Bush fail's Presidential global test

therecklessone

Sorry folks, this is just too on the mark for the humour board.

oduffy

Yes, that is very funny. I supported the invasion of Iraq as a response to the September the 11th attacks but now I'm not so sure.

The Iraqi invasion may yet prove to be an unmitigated disaster, if the country doesn't stabilise very soon. Recent reports of problems in the US Army aren't encouraging. It seems that defeating terrorism on a global level is impossible without securing consensus in the UN Security Council. I definitely now think that US and British Unilateralism won't work and any other unilateral invasions, that is, without the consensus of the UN, are wrong. Bringing stability to Iraq must involve European input.

Is the Iraqi invasion the last hurrah for 'US/British' Unilateral action??? I certainly hope so. Global Crises have to be solved in the UN rather than solely in the White House or Downing Street.

The big question now is - what direction will US foreign policy take after the election??? If Bush is re-elected will the US foreign policy arrogence remain??? Or if John Kerry is elected will there be an improvement in the situation in Iraq???

SkepticOne

I would not expect to see much change in Iraq regardless of who wins. Elections of some description will be held in January but bombings and kidnappings by local warlords and outside fanatics will continue. These will be met by reprisals by US forces which, like the bombings by insurgents, mostly hurts ordinary Iraqis.

Kerry may have more success in getting international UN support in stabilising the situation though, but this may not make much difference to the Iraqis on the ground.

the_syco

SkepticOne wrote:

Kerry may have more success in getting international UN support in stabilising the situation though, but this may not make much difference to the Iraqis on the ground.

If you check his policies, you'll see he want to pull back troops, and make the US safe. That would mean pulling troops out of everywhere. South Korea would be f*cked, along with alot of other countries. He may have changed it since, but if not, the world will be worse off (not just Iraq; everywhere).

SkepticOne

the_syco wrote:

If you check his policies, you'll see he want to pull back troops, and make the US safe. That would mean pulling troops out of everywhere. South Korea would be f*cked, along with alot of other countries. He may have changed it since, but if not, the world will be worse off (not just Iraq; everywhere).

I'm not defending Kerry just commenting likely effect of his election on Iraq specifically. Both of the candidates would like to have the burden of Iraq eased through more UN involvement (though they may differ as to other commitments). I just see Kerry being more successful in persuading the international community as he doesn't have Bush's baggage.

ColoradoGal

I totally agree, oh skepic one :-)

Moriarty

the_syco wrote:

If you check his policies, you'll see he want to pull back troops, and make the US safe. That would mean pulling troops out of everywhere. South Korea would be f*cked, along with alot of other countries. He may have changed it since, but if not, the world will be worse off (not just Iraq; everywhere).

I think you've picked up Kerry's policy statements wrong. He's never said he'll pull the troops out of Iraq to the detriment of the operation. Further, he's never said large scale disengagement of the US military around the world is one of his objectives (or anything even close to that).

Unless you can show me where he said what you said in your quote above, of course.

pork99

Even some conservatives are getting worried about Bush's state of mental health