-secularize American law and society.) This effort is very worth fighting, but in a sane way, that recognizes the actual problem and applies the right resources. Iraq was the wrong way to do this, against the wrong enemy and with the wrong people in-charge. The war in Iraq was a mistake, from the beginning. It does nothing to secure the concept of a liberal society that guarantees certain freedoms for people. It was a fake and a diversion from the real problem of fringe groups who seek to destroy liberal societies.

[ProSense]

8. Kick! n/t

[beachmom]

12. Just wanted to add this BG article to the thread:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/15/from_sidelines_kerry_rips_gop_field_over_foreign_policy/

From sidelines, Kerry rips GOP field over foreign policy

Criticizes rhetoric as 'scare tactics'

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry blasted the leading Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy yesterday, saying "it should disturb all of us" that the GOP contenders are taking increasingly hawkish stances on national security issues like Iran and the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

In a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Kerry delivered a stinging commentary on what he described as the belligerent tone of recent Republican primary debates.

"Most of the Republican candidates seemed almost eager to use nuclear weapons preemptively" against Iran, Kerry said.

Several GOP candidates said at a debate last week in Manchester, N.H., that they would "leave all options on the table," including military strikes, to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Great article. Read the whole thing.

[Mass]

24. I know this speech is for domestic goals, and that every single word other than leadership

would be dissed by the media consortium, but it would be nice that people like Kerry or Feingold begin to replace the word "leadership" by "cooperation".

Not trying to diss the speech or Kerry. I think that most of the individual ideas that are in the speech are great. However, I dislike the framing. Read or heard outside of the US, it would probably be seen as "imperialism".

In most of the rest of the world, "American leadership" means that the USA feel superior to the rest of the world and think that they can decide everything.

I know this idea is very unpopular in some circles, but the USA must start to work with other countries, not necessarily to lead, but to do things together for the commun good. Some countries are actually leading in global warming, and there are in Europe. Why would it be wrong for the USA to work with them, while preserving their interest?

[politicasista]

25. K&R

:kick: