> Kerry will, mark my words, be willing to sacrifice the lives of U.S.
> troops and Iraqis as a price for his staying in office. Johnson and
> Nixon did it with regard to Vietnam, and Bush is currently doing it
> with regard to Iraq.
Well, we'll see, if Kerry wins. U.S. imperialism is definitely facing some severe problems these days; we're far from the situation a couple of years ago when a lot of people were wringing their hands and moaning that the American Colossus was going to dominate the world forever.
In line with the current fashion on LBO for online wagering, I'll wager $0.05 that the "coalition of the willing" will have been forced out of Iraq by November 2, and the presidential campaign will have descended to a bitter argument over "who lost Iraq." Of course, it's hard to estimate how fast the future will evolve, so perhaps it will take longer than that, but either Bush or Kerry, whoever wins, will definitely be compelled to leave Iraq. The important question is: do you like the direction that Bush's foreign policy will take at that point, or Kerry's? You have to choose one or the other -- sorry, but Nader is not going to the White House.
> The point you make that we shouldn't believe what Kerry says in
> his campaign speeches about Iraq (or anything else for that matter)
> because they are, after all, filled with campaign rhetoric is a truly
> bankrupt argument.
So you think we *can* believe what candidates say? I envy you for your naivete, but I''ve just been around the bend with this quadrennial dog-and-pony show too many times to share it. (My first vote in a presidential election was cast for Johnson, because he was supposed to be the "peace" candidate. Remember the little girl pulling petals off the daisy? But I was only a kid then.)
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax