You may want to re-think yourself if you think that Kerry and Edwards are going to stop fighting in Iraq. Edwards spoke to America's foes in his acceptance speech:

“You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.”

Regarding the war in Iraq, Edwards declared that America will “win” by using more special forces, a modernized military and stronger alliances. That’s mighty tough talk, especially for someone who voted against funding all those things.

Some may think America could do no worse in Iraq than it is now doing. I disagree. I think it would do much worse — under the plans outlined by Kerry.

The Democratic candidate wants to leave American forces in Iraq but make them part of a NATO-led force. And he wants to turn administration of the country over to something he calls an “international high commissioner” appointed by the United Nations.

So, American men and women still would be dying in Iraq, but our nation’s leaders — both political and military — would lose a large measure of their freedom to choose targets, shape policy, decide when to advance or retreat and whom to support as Iraq’s future leadership.

Is this really the guy that you want to be in charge of US forces during this time in history? Think about it....

Karankawa, the only liberals who want to pull our troops out now, are the far-far-left ones. The vast majority of liberals, think going into Iraq was a mistake. But we understand we cannot pick up and leave, since we have already started it. Which is exactly why we want John Kerry in the white house. He has worked on the Foreign relations committee in the Senate, and he knows how get the world on our side. The world hates George Bush, and they will trust John Kerry. He will make it a lot easier to win the peace in Iraq, and that is what we need.

80% of the democrats delegates were against the war in Iraq. Even Kerry can't commit to that.

There are viable alternatives to what is offering between Bush and Kerry (which is essentially the same thing). Stay the course, fight to win.

Remove U.S. troops & corporate influence and bring an international peace keeping force. Why don't we do that? I think it would work better then the dynamic that exists between U.S. troops and the Iraqi people now. There is too much bitterness, too much anomosity. WE can diffuse this anger by leaving.

There has never been a country that has benefited after a U.S. occupation. We are not a nation that is good in building stable countries, we should just remove ourselves before we do any more damage.

Originally posted by Pepper
There has never been a country that has benefited after a U.S. occupation. We are not a nation that is good in building stable countries, we should just remove ourselves before we do any more damage.

Yeah, if only we could have made Germany and Japan in to viable democratic economic success stories. :rolleyes:

Remove U.S. troops & corporate influence and bring an international peace keeping force. Why don't we do that? I think it would work better then the dynamic that exists between U.S. troops and the Iraqi people now. There is too much bitterness, too much anomosity. WE can diffuse this anger by leaving.

LOL...

But it is, however, sad laughter.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Yeah, if only we could have made Germany and Japan in to viable democratic economic success stories. :rolleyes:

How many other nations have we invaded? how many others are such viable democraticly economic success stories? Haiti? Panama? Grenada?

And you have a point with Japan, but Germany was a European effort as much as a U.S effort. Generally the U.S. foreign policy is much kinder to industrialized nations (how many times have we invaded countries in Europe) and more hostile to third world, or developing countries. (how many countries have we invaded in latin America).

Originally posted by The Praetorian
LOL...

But it is, however, sad laughter.

Sad because of the needless slaughter that is going on in Iraq right now? Sad because troops are coming home with terrible physical and neurological injuries not found in any other war? Sad because the billions of tax payer dollars are going to corporate profiteers like Halliburton, and private security forces?

What is your suggestion?

did you ever think maybe the reults had somehing to do with the drive and desire of the peple living in those countries?

Sad because of the needless slaughter that is going on in Iraq right now? Sad because troops are coming home with terrible physical and neurological injuries not found in any other war? Sad because the billions of tax payer dollars are going to corporate profiteers like Halliburton, and private security forces?
Just another anti-war protester, huh?

This has SO been discussed before...
It almost becomes daunting having to delve into the same rebuttals I've given in the past to substantiate my current beliefs. Read some other threads, Pepper.

Oh well, the people that can't see beyond their noses are of no use to society, anyway, and that's why they aren't put into the position of making decisions. Sorry, but the truth hurts…:(

Originally posted by Pepper
How many other nations have we invaded? how many others are such viable democraticly economic success stories? Haiti? Panama? Grenada?

Did we even try to rebuild any of those countries? I don't know that we did.

I think you're going the wrong way with your analysis of industrialized vs. developing. Why haven't we invaded more industrialized nations? Because most of them have it pretty well together. Why are we more successful with industrialized nations? Not because of the harshness of our plans, but as Trav points out, the attitudes of the people there and of course the infrastructure that can be utilized in recovery.