Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Kerry blasts Iraq mistakes made by Bush

Election 2004 John Kerry 2004

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 03:12 PM

The BBC, as usual.

Quote

John Kerry has accused President Bush of failing to do enough to get the world support needed to win peace in Iraq. In a weekly radio address to Democrats Mr Kerry said the Bush administration had to change its strategy in Iraq.

Quote

Mr Kerry called for a new UN-backed mission to help rebuild Iraq, with a Nato security force under US command keeping order.

"The president may not want to admit mistakes, but his choices in Iraq have so far produced a tragedy of errors," he said. "Staying the course does not mean stubbornly holding to the wrong course."

In the address, taped in Pittsburgh, on Friday, he added: "The failure of the administration to internationalise the conflict has lost us time, momentum and credibility and made America less safe."

The BBC's Jannat Jalil, in Washington, says this is an attempt by John Kerry, just seven months before an election that's too close to call, to show how he would deal with the mounting violence and casualties in Iraq.

The volatile situation there could become one of the most important issues in this year's presidential election campaign. This is a big concern for the current administration as the latest opinion polls indicate public support for Mr Bush's handling of Iraq is slipping.

But it is hard to see countries sending troops to Iraq given the current violence there and President Bush has already embraced the plan that would give the United Nations a more prominent role in Iraq, our correspondent adds.


#2 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 03:48 PM

Nice  So John boy what would you do? have the UN send in it's peacekeepers ...Wait we are already there. Have the UN make a resalution to send in more troops? Wait that's been done. So John Kerry so wise and all knowing what would you do?

Besides "Differently"

Edited by G1223, 17 April 2004 - 03:49 PM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#3 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:58 PM

[quote name='G1223' date='Apr 17 2004, 01:46 PM']Nice  So John boy what would you do? have the UN send in it's peacekeepers ...Wait we are already there.[/quote]
There are no UN peacekeepers in Iraq.

[quote]Have the UN make a resalution to send in more troops? Wait that's been done.[/quote]

There have been no resolutions to send in troops. You're 0 for 2 there, G.

However...

[quote]From the article:
Mr Kerry called for a new UN-backed mission to help rebuild Iraq, with a Nato security force under US command keeping order.[/quote]

I wouldn't want a US led peacekeeping force either. The mess in Iraq should be opened up for the UN to take it's best shot at (so to speak), or left to the countries currently in Iraq to sort out. Sending in NATO under a US commander would just be a way to shift the blame (and some of the expense) to others, while still letting America make the decisions.
Per aspera ad astra

#4 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 07:04 PM

Quote

There have been no resolutions to send in troops.

That ain't so.

Cribbed from a previous post of mine:

Bush tried to get UN support, and we already have UN resolution 1511, which "Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations mandate, including military forces, to the multinational force [in Iraq]."

Source: http://ods-dds-ny.un...pdf?OpenElement

That resolution passed 15-0 last October, and many countries who voted yes-- such as France and Germany-- still haven't done anything. If we can get a unanimous security resolution that the UN member states just ignore, what more can we do? Does the UN have any more authority than to 'urge' member states to send troops?

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 17 April 2004 - 07:05 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#5 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 07:18 PM

That resolution is a mighty leaky boat. ;) It doesn't commit member nations to do anything, but only urges them to contribute. 1511 was a diplomatic victory for the US, at that time, but not a practical one.

It's telling that the resolution is written in such weasely language, with only voluntary committments specified. The various governments involved wouldn't agree to anything more binding.

Edited by Kevin Street, 17 April 2004 - 07:19 PM.


#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 12:14 PM

Kevin Street, on Apr 17 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

That resolution is a mighty leaky boat. ;) It doesn't commit member nations to do anything, but only urges them to contribute. 1511 was a diplomatic victory for the US, at that time, but not a practical one.

It's telling that the resolution is written in such weasely language, with only voluntary committments specified. The various governments involved wouldn't agree to anything more binding.
Can the UN literally force a member nation to send troops?

Resolution 665, which authorized the first gulf war, uses the word 'invites' and 'requests' to ask member states to contribute troops. If anything, that language is weaker than 'urges'.

Source: http://ods-dds-ny.un...pdf?OpenElement

The reality, of course, is that the member nations have other diplomatic concerns... but it shouldn't be forgotten that "No UN Authorization" is just an excuse; we've got it. <It also shows that other member states don't take UN security resolutions that seriously, which is something they can agree with the US on...>. How do we know that if we go through the UN process-- again-- we won't get yet another authorizaiton for help, but no actual help?

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 18 April 2004 - 12:15 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 18 April 2004 - 12:59 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 18 2004, 10:12 AM, said:

<It also shows that other member states don't take UN security resolutions that seriously, which is something they can agree with the US on...>. How do we know that if we go through the UN process-- again-- we won't get yet another authorizaiton for help, but no actual help?
I don't know. :( This is a serious problem, as the Iraq war has highlighted. We (as in the world "we") need to get serious about the UN and international law if we want to make progress toward making this a better world, but all the nations continue to use the UN as a tool, manipulating resolutions and agreements to suit their needs at the moment, instead of treating the General Assembly as a place to actually solve problems. In situations that no one cares about like Cyprus, the UN peacekeeping model works well, but in situations like Iraq the system breaks down entirely. France and Germany certainly did themselves and the world no favors when they agreed to resolutions like 1511 that they had no intention of completely following.

Aw crap, maybe I was wrong in my first post. If a UN peacekeeping mission (under US command if that's the only way to do it) can succeed in Iraq, then that might help restore some legitimacy to the UN and the concept of cooperation in International affairs.

EDIT: But establishing such a force would be an extremely delicate balancing act between actually keeping the peace and furthering the ideal of democratic self government for Iraq. Indeed, a peaceful Iraq may not be a democratic one, and vice versa. In such a situation the UN might be forced to choose between maintaining the status quo and furthering democracy. It would be a difficult mission.

Edited by Kevin Street, 18 April 2004 - 01:14 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, John Kerry, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users