At last! Kerry's plan for the war in Iraq! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-02-2004, 07:17 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Kerry's plan is simply to get others involved. I wonder what we give up to buy the help....
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 07:21 PM   #17
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Arrogance?
A little pride?
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 07:30 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Kerry's plan is simply to get others involved. I wonder what we give up to buy the help....
Why don't we ask Bulgaria, Poland, the esteemed nation of Palau, etc?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 08:20 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:36 PM
No one in the Bush administration has ever said that the US troops could be quickly withdrawn. There are still US troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, 9 and 5 years after they were first deployed there. The United States is committed to a free and stable Iraq because of the benefits that will create for the region and world in the Middle East.

Technically, one could cut and run now, but within 10 years, troops would most likely have to return to deal with a new threat to the planets energy supply. The best way to avoid that situation is to insure that Iraq develops into a democratic, stable and prosperous country.

In order to achieve this goal, the #1 factor will not be foreign troops as Kerry proposes, or even more US troops as some propose, but the building and training of an Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force. The vast majority of people in Iraq want a better, more stable and secure life and detest the terrorism that continues to happen in the country.

The problem is that nation building is difficult and building a brand new military and security force takes TIME! It will be at least two years before you have a trained Iraqi military and police force of the size and strength needed to combat an on going insurgency.

Once the Iraqi military and police force are of a size and strength strong enough to combat the insurgency on their own, the United States will be able to start to withdraw their troops. Of course, I do not have a crystal ball, but if the efforts the Bush adminstration are continued in a second Bush administration, I think you'll start to see reductions in US forces sometime after July 2006.

Iraq by July of 2006 will have its own elected government, a first I might add in the Arab world. The first elections are planned for January 2005.

As long as there are no major problems, reductions in US forces will continue through 2007. By 2008, the United States and other coalition members will have the option of withdrawing every single person, or leaving behind a token force of no more than 20,000. More likely, there will continue to be a signifcant presence of US forces in Kuwait for some time to come.

Once again, this is all conditional on the ability of the Iraqi Military and Police force to develop in size, strength and capability to combat the insurgence on their own. Small units have already demonstrated a capability to do this. They are Iraqi's, know the language and the land, things that are indeed force multipliers regardless of less experience in other area's.

Continuing to send Billions of dollars to Iraq to help the development process is vital as well. This is a resource that the insurgence have 0 means to combat. In addition, Iraqi's are becoming increasingly angery at the insurgency who are disrupting their lives. People around the world tend to grow ever more angry at small protest groups that shit on and disrupt their lives and their property and in Iraq this is no different with the insurgence.


John Kerry has not really talked about continuing to fund the development process or the importance of training the Iraqi military force and police force. Instead, he claims that he will get large numbers of international troops into Iraq, yet does not say how he will do this or where these troops will actually come from.

The fact is, its unlikely what Bush or Kerry do in the next four years that any significant numbers of foreign troops would be deployed. Here is why:

Russia: The country is to poor and has to many of its own problems in border regions and Chechnya to send any troops, even if they were offered some magical decision making role. In addition, Russia's military is a tiny fraction of the Soviet military of 15 years ago. In addition to this, the Russians would be hard pressed to support any significant troop present that far from home. Bottom line, if John Kerry put the Russians in charge, they still would not send anything.

China: China has never deployed any significant troops to any mission outside of its territory or region in its history. China still views itself as a competitor of the west as well. It also would be hard pressed to send any significant numbers of troops thousands of miles from home.

Germany: this country has supported the operation in Afghanistan with a few thousand soldiers, but is very reliant on other countries for movement and logistical support for the operation. While its technically possible, there is such a strong political aversion to sending troops anywhere outside the country which makes the chance of sending troops into a mission in Iraq an impossibility regardless of what every magic wand Mr. Kerry claims he has in his back pocket.

France: here you have a country that can actually send and support thousands of troops, thousands of miles from their homeland independent of any other country. But a country that is unwilling to even send trainers to help Iraqi police in Iraq, is unlikely to suddenlly open up and send thousands of troops to Iraq. It should be noted that their committment to what they consider a justified operation in Afghanistan is only 550 troops.


There are currently 14 NATO countries on the ground in Iraq. Spain has left and will definitely not come back regardless of what Kerry does due to the appeasment course of policy they have taken in response to an Al Quada attack on their territory.

Japan has already sent troops, a first for them since World War II to have troops operating outside of Japan. South Korea and Australia are already involved.

The NATO countries already there believe in the cause and are committing what resources they feel they can. Kerry will not be able to get more out of them. Turkey has a large military but cannot play a role because they are a bordering country and their involvement could create unwanted tensions.

This fact with Turkey also goes for the other neighbors of Iraq; Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.

The fact is there are only a small number of countries that actually have the capability and potential desire to send troops in significant numbers, 10,000 to 20,000 each.

These countries are India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Algeria. I have strong doubts that Algeria, Egypt or Pakistan will send any troops. Algeria has not done this before, Egypt has to many domestic political concerns to consider, Pakistan also has domestic political concerns as well as being heavily engaged in a war against Al Quada and securing its border with Afghanistan in addition to keeping a large enough troop presence to deter India's 1.3 million military.

If Bush or Kerry could sweeten the deal, I do think India is a strong possibility. But even if Kerry or Bush does get 20,000 troops from India, that is a small number compared to what Kerry magically believes he can get, and the Indian troops would be somewhat dependent on the coalition for transport to the region and other logistical support.

What people seem to forget in all of this, is that most countries do not have the power projection capabilities of the United States, United Kingdom, and France, to send military forces thousands of miles from their home. All three countries have the capability to send their entire armed forces anywhere in the world independent of support from anyone.


Kerry claims he can get large numbers of foreign troops, but I would argue based on the facts that that is highly unlikely and simply impossible in most cases. Kerry actually probably realizes this, but sees the value in promising this without giving specifics in increasing his chances of getting elected President. What Kerry is suggesting in his promises of more foreign troops is simply not possible. But since most people don't understand that, it is an effective tool he can use in getting himself elected.

Ultimately what will bring success in Iraq is not the introduction of large numbers of foreign troops(that are in fact not available) but the building of the Iraqi Army and Police force to levels where they can handle the insurgency on their own. That is the only plan, that will allow the US military to withdraw from Iraq sooner rather than later.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 08:23 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Why don't we ask Bulgaria, Poland, the esteemed nation of Palau, etc?
Both countries already have troops on the ground in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 08:37 PM   #21
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 12:36 PM
BVS, go read the 'why is Kerry better than Bush' thread for the comments about voting for him to end the war.

Now all I'm getting is can't blame him Bush made the mess. Come on. If he's so great he can solve problems. So you say that if this shit continues for years you will still not trash Kerry the way you have Bush? That's soooooo biased
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:01 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart

Now all I'm getting is can't blame him Bush made the mess. Come on. If he's so great he can solve problems. So you say that if this shit continues for years you will still not trash Kerry the way you have Bush? That's soooooo biased
How does that make sence? Keeping troops and slowly getting them out of there is "solving the problem". There is no other way. Kerry didn't start it this way, and it's not like you get a clean slate when you start a term. Now if Kerry starts new problems with the war or perpetuates old ones then I'll bitch. It's like buying a house. The house may have some problems due to the previous owner's neglect, but you don't blame the new owner for the problems he inherited. Now if the new owner neglects those problems, then you can blame the new owner. So your logic of bias holds no water.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:08 PM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
BVS, go read the 'why is Kerry better than Bush' thread for the comments about voting for him to end the war.
I reread it, just to make sure and I'll be damned if I didn't find one person who said they are voting for Kerry because he's going to pull the troops out and end this war. So honestly I've asked before, because I seriously don't understand where you are coming from and I haven't gotten an answer where have you seen this? Obviously any president will eventually end this war. But you make it sound like people are saying that Kerry will pull out as soon as he is president and that's simple not true.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:17 PM   #24
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 12:36 PM
I saw more than one. Read the long winded ones too. And stop nagging on my every single word and go pick on sting2 since he's probably the only other person here you disagree with. Or is that too much trouble since he's so smart your response will have to be longer and take more research.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:33 PM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
I saw more than one. Read the long winded ones too. And stop nagging on my every single word and go pick on sting2 since he's probably the only other person here you disagree with. Or is that too much trouble since he's so smart your response will have to be longer and take more research.
If you see it as picking on you then I can't help you out there. You've brought it up in more than one thread, I've asked you where you get that and you've never answered. Debate is the nature of this forum. Believe me there are more than 2 that I disagree and I seem to debate them as well, the exception being that most don't resort to personal attacks of my intelligence.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-02-2004, 11:04 PM   #26
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 12:36 PM
As you have continually attacked mine, saying things like "doesn't make any sense" and other belittlings? I really don't want to debate with you anymore
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 11:42 PM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
As you have continually attacked mine, saying things like "doesn't make any sense" and other belittlings? I really don't want to debate with you anymore
Well I was just trying to look for clarification, you never backed up what you were saying. I was seriously trying to debate but couldn't because I was never clear on where you were coming from. If that's attacking you then I give up.

[on a side note]
The "debate" in here has lost all quality as of late, FYM is just becoming a serious of personal attacks, maybe it's just the upcoming elections. I hope so, because this place has deteriated a lot in the last month or so.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-03-2004, 02:42 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:36 PM
What BVS!!! Was that a personal attack against ME!! (I kid, I kid. I agree that some of the arguments get dirty, but it is a major time in the political cycle and there are a lot of polarizing issues. Still that doesn't excuse people who are uncivil, good debate comes throgh good facts and well constructed arguments - not childish name calling)

On a slightly more serious bit, Iraq is moving forward steadily. There is no immediate need to pull out troops, as the Iraqis take over security in their country more and more the presence of US Patrols on the streets will diminish and as that occurs so will the casualites. Its only getting better so we must all rally behind staying the course,
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 04:27 AM   #29
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
I saw more than one. Read the long winded ones too.
I just went through and reread every post in that thread (including the long-winded ones), and I can not find one single instance where someone said or even inferred that they believe Kerry would stop the war and pull out all the troops.

I don't think BVS meant to personally attack you, but when you say that Kerry supporters believe he'll somehow stop the war in no time and send all the troops back home, without any actual evidence to back up that claim, it makes for a rather confusing and inaccurate claim, especially when you're basing an entire thread on that premise.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:06 AM   #30
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Thanks Diemen.

BTW, I like your sig. One of my favorite songs.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com