Assume Kerry becomes president and a dirty bomb is exploded in New York during his second year in office. It is suspected that the terrorist group responsible originates in Syria. The Syrian government refuses to assist the US.

How do you think he'd react?

Dont know. If its only suspected, should he do anything after being such a critic of Bush for his lack of evidence?

Hillary Clinton is going to be his VP to set her up for the run on 08. Democrats would go ape shit if he asks her to run with him. I heard Mort on Fox ranting about it so you know it must be a good idea.

You think he will pull us out of Iraq?

I think Hillary would be a great choice for him. Is that realistic though? From her comments and actions, she has seemed interested in building her political career a little more slowly. Is Kerry that bold?

Tough call on Iraq. I have no idea. The political risk in Kerry pulling the troops out might be worse than him leaving them there.

Kerry would react by going to the U.N. for help.

Maybe. Pretty risky move. How do you think he'd react to a French veto? Walk away?

By the time he got his hair styled, smoked his first left-handed siggie of the day, and asked his bosses what to do, it would be all over...

I sense fear in you, Torone. Hair jokes?

I sense fear in you, Torone. Hair jokes?[/b][/quote]
I know it's an imposition; but have you looked at Kerry...hair styled, Botox injections, the whole nine yards. :D

He looks pretty good. I'm going to go for some Botox myself. Who the hell wants wrinkles?

He looks pretty good. I'm going to go for some Botox myself. Who the hell wants wrinkles?[/b][/quote]
Symbolism over substance...

You guys are confusing the difference between the military actions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Get back to me when you have your comparisons correct.

I have said this before and I will say it again - anyone who thinks that President Al Gore would have responded to 9/11 any less vigorously than GW has their head so far up their ass they can see their food when they chew it. I personally put it at about 60/40 that it could have proceeded down to the movement against Iraq - although I suspect that WOULD have been done differently.

Under the hypothetical posed here, if the evidence against the Syrians was even close to that against the Taliban, they would be toast.

And TE ... don't cloud the issue with relevant facts.

I agree with you completely. I also have the same assessment on Iraq and 60/40 sounds just about right to me.

Huh?

The thread didn't have anything to do with Iraq. Labret's sidebar was just that.

I would hope that Kerry would take care of Syria in a quick pace, and not pander to the UN. Of course after reading an old interview of his, he wants US troops to be part of UN forces only. This is very scary.

If we leave Iraq before the job is done there ( even if it takes 100 years). If we retreat from Iraq in the next few years, historians will look back at that as the apex of American Power. We will lose all of our credibility, not only with allies, but also enemies. We will become the biggest target in the world and the perception that we have become a soft country that cannot stick to things after a little blood shed will return. This would encourage many more of the bad guys....

I would like to think that the table has been set in Iraq and we are going to stay until it is a stable place.

I agree with you completely. I also have the same assessment on Iraq and 60/40 sounds just about right to me.[/b][/quote]
I don't think the intervention in Iraq would have been conducted the same way. I think it far more likely that Gore would have negotiated in good faith with the U.N. I think it far more likely that the coalition of the willing would have included more of the major countries in Europe (RumcNara's "old v new" hubris notwithstanding). I think a TRULY international effort could have been built (perhaps, to some extent, at Haliburton's expense). The situation would still be ugly - the Iraqi's are no more likely to accept ANY "liberators" than Buff, Carrie or Torone would if foreign troops came to liberate the U.S. from their liberaldemmacommysocialist oppressors - but the burden would be shared, and the suspicion of the U.S. and it's motives would be less.

Mike - I think you are wrong in assuming that Kerry would have "asked permission" from the U.N. to respond to a direct attack. That doesn't apply to Iraq - which has, since the deserter-in-chief appeared on Face the Nation, evolved from a "direct threat" to "wanted to be a threat."

I do agree with you completely that "If we retreat from Iraq in the next few years, historians will look back at that as the apex of American Power. We will lose all of our credibility, not only with allies, but also enemies. " What I have seen in Afghanistan does NOT make me feel very positive about things. There we have stuck a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

PD do you really think the French and Russians would have supported us in the UN if Gore was President? I really doubt it. They have their own interests at heart, which included keeping Iraq in their sphere.

I cannot see anything Gore, or even Clinton could have done to get them to change their minds ( Unless it was something drastic that would hurt US interests)

I don't think that anyone could have gotten everyone to agree on a course of action. That being said, I doubt any other President, including most Republicans, could have done as BAD a job as Bush did.

I think even the Bush Administration could have brought more countries on board the Iraq situation with a good faith effort to negotiate with the UN, or with countries individually. Juvinile chest thumping and sophomoric expressions of "patriotism" aside, the fact that we couldn't even get Mexico and Canada to agree with the course we took speaks volumes about how poorly the diplomacy was conducted (although any Western Hemisphere country from Mexico south has plenty of good reasons to not want to see a resurgence in unilateral U.S. military excursions).

While I am not thrilled with the way Bush handled things, ( for completely opossite reasons as you I am sure) there is no way the UN was going to support the US.

Bush should not have even pandered to the UN. Then to go back a few more times, especially when we knew that France would veto no matter what was stupid.

The real question is why does France even have a permanant spot on the Security Council?

I don't think Bush "pandered" to the U.N. at all - he used it. I think Bush attempted to "pander" to domestic audiences. To the people who "wanted to believe" he made it appear that he was negotiating with the UN; to the folks who despise the UN he made it clear that he was delivering an ultimatum for action he was justifying with smoke and mirrors.

De Gaulle maintaining a free France and then his maneuvering to get France included among the victorious powers of World War II.

The desire of the US and Britain to have a continental power as a balance against Soviet power.