At last! Kerry's plan for the war in Iraq!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BluberryPoptart

War Child
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
532
I have been searching for his stance or plans, and now I have them. A story today says he plans to REDUCE troops in Iraq- BY THE END OF HIS FIRST TERM! That's FOUR FUCKING YEARS, people! Bush could probably beat that! That means Kerry has every intention of continuing this war at least another four years! Bush has said he woud drastically reduce the forces by late next year! So all you dreamers that Kerry is going to stop this dirty war, wake up!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040802/pl_washpost/a32898_2004aug1
 
But FOUR YEARS??? WTF is this, Viet Nam?? The longer we stay, the more we will become intertwined in the business of running the country and will NEVER be able to escape. I think one more year is sufficient, then hand it over to the Iraqi people.

If you are looking at a long term war, you are also looking at the draft. Don't be fooled. As people get killed and get out now, the reinlistments are going to go down. Then they'll have to recall up others, but that will run out soon. The young men I know who would have joined the military to see the world and get college money are now avoiding it like the plague and will not join in fear of being killed in Iraq. So if the voluntary forces dwindle down, there will be a draft. I think Kerry is much more likely that Bush to start one up because he will brag on his (limited) service. If you are looking at that long term of a war, the troops can only be replentished by a draft. There's no other way.

But the main point I was making was, all those people who said they were voting for Kerry to "stop this war" are fooled if they think he will.

But perhaps the most sickening thing is the 'pandora's box' statement. :eyebrow: So what you're saying is, no matter how long Kerry stays, no matter how many people are killed, you will always blame Bush? That's pathetic. If Kerry is president, he will have every chance to change things. If he doesn't, don't blame Bush. Nobody blamed Johnson when Nixon continued Viet Nam, did they? They blamed Johnson but they also hated Nixon for it.
 
Last edited:
So, if he's not going to stop it, why are people voting for him based on that? I don't see that as different from Bush either. Bush also isn't going to start another war. He can't afford it. I still see this as a negative, disappointing statement by Kerry.
 
The administration allready started to talk like that. And I'm sure if Bush gets elected for another 4 years there will be at least one new war.
Why do you think that there was a decision to harbour anti-iran teorrists? I think he can't afford it. He allready has a lack of credibility and this could give him the rest. But still he does. Why? These Terrorists destabilize Iran, one of the next possible targets.
Remember that axis of evil thing?

The words of Mr. Kerry about the 4 years help me to trust this guy.
He's not painting a future based on his view though hope and dreams. He's realistic and because of that he's not a warmonger like some of the neocons in the current adminstration.
It was not the idea Mr. Kerry to attack Iraq without a exit strategy. He can only try to keep the damage which has bin done as small as possible.
Let's face it, 4 years are realistic, the only way to get out earlier is if you get huge international support.
And it's def. easier for someone who isn't connected to the administration who renamed Frenchfries to Freedomfries or started that "either you with us or against us" mentality.
Kerry is the diplomat who might be able to do that, Bush is the Cowboy for the next war.

Dissapointing? Yes
Realistic? Yes
 
But still, you are taking up for a man who has pledged to continue the war. That makes him no better than Bush. So stop defending him. If he's such a 'great diplomat' he'd get us out of trouble in less than 4 years.
 
BluberryPoptart
In the days when the first people cried "pull out the troops" i was against it.
I was against this war because i think it's a war for profit (what would be with haliburton without iraq?)
You think it's about counter-terroism? than tell me why the US harbours terrorists

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them.
George W. Bush

So if the government of iran would do what Mr. Bush told us they would attack the US!

You think it was about Humanitarian issues? Well that's naive :) If the US wanted to do something about the humanitarian side in iraq i'm sure they wouldn't have used WMDs against Iraq, i'm sure they would have protected Hospitals instead of the Oil ministerium, and i'm sure they would have sent enough troops to secure this country.

But once they were in i agreed with some of the pro war fraction that it's now too late to pull ot the troops.
And it's naive to think Iraq will be done in a few years.
What makes Kerry better than bush is - as mentioned above:
"He won't start some other wars in the name of Good vs. Evil, Us vs. Them"

From my point of view Mr. Bush just makes it worse the next years - Mr Kerry has the chance to clean up SOME mess the current administration did internationally.

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
George W. Bush

Maybe the Republicans should drop GWB and ask Ron Reagan if he wants to be the next candidate - a man i'd prefer over Kerry
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6577.htm

To sum it up:
Now there is no way to stop this war in Iraq in the near future.
After Mr. Bush was elected there was no way to stop America in its war against Mr. Hussein

In the next election in the US you can only choose if you want to continue that course (a man who thinks that god made him president to start wars with people who think different) or if you want a moderate, a smarter president.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but it's fun watching you two go around. :wink:

I don't check this forum as often as I should.

Klaus. :up: I have nothing to add.
 
BluberryPoptart said:
Anybody OTHER than Klaus have an opinion on this?

Yes but I have no clue where you are coming from. Nothing you say makes sence. You keep bringing up the fact that people in here are saying they are voting for Kerry because he's going to end the war, I don't think I've seen anyone claim this. You can't grasp the concept that we're in a war that Bush got us in and there's no easy way out, pulling out too soon can just make things worse. Kerry is being realistic. If he comes into office he's being handed a horrible situation to deal with. I'm not sure what you're obsession with him not ending the war is? No matter who comes in as president Kerry, George Washington, Pee Wee Herman, or Santa Claus they really don't have a choice whether to continue the war or not. This is why so many disapproved of how Bush handled this situation.
 
I'm not surprised by Kerry's statement one bit. The worst thing the US could do
is to pull out all the troops.
It's going to take a long time to clean
up the mess Bush's war has caused.
 
BluberryPoptart said:
But FOUR YEARS??? WTF is this, Viet Nam?? The longer we stay, the more we will become intertwined in the business of running the country and will NEVER be able to escape. I think one more year is sufficient, then hand it over to the Iraqi people.

If you are looking at a long term war, you are also looking at the draft. Don't be fooled. As people get killed and get out now, the reinlistments are going to go down. Then they'll have to recall up others, but that will run out soon. The young men I know who would have joined the military to see the world and get college money are now avoiding it like the plague and will not join in fear of being killed in Iraq. So if the voluntary forces dwindle down, there will be a draft. I think Kerry is much more likely that Bush to start one up because he will brag on his (limited) service. If you are looking at that long term of a war, the troops can only be replentished by a draft. There's no other way.

But the main point I was making was, all those people who said they were voting for Kerry to "stop this war" are fooled if they think he will.

But perhaps the most sickening thing is the 'pandora's box' statement. :eyebrow: So what you're saying is, no matter how long Kerry stays, no matter how many people are killed, you will always blame Bush? That's pathetic. If Kerry is president, he will have every chance to change things. If he doesn't, don't blame Bush. Nobody blamed Johnson when Nixon continued Viet Nam, did they? They blamed Johnson but they also hated Nixon for it.

Kerry he says he has a plan, but I don't think he does. Bush does have a plan and it is the only plan that is going to work in Iraq longterm.

But in this post, I just wanted to say that the US military does not need a draft. All recruiting centers for the active duty military are hitting their recruiting goals easily. There is more demand to serve in the military right now than than there was 5 years ago when the military services were each missing their recruiting goals by several by over 10,000 each.

The recruiting situation is the best it has been for the military in 10 years. In addition the current military which is all volunteer, is HALF the size it was 15 years ago.

There are currently a total of 87 Active and Reserve, Army and Marine Brigades. There were nearly twice that many 15 years ago. Of the military's total strength of 87 ground combat brigades, 18 Brigades are currently in Iraq.

The Military currently has no plans to expand the force at this time. If it needed to, remember that the all volunteer military was twice the size it was today 15 years ago, so the capability is there to expand the all volunteer military to double its size, which would be far more than enough to handle any contingency needed.

The point here is that there is no need for a draft at all. The War in Iraq is not Vietnam. Combat losses are currently a tiny fraction of the Vietnam War. After 1 and a half years in Iraq, we have lost the equalivant of two weeks of losses in Vietnam, on average. In addition, even the Vietnam War could have potentially been fought without a draft if the Reserves had been fully called up, and the United States did not need to station half a million troops in Western Europe to Guard against a Soviet invasion.

With recruiting the strongest its been in years, a total of 87 combat active and reserve brigades, and with 18 of those brigades in Iraq at any one time, there is absolutely no need at all for a draft. With the numbers the military has, it can continue the war indefinitely if NEED be.
 
nbcrusader said:
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?
 
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.
 
anitram said:


Why don't we ask Bulgaria, Poland, the esteemed nation of Palau, etc?

Both countries already have troops on the ground in Iraq.
 
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 :rolleyes:
 
BluberryPoptart said:

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 :rolleyes:

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.
 
BluberryPoptart said:
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.
 
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 said:
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.
 
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 said:
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.
 
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,
 
BluberryPoptart said:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom