GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 09, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 09, 2004.

Well, so muh for the Po-Kerry argument that goes like " At leats we woudln habe hadan Iraq war..."

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 09, 2004.

There may still have been a war eventually, but it’s unlikely we would have made enemies of our traditional allies, trashed the UN, ignored the Pope, and gone in blindly with guns blazing but no idea what to do once we took over. The resolution was to give the president the authority to declare war if and when it became necessary, not to demand immediate war.

Meanwhile Bush continues refusing to answer the same question, whether he would have still insisted on war if he had known there were no WMDs.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 10, 2004.

"There may still have been a war eventually, but it’s unlikely we would have made enemies of our traditional allies, trashed the UN, ignored the Pope, and gone in blindly with guns blazing but no idea what to do once we took over. The resolution was to give the president the authority to declare war if and when it became necessary, not to demand immediate war. "

Yes Steve. We all know what a great Catholic John Kerry is and how he follows what the pope says.lol Is their any war where guns arn't "blazing"?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 10, 2004.

appears to grasp how big the Democratic candidate's statement was yesterday, in this front-page article:

John F. Kerry for the first time yesterday said he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001... The Massachusetts senator also sought to clear up a conflict in his campaign rhetoric about partially withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Kerry has said throughout the year that, by the end of his first term in 2008, he hoped to replace some US troops with new military complements from European and Muslim nations. In an interview on National Public Radio on Friday, however, he said he would aim to achieve that goal by next summer.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 10, 2004.

By the way, European leaders yesterday said basically to forget the idea that they would be replacing US troops. I guess Kerry doesn't have the clout with the Europeans he thought he had.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 10, 2004.

From the Los Angeles Times: In short, Kerry has staked his Iraq policy on the idea that he can convince allies to contribute more troops to stabilize Iraq. Lawmakers in Europe are saying that they’re not likely to contribute much, no matter how much they love President Kerry.

Kerry's proposals depend on changing the minds of foreign leaders who do not want to defy their electorates by sending forces into what many consider to be a U.S.-made mess. "I understand why John Kerry is making proposals of this kind, but there is a lack of realism in them," Menzies Campbell, a British lawmaker who is a spokesman on defense issues for the Liberal Democratic Party, said in a typical comment.

Many allied countries may welcome a new team in Washington after years of friction with the Bush administration. But foreign leaders are making it clear they don't want to add enough of their own troops to allow U.S. forces to scale back to a minority share in Iraq, as Kerry has proposed.

Allies say they are ready to consider further financial aid and other help for the fragile new Iraqi government. But some officials overseas already are fretting about Kerry's talk of burden-shifting.

"Some Europeans are rather concerned that Mr. Kerry might have expectations for relief [from abroad] that are going to be hard to meet," said one senior European diplomat in a statement echoed in several capitals.

some key countries have already ruled out providing troops, and others are badly strained from the deployments they have already made.

The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question. British officials have made no such categorical statement, but they have expressed concern that their troops are overstretched.

Although Japan has supplied a 550-member noncombat force as a symbol of its international commitment, analysts there see little chance the nation would agree to send more.

Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Andrei Denisov, ruled out a commitment of troops. "We are not going to send anybody there, and that's all there is to say," Denisov said.

"From the major European countries, there's simply not a lot of available troops out there, for both practical and political reasons," said Christopher Makins, president of the Atlantic Council of the United States, which supports U.S. engagement abroad.

Many allied countries have a limited number of troops suitable for the Iraq mission, and most of those are already deployed on other missions, including in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Africa, Makins said.

Dana Allin of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said, "I think there's no question, in general, you'll find it easier to get cooperation from allies if there is a new [U.S.] administration." But Allin added that if new troops were to be sent to Iraq "it's unclear where they would come from."

Kerry has at times said he would particularly like to bring in troops from Arab countries. But diplomats, including those from Arab nations, say they consider the scenario unlikely. The Iraqi interim government has for months excluded the possibility of any peacekeeping troops coming from immediate neighbors, in part because the Iraqi people would be suspicious of neighbors' intentions.

The recent collapse of a Saudi proposal to bring in peacekeeping troops from other Arab and Muslim countries also indicates the long odds against the idea.

Senior Iraqi officials told U.S. officials this summer that they opposed the idea of bringing in additional troops from any foreign country.

Campbell, the British lawmaker, added that Kerry "has to overcome the very considerable barrier of the fact that he himself voted for military action in support of President Bush."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 10, 2004.

Thanks Bill.

Steve?... Please stick with Catholic theology. The moment you open your mouth about geopolitics and history is the moment you walk off the plank into the water.

"There may still have been a war eventually, but it’s unlikely we would have made enemies of our traditional allies"

Steven, please. Both the French and the Germans consider themselves our allies still. NATO is still active in Afganistan, and Germany still has special forces up there. Obviously our relations are strained...but hey, "allies" aren't the same thing as vassals, France's hyperbole about us being their "Hyper-power OVERLORD" notwithstanding.

"trashed the UN"? Really? Resolution 1441 was US trashing the UN? How about the UN Security Council states trashing the UN by refusing to enforce their own unanimous resolutions when doing so would jeopordize their own military-industrial complexes actively engaged in ILLEGAL ARMS smuggling and other activities under the corrupt Oil- for-food programme? WE DIDN'T TRASH THE UN, THEY TRASHED THEMSELVES.

"ignored the Pope" Um, no. "We" as in the Bush administration sent envoys to him, heard him out, and responded using classic Catholic Just war theory - that's hardly a case of US ignoring him. Catholic moral teaching was followed to a T not dismissed as it was by Klinton and the Europeans throughout the 1990's. But as we've exhaustively shown you, people can honestly disagree about prudential decisions.

"and gone in blindly with guns blazing but no idea what to do once we took over." Wait a second? I thought it was all a conspiracy by the neocons who had been scheming about taking over the world since 1992? You confuse the actions of the other side with our planning. Not everything - even in politics - goes as planned. Even on the little league playing field games NEVER go as planned. We had reams of plans about Iraq - some worked, some didn't. Our military adapted and we're stronger for it. But liberals never look at their failures as a lack of planning - it's all cynicism and criticism without any warrant. And alot of your agnst is based on propaganda - such as the sacking of the museaums (which DIDN'T HAPPEN).

"The resolution was to give the president the authority to declare war if and when it became necessary, not to demand immediate war." Yes Steve, and tell me WHEN WAS THE RESOLUTION MADE? February 2003? NO! OCTOBER 2002! And when was the war actually launched? Steve? March 2003! How is THAT FOR IMMEDIATE WARFARE? 6 MONTHS OF LEAD TIME IS "IMMEDIATE"?????!!!

Every single affirmation you make about this is wrong Steve. Eventually you're going to have to choose to either accept that you've based your opinion on attitude and emotion and false stories or resolve to give up sanity altogether and join the wacko-left in la la land.

I know. Preception is reality and if my "tone" is uncomfortable to you, I must be wrong because feelings are all that matter, not reasons or facts. Sucks to be me. Huh?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 10, 2004.

No David, I don’t think Kerry’s a “great Catholic” but he did indicate that he would listen to the Pope’s counsel on this issue at least. Yes all wars have "guns blazing" but there’s got to be more to the strategy than just shooting til the enemy gives up. If there’s no coherent plan for winning the peace, it’s pointless “winning” the war.

“European leaders yesterday said basically to forget the idea that they would be replacing US troops.” Yes, as my mother used to say, “You made the mess, so you clean it up.”

Joe, why should I confine myself strictly to Catholic theology? No- one else here does. And though my grasp of geopolitics and history is far from perfect, it seems way ahead of the simplistic slogans of most here (yourself excepted, until your last post). By “trashed the UN" I meant we metaphorically threw the UN’s messages into the trash can. I never mentioned anything about "sacking museums" and "neocons planning to take over the world" – you must have me confused with someone else. Nor did I say that Bush made war “immediately” after the resolution, merely that if Kerry had been in charge, war, if it did come, would have taken longer and without putting offside our traditional allies. I’m disappointed that you feel you have to descend to personally disparaging remarks; I had previously respected you for debating on the facts, even when I disagreed with you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 10, 2004.

Come on Steve, you said: "The resolution was to give the president the authority to declare war if and when it became necessary, not to demand immediate war. "

Thus, you affirmed as true that the President demanded immediate war - when in fact, and in history, HE DID NOT

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

Steve, when you claim "By “trashed the UN" I meant we metaphorically threw the UN’s messages into the trash can." I have to ask you how metaphorically you think as opposed to objectively (and hence, how much of your opposition is based not on facts of the case but on analogies)?

What pray tell was "the UN's messages"? The whole UN passed resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq come clean on its WMDs. The inspectors sent in were notary publics more than detectives. They were there to sign off on the Iraqi government's compliance or no.

And the "message" was that Iraq was definately NOT coming clean and thus was in breach of international law and hence was opening itself to "serious consequences".

Now the French may quibble what that means but think: if the embargo on Iraq which the Iraqis played up as horrible for their "poor children" even though food and medicines where never part of the embargo, was claimed to be immoral and bad, the worse thing the UN can do short of war....what other possible "serious consequences" remained in the UN grab bag other than war?

I kept hearing people piously talk about "diplomatic action" as though this has some intelligible content - but I was in Europe during the atrocities in the Balkans - and all the diplomatic action in the world didn't save the hundreds of thousands of Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians from Serbian death squads.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

Joe, I’m not going to re-debate the whole morality of the war, I was just making the point that if Kerry (or indeed just about anybody except Bush-Cheney) had been in charge, we may still have had a war eventually but under very different circumstances. I apologise for my loose use of the words “trashed” and “immediate”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.

This is said really. Now the difference between Bush and Kerry is down to the moral line. So in that case Bush must be reelected. Or maybe I should go vote for the Constitution party.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.

Ah I get it. So had any one but Bush been president and the war had begun 5 months LATER, by the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese (but NOT the USA) and blessed by the Security Council, it would magically have become both legal and moral? Is that right?

Now according to Catholic Just war theory, why is the above scenario moral whereas what happened was not? What ontological difference is there between giving Iraq 6 months to come clean and giving Iraq 12 months when all that was asked was the simple cataloguing of what weapons they had, when they destroyed them, where, how, and by whom. Piece of cake stuff considering that the stuff in question could all fit in 2 box cars!

What makes an extra 6 or even 12 more months of diplomacy (after 12 YEARS) to be the "last resort"? And who makes the call for whom?

I'm sorry Steve, I really am...but those who condemn the war as immoral or unjust really don't have an intellectual basis for claiming this based on scripture, tradition, or magisterial documents! Merely affirming dislike or disdain doesn't a Catholic dogmatic position make!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.

"Ah I get it. So had any one but Bush been president and the war had begun 5 months LATER, by the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese (but NOT the USA) and blessed by the Security Council, it would magically have become both legal and moral? Is that right?"

No, no, no, Joe. You tried that tactic before. Removing ONE impediment to the war being moral, would not magically make it moral and remove all the other impediments.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I HAVE based my arguments on "scripture, tradition, or magisterial documents" and have NOT "Merely affirmed dislike or disdain" as if that proved anything.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

I'm sorry Steve. I guess I don't know how to read. What scriptures are you quoting as basis for deciding that the US liberation of Iraq was categorically immoral?

For that matter, what "Tradition" of the Catholic Church do you routinely invoke as basis for this conclusion?

Thanks

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

"My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I'm voting for you to do what you said you're going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process. If you go unilaterally, without having exhausted these remedies, I'm not supporting you. And if you decide that this is just a matter of straight pre-emptive doctrine for regime-change purposes without regard to the imminence of the threat, I'm not going to support you." --John Kerry, October 2002.

-- Greg (noproblem@yahoomail.com), August 13, 2004.

Most intelligent Americans realize that if you want anything done right, you don't rely on the UN...we should have pulled out of the UN long ago.

As for Kerry, I doubt that he'd have any more luck with the allies than Bush did.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 13, 2004.

The Holy Father repeatedly speaks of the importance of cooperating with the UN--it's flaws notwithstanding. I don't how in the world any intelligent person can just accept a claim like "we should've pulled out of the UN a long time ago" just because somebody's convinced that "most intelligent Americans realize [it]".

A good example of the modern redefinition of "intelligence" - n. the quality of having an opinion, with which I agree

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 14, 2004.

"As long as individuals and states [refuse] to submit to the rule of our Savior, there [will] be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations" -- Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas

"Nor is there any other peace possible than that which Christ gave to His disciples" -- Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei

"And they healed the breach of the daughter of my people disgracefully, saying: Peace, peace: and there was no peace." -- St. Jeremias the Prophet (6:14)

"Peace I leave with you: my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you" --the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (St. John 14:27)

-- - (David@excite.com), August 14, 2004.

World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), August 14, 2004.