[Kazan]

one of my fiance's political science classes was having an argument about whether Kerry could get togeather a coalition or not


Please Answer to poll question with the two following assumptions:
1) Assuming John Kerry was elected president
2) Assuming he had a good plan to resolve the iraqi situation soon and begin more serious rebuilding


---------

one of the votes under "Yes, financial aid to Iraqi rebuilding, and limited troops (protect election inspectors" is me... perhaps i'm just being optimistic (i also needed to make it so i don't ahve to click on the bloody "view results" every fscking time)

[aldo_14]

I doubt it.  I think it'd be very difficult to win back international trust over Iraq now.... public opinion is such that most countries involved now want to back out, and those that aren't don't want to be involved.

I think the best chance would be turn over a vast deal of control to the UN and, once free and fair (independently verified) elections were completed to allow the Iraqi government to make their own appeals and rebuilding arrangements.

[Rictor]

Yes, a bit of financial aid, no additional troops. In fact, what will most likely happen is a constant drip-drip of troops leaving, especially after the elections.

I think the financial aid will come mostly from south-east asia and eastern europe, but thats just my hunch.

[Kazan]

well remember John Kerry != George Bush

the argument was whether it's possible _at_ _all_.  Some people seem to think that foreign countries are somehow unable to grasp that President A != President B and that while you didn't get along with one you may get along with the other.

[Kazan]

*cough* people who voted no post

[ChronoReverse]

It'll take a bloody miracle to pull the situation up from the cesspool it has fallen into.  It won't be so much that Kerry will fail to convince more/better international support but that international support will shy away from the situation.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I know this might seem a bit harsh but I think that america and Britan should have no say whatsoever in what happens in Iraq.

I reckon aldo's pretty much nailed the best way forward.

The US's motivations for being in Iraq will always be under scrutiny due to the vast number of lies the current administration has conjured up for being there.
[/color]

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
well remember John Kerry != George Bush

the argument was whether it's possible _at_ _all_.  Some people seem to think that foreign countries are somehow unable to grasp that President A != President B and that while you didn't get along with one you may get along with the other.

My point is that Iraq is now a great bloody mess, and sending troops is virtually political suicide - regardless of who is in charge of the US force.  Financially... simply because there's little real motivation for countries to do so that i can think of.  Unless the tendering process for contracts,etc, is nullified and handed over to whatever government takes over in Iraq, of course.

[Kie99]

Gah! Let's just give 'em some money, have independent verification in a presidential elections then p155 off out of there!

[Rictor]

The reason why I don't think there will be additional troops is because no one is going to send troops who does not already have them in there, if they are not under UN control, and the US will not relinquish control, so....

I'm also looking forward to the "partial elections" that have been hinted at. You see, we can't actually hold elections everywhere, no no. Certain areas will likely not have elections, due to err...security concerncs. And apparently, this may very well include Baghdad, since  its not particularly safe you see. Quite brilliant if I do say so myself.

[ChronoReverse]

Don't forget the U.N. doesn't really want control of the mess right now too.  Thay'll be willing to take it if the situation settles down a bit (not that I blame them).

[Kazan]

the only effective plan/good plan would be one that makes it _not_ a cesspool


and i know the elections are a shame.. or as bush has them planned they're a sham

hopefully kerry gets elected and we can do better than we have

[IceFire]

Yes to financial aid...and no to troops.  Pretty much what Canada's policy is right now.

What SHOULD have happened and what Kerry has been saying and Bush has been denying was a bad idea is that the UN peacekeeping force should have been in there right after major conflict was declared over.  The first thing is that the Peackeeping force is made of different units than the traditional army...more sensitive to issues in the country and better equipped for getting people what they needed.  They may not have prevented an insurgency but they'd have less people pissed off at the occupied force.

When your occupier is a multinational force from countries across the globe...it should look a little different than US flags and symbols everywhere.  They are conditioned against that...

[vyper]

No financial aid, Troops only to protect British contractors and UN election observers.

No further conventional acts of war to be supported unless evidence is irrefutable.

[Kazan]

im reading a dispropotionate number of "yes" responses than i see votes in the poll..

[vyper]

Because you haven't covered options like the one I posted.

[Kazan]

good call.. i should have put a "yes, other" option

[magatsu1]

I said yeah 'cos he couldn't really do any worse. I can't really see America withdrawing troops either. Seems like more are needed.

[Kazan]

tactically speaking more are needed before they can be pulled out

[Nuke]

hey, ya left out nuke em'. i as an american want proof that our nuclear arsonal, with the billions of tax dollars that are used to maintain it, are still in good working order.