Re: not so Foreign Policy" -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

05/19/26 7:50:50am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5] ]

Subject: Re: not so Foreign Policy"

Author:
pjk

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10/ 8/04 12:31:34pm
In reply to: pa 's message, "not so Foreign Policy"" on 10/ 8/04 9:42:10am

>I truly think that (it's) time

Yes, time, and a plan, a strategy, a willingness to adapt, the foresight not to politicize the issues as well as the personnel over there in charge of helping to improve things.

>I am very frightened by the prospect of our focus
>turning towards leaving rather than the focus "staying
>the course" on the democratization and security of
>Iraq.

I think that the focus needs to remain on doing the best we can do, it may entail leaving sooner rather than later. I believe there is something to be said for the observation that our continued presence has been part of the flowering of the insurgency... the longer we stay the worse it gets. This is why it seems so imperative that we help get a police & guard up and running with Godspeed. That's why my jaw dropped when I saw that we had trained so few Iraqis in the last 18 months.

Like in Vietnam, the insurgency has skillfully drawn the US into conflicts that alienate the rest of the regular folks who were neutral or even sympathetic to Americans in April '03. Catch 22: we must respond to attacks b/c if we don't we look weak, but we further weaken our position with the general populace when we respond. Winning the battles but losing the war for hearts and minds.

>If we think terrorism has placed us in a tremulous
>state now...., if we are demoralized by the number of
>Iraqis killed in the last several months....what does
>the future hold if we abandon?

If anyone could point to where Kerry says or even implies that we will abandon Iraq please point it out to me.

>My main concern with Kerry...his conundrum of not
>supporting the war/(I certainly don't hold this
>against him in the context of his ethics) not
>supporting Allawi etc....

I think having an ex-baathist assassin and CIA stooge in charge is a big mistake and I'm glad Kerry recognizes that he truly is a puppet. He has single digit credibility in Iraq - so Kerry's not the only one who's not so keen on him. What's worse, pretending Allawi has legitimacy and maintaining a fa�ade for the sake of consistent rhetoric or recognizing his weakness and giving a signal to the Iraqis that perhaps Kerry has a clue?

pjk

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
I say pitter, you say patter	pa	10/ 9/04 4:03:53pm