Why vote for Kerry?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find it more sporting to taunt you and have a good mind to do it a second time before Mike or someone else bitchslaps you and your arguments virtually.

Now shoo, funny little man.

[Knife]

Do we have to allow Axis to deface and destroy this thread too?

Come on, while he's even right of me, he atleast deserves a better response than that. And besides, I agree on his views of Europes 'view' of us.

[Darth Wong]

Representing himself as an easygoing guy willing to brook differences of opinion won’t help Kerry woo any new troop commitments from Europe.

As I expected, you define "good relations" as "get Europe to throw troops into the meat grinder of our cretinous failed crusade". No wonder you scoff that Europe won't like Kerry more than Bush; you define good foreign relations as "they'll do whatever we tell them to, no matter how stupid".

Cut the bullshit, Wong. You know what I'm talking about.

Yes I do. See above.

Europe can clap all it wants if Bush leaves office; they'll jump on Kerry just as fast once he begins throwing up trade barriers. And they'll sure as hell turn him down when he comes calling for more troops in Iraq. They turned down Bush before he even asked - at a time when they were agreeing that Saddam had those weapons.

They turned him down BECAUSE HE WAS ASKING THEM TO JOIN HIM ON A FOOL'S CRUSADE, you idiot. This is exactly the problem with your foreign-policy notions, as well as those of President Bush. Both of you think that "good relations" means "when I say 'jump', you say 'how high?'". You define Kerry's abilities based on the assumption that he has to do everything that Bush wants to do, ie- everything you want to do. Kerry is not running on a "bigger, better version of George Bush" platform, so don't crow about his failure to achieve such a platform.

[Stormbringer]

Representing himself as an easygoing guy willing to brook differences of opinion won’t help Kerry woo any new troop commitments from Europe.

As I expected, you define "good relations" as "get Europe to throw troops into the meat grinder of our cretinous failed crusade". No wonder you scoff that Europe won't like Kerry more than Bush; you define good foreign relations as "they'll do whatever we tell them to, no matter how stupid".

Actually, both sides have more or less billed that as good relations. I suspect Kerry knows how much bullshit that is but both sides have definitely set that as the definition. It's a stupid one, but it is the one commonly being bandied about when the candidates talk about good relations Mike.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's the best you people can do?

Come now; I figured you'd at least try to redeem your argument.

Name a thread you've posted more than 8000 characters in a post and not utterly destroyed it, Axi.

[Axis Kast]

As I expected, you define "good relations" as "get Europe to throw troops into the meat grinder of our cretinous failed crusade". No wonder you scoff that Europe won't like Kerry more than Bush; you define good foreign relations as "they'll do whatever we tell them to, no matter how stupid".

Strawman. As is evident if you actually read my arguments rather than jump like little morons over everything I say just because it comes from my keyboard, I don’t actually consider our relationship with Europe to be in any kind of trouble. After all, they were never going to do what wasn’t in their best interests – and we saw that even at the height of our mutual cooperation during the Cold War. My central point is that Kerry’s attempts to change this will be for naught, because if it isn’t broken, it can’t be fixed. At best, Kerry can stop people from trading nasty words and renaming their foods by putting on a wider smile. That’s it. What a victory.

They turned him down BECAUSE HE WAS ASKING THEM TO JOIN HIM ON A FOOL'S CRUSADE, you idiot. This is exactly the problem with your foreign-policy notions, as well as those of President Bush. Both of you think that "good relations" means "when I say 'jump', you say 'how high?'". You define Kerry's abilities based on the assumption that he has to do everything that Bush wants to do, ie- everything you want to do. Kerry is not running on a "bigger, better version of George Bush" platform, so don't crow about his failure to achieve such a platform.

No. Kerry claims that if he attains office, Europe will stop whining about American unilateralism and American selfishness. But his promise to raise steel and other tariffs flies in the face of that logic; we already know that protectionism puts Europe on the war path.

Furthermore, I fail to see how a war against an Iraq armed with deadly weapons of mass destruction – WHICH EUROPE AT FIRST SAID THEY THOUGHT SADDAM POSSESSED – is a “fool’s crusade.”

[Edi]

After all, they were never going to do what wasn’t in their best interests – and we saw that even at the height of our mutual cooperation during the Cold War.

You mean what was in America's best interests, especially where recent events are concerned. As for the Cold War, I'd really like you to back up your words with evidence, because I'm certainly not going to take them at face value. From what I have seen, Europe did quite a lot in helping win the Cold War, just not by building up huge weapon arsenals.

My central point is that Kerry’s attempts to change this will be for naught, because if it isn’t broken, it can’t be fixed.

Not broken? Well, this might be news for you, but after Bush's tenure in the White House, all of Europe except Poland has gone from friendly or strongly neutral to outright hostile where the US government is concerned. The attitude toward the American people still varies more, as we don't equate the people with the government, but known Bush supporters can often expect no more than cool formality and even overt hostility in political discussions.

At best, Kerry can stop people from trading nasty words and renaming their foods by putting on a wider smile. That’s it. What a victory.

As I recall, the renaming foods part was all the rage on your side of the Atlantic, not here. You've also forgotten the little thing about perception often being reality in politics, and where diplomacy is concerned, style is also often substance, even though it is not so in factual debates. In this regard, Bush has no credibility, at all.

No. Kerry claims that if he attains office, Europe will stop whining about American unilateralism and American selfishness. But his promise to raise steel and other tariffs flies in the face of that logic; we already know that protectionism puts Europe on the war path.

Yes, it does, and with good reason. I wonder what the US would say to a unilateral EU protectionist tariff on e.g. American cars, fruit and other goods in order to give EU industry an edge over their American rivals. If Kerry is stupid enough to resort to blatant protectionism, his stock is going to plummet here, but only on the economic front. At first anyway. We will not judge his capability on the war on terror or the Middle East on the basis of economic protectionism. As for Bush, he has already fucked up on every single front, so he has no credibility at all.

Furthermore, I fail to see how a war against an Iraq armed with deadly weapons of mass destruction – WHICH EUROPE AT FIRST SAID THEY THOUGHT SADDAM POSSESSED – is a “fool’s crusade.”

You'll notice that it was British intelligence telling you that, with blatantly forged memos, and they were found out too. Britain supported the war, but nobody few others did, and those others didn't believe the WMD claims either. So you have no case and ni argument, really.

Edi

[Axis Kast]

You mean what was in America's best interests, especially where recent events are concerned.

No, I mean Europe won’t do anything that it doesn’t view as being beneficial to its own objectives. That’s a facet of international politics: unless coerced, nations will pursue their own interests to the best of their ability.

As for the Cold War, I'd really like you to back up your words with evidence, because I'm certainly not going to take them at face value. From what I have seen, Europe did quite a lot in helping win the Cold War, just not by building up huge weapon arsenals.

How about the deployment of nuclear missiles like the Pershing series? The United States was always more eager to deploy them than the Europeans. And then there was Ostpolitik in Germany after Adenaur. And the French withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance command.

Not broken? Well, this might be news for you, but after Bush's tenure in the White House, all of Europe except Poland has gone from friendly or strongly neutral to outright hostile where the US government is concerned. The attitude toward the American people still varies more, as we don't equate the people with the government, but known Bush supporters can often expect no more than cool formality and even overt hostility in political discussions.

More typical tripe. Prove that Europe will cut off its nose just to spite its face. Prove that even when its interests coincide with ours, Europe will now do what does not directly benefit it just to give George Bush the finger. Oh, wait. You can’t. Because that’s not how the world functions. Too bad.

As I recall, the renaming foods part was all the rage on your side of the Atlantic, not here. You've also forgotten the little thing about perception often being reality in politics, and where diplomacy is concerned, style is also often substance, even though it is not so in factual debates. In this regard, Bush has no credibility, at all.

A back-and-forth trade-off of petty insults does not deter nations from cooperating. Last I checked, NATO was still around and our multi-lateral defense agreements still in place.

And they call Republicans fear-mongers.

Yes, it does, and with good reason. I wonder what the US would say to a unilateral EU protectionist tariff on e.g. American cars, fruit and other goods in order to give EU industry an edge over their American rivals. If Kerry is stupid enough to resort to blatant protectionism, his stock is going to plummet here, but only on the economic front. At first anyway. We will not judge his capability on the war on terror or the Middle East on the basis of economic protectionism. As for Bush, he has already fucked up on every single front, so he has no credibility at all.

If Kerry’s stock plummets in Europe, it will be to the detriment of his image – which is really what he’s selling in the first place. Europeans will still come to take a negative view of Kerry if he doesn’t accord with their desires to be listened to. Of course, if Kerry does everything he claims he wants to set out to do, he’s going to have a lot of trouble delivering on any of his promises.

You'll notice that it was British intelligence telling you that, with blatantly forged memos, and they were found out too. Britain supported the war, but nobody few others did, and those others didn't believe the WMD claims either. So you have no case and ni argument, really.

No, you duplicitous piece of shit. GERMANY AND FRANCE BOTH PRESUMED THAT SADDAM HAD ILLEGAL STOCKPILES OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on the eve of Blix’s arrival in Baghdad. And BOTH MADE A POINT OF PREEMPTIVELY DENYING THE COALITION THEIR MILITARY COOPERATION EVEN BEFORE BLIX HAD GONE. We could have found nuclear weapons in Iraq; Europe still wouldn’t have helped unseat Saddam. Which, of course, proves that it wasn’t Bush who pushed them to take such a radically different view of the war from ours.

[Edi]

You mean what was in America's best interests, especially where recent events are concerned.

No, I mean Europe won’t do anything that it doesn’t view as being beneficial to its own objectives. That’s a facet of international politics: unless coerced, nations will pursue their own interests to the best of their ability.

Sorry, I misread your sentence when I replied. You're right. My mistake. Bled over to the Cold War stuff too, so no contest on that.

Not broken? Well, this might be news for you, but after Bush's tenure in the White House, all of Europe except Poland has gone from friendly or strongly neutral to outright hostile where the US government is concerned. The attitude toward the American people still varies more, as we don't equate the people with the government, but known Bush supporters can often expect no more than cool formality and even overt hostility in political discussions.

More typical tripe. Prove that Europe will cut off its nose just to spite its face. Prove that even when its interests coincide with ours, Europe will now do what does not directly benefit it just to give George Bush the finger. Oh, wait. You can’t. Because that’s not how the world functions. Too bad.

Missed the point again, as usual. I'm talking about Europe, as in the people here, not about our governments, which have to maintain a semblance of civility in order to conduct business as usual. But even there you will find that there is a lot less willingness to compromise anything with the US and any cooperation you want from us will come at a higher cost.

As I recall, the renaming foods part was all the rage on your side of the Atlantic, not here. You've also forgotten the little thing about perception often being reality in politics, and where diplomacy is concerned, style is also often substance, even though it is not so in factual debates. In this regard, Bush has no credibility, at all.

A back-and-forth trade-off of petty insults does not deter nations from cooperating. Last I checked, NATO was still around and our multi-lateral defense agreements still in place.

No, it does not. However, a constant trade of petty insults is going to hamper that cooperation, put a chill in relations (see Bush/Schröder spat over the German minister and the results of Rumsfeld's Old Europe/New Europe comment controversy) and generally result in a lot of effort required to mend injured prides and rebuilding trust, time that effort that could have been more constructively used on other things.

If Kerry’s stock plummets in Europe, it will be to the detriment of his image – which is really what he’s selling in the first place.

At least he still has something positive to sell in that department, Bush has nothing.

Europeans will still come to take a negative view of Kerry if he doesn’t accord with their desires to be listened to. Of course, if Kerry does everything he claims he wants to set out to do, he’s going to have a lot of trouble delivering on any of his promises.

Yes, but it's going to take a lot of effort if he is to achieve the kind of contempt Bush is held in hereabouts. As for his campaign promises, if he keeps no more than a quarter of them, he will have done better than Bush. Shrubya kept his promise of tax cuts, but has reneged on everything else he promised both during the campaign and during his presidency.

You'll notice that it was British intelligence telling you that, with blatantly forged memos, and they were found out too. Britain supported the war, but nobody few others did, and those others didn't believe the WMD claims either. So you have no case and ni argument, really.

No, you duplicitous piece of shit. GERMANY AND FRANCE BOTH PRESUMED THAT SADDAM HAD ILLEGAL STOCKPILES OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on the eve of Blix’s arrival in Baghdad. And BOTH MADE A POINT OF PREEMPTIVELY DENYING THE COALITION THEIR MILITARY COOPERATION EVEN BEFORE BLIX HAD GONE.

Rewriting history again, I see. They denied military cooperation before there were any results, and they wanted to be damn sure the threat was real before they were willing to sanction war.

We could have found nuclear weapons in Iraq; Europe still wouldn’t have helped unseat Saddam. Which, of course, proves that it wasn’t Bush who pushed them to take such a radically different view of the war from ours.

You didn't, and it was obvious even before you started the war that no WMD would be found at all. What pushed such a radically different view in Europe was the facts, not some neocon wet dream wanking fantasy that the Bush administration was engaging in prior to the invasion. Nobody in his right mind thought the evidence was sufficient to go to war, but you did anyway, and reaped the results.

Edi

[Beowulf]

You didn't, and it was obvious even before you started the war that no WMD would be found at all.

I wonder what killed huge numbers of Kurds in Iraq? We know he had them before, and that he had the capability to make them, and the willingness to use them.

[Edi]

You didn't, and it was obvious even before you started the war that no WMD would be found at all.

I wonder what killed huge numbers of Kurds in Iraq? We know he had them before, and that he had the capability to make them, and the willingness to use them.

Rather dishonest of you to try to use 1988 events as a justification for a war in 2003 when the previous one 12 years earlier had resulted in the destruction of Iraqi WMD stockpiles and there was no evidence whatsoever that any of those stockpiles were left anywhere.

Edi

[Beowulf]

You didn't, and it was obvious even before you started the war that no WMD would be found at all.

I wonder what killed huge numbers of Kurds in Iraq? We know he had them before, and that he had the capability to make them, and the willingness to use them.

Rather dishonest of you to try to use 1988 events as a justification for a war in 2003 when the previous one 12 years earlier had resulted in the destruction of Iraqi WMD stockpiles and there was no evidence whatsoever that any of those stockpiles were left anywhere.

I suppose you have proof that the chem weapons stockpiles were destroyed, as well as proof that the capability to produce chemical weapons was also destroyed then.

Oh wait, you can't give proof of the latter, and I doubt you have proof of the former.

[The Kernel]

I suppose you have proof that the chem weapons stockpiles were destroyed, as well as proof that the capability to produce chemical weapons was also destroyed then.

The fact that none have been found is a pretty good indication.

Oh wait, you can't give proof of the latter, and I doubt you have proof of the former.

And the former is an excellent reason why the '91 Irar War made sense. It does not however justify a war 12 years later.

More to the point, if those WMD's were such a problem, maybe it would have behoved the US to complain about them back when Saddam first used them during the Iranian War. Of course back then, Saddam was considered one of the USA's "friendly dictators" so such pesky things as human rights abuses went totally unnoteced. It wasn't until Saddam got fiesty and invaded a country that was friendly to the US that we gave a shit about his WMD's.

[Edi]

I suppose you have proof that the chem weapons stockpiles were destroyed, as well as proof that the capability to produce chemical weapons was also destroyed then.

Oh wait, you can't give proof of the latter, and I doubt you have proof of the former.

Fuck off, Beowulf. There have been numerous threads here about whether or not WMD or the equipment to produce them have been found, and Vympel and Patrick Degan have in those threads provided repeated and detailed evidence that there were no viable WMD programs in Iraq, that their old WMDs (from the previous war and before) had exhausted their shelf life. It is not my problem that you are uninformed and making statements out of ignorance.

The fact that NOT ONE stockpile of WMDs and NOT ONE set of WMD production equipment has been found to date suggests very strongly that there indeed were no WMDs and no viable programs either. If you wish to claim there were either, provide the evidence for them. Otherwise, kindly piss off.

Edi

[Beowulf]

I suppose you have proof that the chem weapons stockpiles were destroyed, as well as proof that the capability to produce chemical weapons was also destroyed then.

The fact that none have been found is a pretty good indication.

Then where's the 360 tons of chem agents that UN inspectors hadn't accounted for before they left?
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page274.asp

And it's quite possible they got shipped out of the country before we got to them. There's also the possibility that they got hidden. Stuff that's buried in the desert tends to fair rather well so long as the sand doesn't get into what's buried.

Oh wait, you can't give proof of the latter, and I doubt you have proof of the former.

And the former is an excellent reason why the '91 Irar War made sense. It does not however justify a war 12 years later.

How does this work? Saddam has chem agents in '91 so it's ok to invade him. Saddam probably has chem agents in '03 so it's not ok to invade him?

The fact that Saddam was giving money to the families of Palestian suicide bombers would naturally indicate that he wasn't supporting terrorism.

[Beowulf]

I suppose you have proof that the chem weapons stockpiles were destroyed, as well as proof that the capability to produce chemical weapons was also destroyed then.

Oh wait, you can't give proof of the latter, and I doubt you have proof of the former.

Fuck off, Beowulf. There have been numerous threads here about whether or not WMD or the equipment to produce them have been found, and Vympel and Patrick Degan have in those threads provided repeated and detailed evidence that there were no viable WMD programs in Iraq, that their old WMDs (from the previous war and before) had exhausted their shelf life. It is not my problem that you are uninformed and making statements out of ignorance.

The fact that NOT ONE stockpile of WMDs and NOT ONE set of WMD production equipment has been found to date suggests very strongly that there indeed were no WMDs and no viable programs either. If you wish to claim there were either, provide the evidence for them. Otherwise, kindly piss off.

Edi

Hindsight is 20/20. We knew he had them before, we knew he had the capability to make them at one point. It's not unreasonable to assume that he still had the capability to make them, and therefore still had chem agents. And we still don't know where large quantities of agents as well as precursors to those agents are!

[Gil Hamilton]

Hindsight is 20/20. We knew he had them before, we knew he had the capability to make them at one point. It's not unreasonable to assume that he still had the capability to make them, and therefore still had chem agents. And we still don't know where large quantities of agents as well as precursors to those agents are!

And yet after being there for a year, we still can't even find anyone in Iraq who knows anything about the "missing agents", let alone has a clue where they are? You'd think if they still existed that someone would know something about them, wouldn't you?

[Axis Kast]

Missed the point again, as usual. I'm talking about Europe, as in the people here, not about our governments, which have to maintain a semblance of civility in order to conduct business as usual. But even there you will find that there is a lot less willingness to compromise anything with the US and any cooperation you want from us will come at a higher cost.

The opinion of the average European on George Bush doesn’t matter much. They’ll still cooperate in all the same instances as they would have before.

Furthermore, the costs of cooperation won’t rise. Europe was never going to willingly shoot itself in the foot on our behalf at any point in its history – and especially not after the Cold War. If there’s an issue in which they have a stake, there will be full cooperation.

No, it does not. However, a constant trade of petty insults is going to hamper that cooperation, put a chill in relations (see Bush/Schröder spat over the German minister and the results of Rumsfeld's Old Europe/New Europe comment controversy) and generally result in a lot of effort required to mend injured prides and rebuilding trust, time that effort that could have been more constructively used on other things.

And again, when there is cause for concern on both sides of the Atlantic, petty sniping will cease.

At least he still has something positive to sell in that department, Bush has nothing.

It’s irrelevant.

Yes, but it's going to take a lot of effort if he is to achieve the kind of contempt Bush is held in hereabouts. As for his campaign promises, if he keeps no more than a quarter of them, he will have done better than Bush. Shrubya kept his promise of tax cuts, but has reneged on everything else he promised both during the campaign and during his presidency.

Kerry would undoubtedly hurt this nation. His protectionism would hurt our economy. His social program would fall in the face or stringent conservative opposition anyway. His assessment of security needs is off-target. Securing Soviet nuclear waste as a chief focus? Sitting down to another round of bi-lateral discussions with a nation that steals billions of our dollars every time we compromise in that fashion? That’s not the platform of a sound leader.

Rewriting history again, I see. They denied military cooperation before there were any results, and they wanted to be damn sure the threat was real before they were willing to sanction war.

No, they stated clearly from the outset: no war. Europe was going to respond to even the finding of vast quantities of weapons in Iraq with an announcement that Hans Blix had irrevocably solved the problem, and call it a day.

You didn't, and it was obvious even before you started the war that no WMD would be found at all. What pushed such a radically different view in Europe was the facts, not some neocon wet dream wanking fantasy that the Bush administration was engaging in prior to the invasion. Nobody in his right mind thought the evidence was sufficient to go to war, but you did anyway, and reaped the results.

Which is, of course, why French and German intelligence affirmed that they, too believed Saddam was armed and dangerous before Blix.

[The Kernel]

Then where's the 360 tons of chem agents that UN inspectors hadn't accounted for before they left?
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page274.asp

And it's quite possible they got shipped out of the country before we got to them. There's also the possibility that they got hidden. Stuff that's buried in the desert tends to fair rather well so long as the sand doesn't get into what's buried.

Irrelevent, they ceased being a threat. They were dangerous during the first Iraq war because Saddam showed that not only did he have a decent amount of them, but he was also willing to use them against civilian targets. At the time of the 2003 Iraq War, you are talking about a nation that couldn't mount an offensive against JACK SHIT not to mention having his forces completely boxed in from every direction, even within Saddam's own country.

Iraq weapons inspections should have continued naturally to ensure that no new weapons were being developed, but the Iraqi economy wasn't in any shape to develop shit and the military wasn't much better off so this was little more than a formality. Slow compliance with weapons inspectors given the way the US uses them for diplomatic intimidation is not all that surprising and it certainly doesn't justify a full blown invasion and occupation.

How does this work? Saddam has chem agents in '91 so it's ok to invade him. Saddam probably has chem agents in '03 so it's not ok to invade him?

It was one of MANY reasons why the '91 war made sense. The other of course was to eliminate Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and to ensure that their military wouldn't be in any condition to try it again soon.

Also I find it highly amusing that you don't see the difference between the '91 Iraq War and the '03 Iraq War. Are you forgetting that the US never toppled Saddam's regime in '91 and never occupied the country with dreams of long-term nation building? Even if Saddam possessed a minimal amount of WMD's, it doesn't justify the cost to both the US and the Iraqi people of a full blown occupation. Hell, it didn't even make sense in '91; Bush Sr. wanted the Kurds to stage their own revolution inside of Iraq (right idea, terrible implementation) rather than go through with the terrible costs of trying to stabilize Iraq through military occupation.

Are you so dense as to argue that the possible possession of a few drums of chemical agent (which are more than likely past their useful lifespan) is worth a $200 billion occupation in order to chase a futile goal of nation building? It's called proportional response moron; if someone throws a punch at you, you throw a punch back, you do not launch an ICBM at him.

The fact that Saddam was giving money to the families of Palestian suicide bombers would naturally indicate that he wasn't supporting terrorism.

Perhaps you would like to quantify and show evidence of said payouts directly from the Iraqi leadership? I'm not going to argue a nebulous point without more supporting evidence then that.

[The Kernel]

Hindsight is 20/20. We knew he had them before, we knew he had the capability to make them at one point. It's not unreasonable to assume that he still had the capability to make them, and therefore still had chem agents. And we still don't know where large quantities of agents as well as precursors to those agents are!

Sorry, but that is bullshit as well. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN proved that clearly enough. The entire thing was a steaming collection of bullshit that was cooked up merely to make it look like Saddam might have WMD's, when any intelligent observer who looked at the facts would know that this was a ridiculous position. The Bush Administration knew very well that it was drumming up a case for war, not trying to avoid being pushed into one.

[Symmetry]

Ignoring the recent tangent and getting back to why I'm going to vote for Kerry this coming election.

1: Social Issues. This is a huge catagory that includes things like not

2: If he cuts taxes while raising spending, he'll at least call his policy by its proper name, Keynesian economics, rather than try to pretend he's a supply sider (not that supply side is great either).

3: I think the reps will still tend to have more control in congress, so it'll be good to have a president who'll be able to keep them in check a little.

3A: If he vetoes a single spending bill he'll be doing better than Bush has.

4: While nothing meaningful will change in our relations with Europe, the switch back to "grin with a dagger in your hand" will be much easier on my nerves.

5: I don't think he'll cut and run in Iraq, and I don't see any parts of the world that need us to hand their asses to them (by us at least), so he's acceptable on foreign policy.