John Laughland: If it's war you want, then go Democrats

20apr04

AS the Bush administration comes under increasing fire for its decision to attack Iraq, Democratic contender John Kerry is profiting from his perceived status as a critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy.

A patrician grandee with a pleasing mix of liberal and patriotic views might seem to many Americans a welcome relief from the bellicose Texan with his faux swagger and his team of men who seem to have military-industrial complex written across their menacing foreheads. But if anti-war Americans do elect Kerry for that reason, they will have duped themselves. Warmongering will be worse under Kerry than under Bush and real peaceniks should therefore vote for Dubya. Bush and Kerry agree on almost everything in foreign policy but, where they disagree, Kerry is more hawkish.

Kerry's statements on foreign policy and homeland security, for example, have attacked Bush as a wet. Kerry said in February: "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror. I believe he's done too little."

Kerry voted for the war on Iraq and continues to support it wholeheartedly. He said last December that those who continue to oppose the war "don't have the judgment to be president -- or the credibility to be elected president". Kerry does not even say that Bush has jeopardised US security by attacking Iraq instead of facing down the al-Qa'ida threat; he is not Richard Clarke. Instead, Kerry says: "No one can doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

On December 17, Kerry lent credence to the loony theory that Iraq was the author of the September 11 attacks, something Bush has done at least twice. Yet in February Kerry attacked Bush for planning to hand back power to the Iraqis too quickly -- what he called "a cut and run" strategy -- even though Bush intends the US embassy in Iraq to be the biggest US embassy in the world and even though 110,000 US troops are to remain stationed there indefinitely.

Above all, Kerry is, like Bush, committed to the world military supremacy of the US. "We must never retreat from having the strongest military in the world," says the possible future president. Kerry claims that Bush has weakened the military and so he has promised 40,000 more active-duty army troops.

Kerry is more hawkish than Bush about the threat from Islam in general and about Saudi Arabia in particular. Both of these are favourite neo-conservative themes. While Bush has often emphasised that the US has no quarrel with Islam, Kerry happily speaks about the specific danger to the US from the Islamic world, using language that is not substantially different from that in the latest neo-con manifesto, An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum.

Kerry explicitly lists certain populations as representing a special danger to the US - Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indonesians and Pakistanis - and he reproaches Bush's grandiose plan to democratise the entire Middle East not for its overweening ambition but for its timidity.

Kerry has attacked the Bush administration for adopting a kid gloves approach to the Saudi kingdom, which he has repeatedly accused of complicity in the funding of Islamic extremism and terror, and he has said the Saudi interior minister is guilty of "hate speech" and of promoting "wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". This recalls Frum and Perle's surprising classification of Saudi Arabia as "an unfriendly power". Serious neo-cons, indeed, might be calculating that the bungling Bush is more of a liability than an asset for their desire to remodel the Middle East and to consolidate the US's unchallenged military power.

Kerry might be just what they need to draw the sting of that left-wing anti-Americanism around the world and in the US that inspires so much anti-war feeling. The Kosovo war showed that a war for human rights and against oppression, fought by a slick Democrat, plays far better with world public opinion than all that red-neck bull about dangers to national security. It will be far easier for president Kerry to fight new wars than for the mistrusted and discredited Bush. So to those who think that the election of a Democratic president will put an end to US militarism, I say: You ain't seen nothin' yet.

John Laughland is a trustee of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group. A longer version of this appeared in The Spectator.

privacy The Australian

<a href='http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9328751%5E7583,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...%5E7583,00.html</a>

Kerry is probably unlikely to start invading countries anytime soon. And I don't think any reasonable Americans would seriously agree with the proposition "Voting for Kerry is a vote for war."

Kerry may talk the tough talk given the political climate of the day but he will not run willy-nilly into powder kegs in order to assert his presence of authority.

He should invade Australia just because that article was SOOOOOO stupid.

Oddball Wrote:He should invade Australia just because that article was SOOOOOO stupid.

If kerry invaded Australia, i guarantee we leave in 24 hours at first sign of guerrilla Kangaroos.

Yeah, the Vietnam Combat Vet will be so much less tough than a draft dodging deserter. :laugh:

You mean the traitor to Veterans and the one that put himself in for 3 of the 4 Purple Hearts? 4 damn months, yeah, my ****** he was wounded that many times by hostile fire. What, papercuts?

Well, we're all a bit dumber for having read that, Kev. :rolleyes:

For the record, Kerry won a Silver Star for bravery, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam. What did Bush do during that war?

Contrary to popular belief serving your country is more than just a couple ribbons and medals.

Oh, serving in Vietnam courageously, fighting to end the war when he got back, and then spending the rest of his life as an elected official isn't enough for you? But having daddy's rich friends pull strings to get you in the guard, where you refuse to take a physical due to your drug use, then going AWOL on your unit is? :rolleyes:

Yeah, there's nothing like comparing apples to oranges. Thanks for the recap of the conservative talk show position, cons.

Running scared to the TANG tops actually having served in Vietnam anyday.

Black is white.

Day is night.

Wrong is right.

Now I got it!

Oddball Wrote:Yeah, the Vietnam Combat Vet will be so much less tough than a draft dodging deserter. :laugh:

My point is Kerry has a very well laid out voting record against miltary spending and the first Gulf War. He has voted against every defense bill known to man since he went to the Senate, bills even Kennedy voted for. He will be weak on defense, like his lib predecessor. If you dont beleive it look up the voting record.

Whose voting record? Kerry's or his lib predecessor?

Clinton spent money on the military like it was going out of style! You mean, him?

joebordenrebel Wrote:Whose voting record? Kerry's or his lib predecessor?

Clinton spent money on the military like it was going out of style! You mean, him?

Clinton did what? When? I have a list of what he did to the military, and it wasn't spending money on it! I will have to find it and post it tomorrow!


I know the anticipation will kill you! :bang:

joebordenrebel Wrote:Whose voting record? Kerry's or his lib predecessor?

Clinton spent money on the military like it was going out of style! You mean, him?

Kind of like his spending on social programs, that neither help people make a living and raise my taxes. Ill spent and not directed where needed.

God I love being right.

You know, it's so much better than being wrong. :wave:

<a href='http://www.prop1.org/2000/97pentag.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.prop1.org/2000/97pentag.htm</a>

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.

20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114
NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND
SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND
LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
IS THIS COUNTRY.......

RUSSIA ? NO

CHINA ? NO

GREAT BRITAIN ? NO

FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN

MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG

GIVE UP



?


THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED
DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.


..... SLEEP WELL!

GrayBeard Wrote:709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.

20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114
NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND
SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND
LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
IS THIS COUNTRY.......

RUSSIA ? NO

CHINA ? NO

GREAT BRITAIN ? NO

FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN

MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG

GIVE UP



?


THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED
DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.


..... SLEEP WELL!

Ouch that hurts :chair:

:ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd: :ownd:

joebordenrebel Wrote:God I love being right.

You know, it's so much better than being wrong. :wave:

<a href='http://www.prop1.org/2000/97pentag.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.prop1.org/2000/97pentag.htm</a>

I doubt that you, elsiethebordencow, or cueball, have ever experienced the sensation of being right rather than wrong, but maybe, someday, one or both of you will have a true appreciation of just how good it feels to finally be right about something. In the interim, you are wrong again here, as you almost always are. When you are finally right about something, anything, one of your superiors will let you know.

Meanwhile, pay attention; God isn't telling you you were right. He's telling the right is right.