Text & highlights of John Kerry's 9/20/04 speech re Iraq

Fox Wrote:

Quote:

What I listed is my opinion on what Kerry should do about Iraq BBB. It spells out my opinion as to what Kerry (and Bush) should do, and, if so stated, I think would win the election for Kerry.

I'm very sorry you think I'm unresponsive. I must be a total idiot. But anyway, everybody have a good day.

Well, noone's saying you are an idiot, but frankly, you didn't answer BBB's question at all.

BBB's question:

Quote:

Let me ask you all, what would you do when faced with the mess in Iraq? What could any person do to undo the harm created in Iraq? It is a no win situation. If we fight on, we lose. If we pull out, we and Iraq lose. The other countries are smart enough to stay clear of the Bush-created mess as they warned would be the outcome.

To which you responded, Fox:

Quote:

So what should he do? Well, I don't know how much credibility he will have at this late date, but to win my respect and confidence he will do the following:

1. He will announce that he stands behind the president against terrorists wherever they exist and will support the president in any reasonable plan to take them out and that includes overwhelming force.

BBB is not asking what he should do to win your respect and confidence. She specifically asked what you would do when faced with the mess in Iraq. Your first point has nothing to do with Iraq.

Quote:

2. He will give notice that not only will homeland security measures be retained but he will strengthen them.

That's nice (he's actually said this plenty of times) but it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Quote:

3. He will apologize to the American military for previous anti-war, anti-military, pro-North Vietnam rhetoric and declare he was dead wrong. He will apologize for voting against the very funding that would have supported them in the current war in Iraq and will give his solemn promise that he won't approve any cuts of any kind for the military until all soldiers are out of harms way.

Once again, while this may have an effect on politics in America, it has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq at all.

Quote:

4. He will get back to the Senate and demonstrate some leadership in telling his fellow Democrats to cool the rhetoric that encourages the enemy.

Nothing to do with Iraq at all.

Quote:

5. He will tell the president to stop wimping out and stop worrying about political correctness and the anti-war crowd and lets get in there and do whatever we need to do to win this war before we lose a lot more people.

Now, this is the one that really gets me. Finally we've gotten to what you consider to be the solution to the war in Iraq: to stop wimping out and letting the anti-war people keep you from... what?

WHat have the anti-war people kept us from doing in Iraq? Bombing entire cities? Killing civilians? I don't understand what you are proposing we do there that is being held back by the anti-war crowd?

I mean, they certainly didn't stop us from GOING to war, what ARE they stopping us from doing?

I believe the true answer you are giving (though you don't want to say it) is that to prevent a whole lot more Americans from dying, the solution is to kill a whole lot more Iraqis. Under the guise of 'doing what has to be done.'

Just like McG; your true colors are showing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals I think. I think every one of my comments has everything to do with Iraq and what needs to be done there, and you don't. But rather than counter what I said with your own opinion, both you and BBB complain about or attack me. Oh well, I have to get back to work anyway.
Note to self: take responsiveness lessons.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, it wouldn't.

And the idea that we should remove the media from the country so that the military can get it's hands dirty (by which you cannot mean anything other than killing civilians - otherwise, why make the media leave?) is a facist idea. You have to realize that the attempt to hide things from the people of the world is not conducive to democracy.

Cycloptichorn

"by which you cannot mean anything other than killing civilians" huh? how do you figure? It means no more streams of propaganda being displayed from Indonesia to Morocco. It means no news about the glorious martyrdom of jihadists.

I am worried that you can not see that and figure it only means the deaths of more civilians. as though that could be the only possible outcome.

So, take your facist remarks and park them. They have no bearing on this conversation.

0 Replies

That's because you didn't say anything that had anything to do with Iraq!

NONE of your suggestions had anything to do with the daily life of the Iraqi people, or the military forces we should use over there, or the rebuilding, or the international politics we should use.

You mentioned, instead:

Kerry should support Bush (?)
Kerry apologizing to troops
Ending criticism of our policies in Congress
Homeland Security in America
And then, finally, we should quit being pussies and do what needs to be done.

I ask you again: what do you mean by your last point, Fox? Be specific.

Noone is attacking you, but you have to see that the answers you gave have nothing to do with Iraq for the most part. I await specifics - if they can be provided, that is, which I somehow doubt...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What part of 'overwhelming force' (that you selectively left out) don't you understand Cyclop? That's the element missing in Iraq and it is costing us lives along with the anti-war hate rhetoric that is giving our enemies much encouragement that if they just keep the pressure on, the anti-war people will force us to surrender.

So we have three choices: 1) Pack up our gear and go home and thereby declare all the lives lost have been for nothing or 2) continue to fight a half war as we did in Vietnam that is far more costly to both the military on both sides as well as civilians or 3) win. I opt for winning.

If you are able to engage in three-dimensional thinking, you will see that every item on my list is geared to winning and correcting those things that in my opinion are hindering that process.

0 Replies

Kerry apologizing to troops (why?) has NOTHING to do with Iraq and everything to do with your personal problems with him. It doesn't take three-dimensional thinking to see that.

You state that we need to use 'overwhelming force' and 'win' but not what that means, at all. Do you mean that we should have more troops? From where, exactly, are we supposed to get those troops? We are stretched thin all over the world as it is, and at home as well.

Quote:

That's the element missing in Iraq and it is costing us lives along with the anti-war hate rhetoric that is giving our enemies much encouragement that if they just keep the pressure on, the anti-war people will force us to surrender.

It's costing us lives by not killing Iraqis at a much greater rate is what you are saying, correct? What exactly is it that we are not doing that is costing lives? What should we be doing 'overwhelmingly' that we are not right now? Should we be levelling cities, killing innocents (can't tell em from the terrorists, so might as well get them all?). After all, it's trying to be nice that is keeping us from winning completely as you say.

Drop the platitudes. You're obviously not anti-war, so don't feel afraid to say what you really mean.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, it wouldn't.

And the idea that we should remove the media from the country so that the military can get it's hands dirty (by which you cannot mean anything other than killing civilians - otherwise, why make the media leave?) is a facist idea. You have to realize that the attempt to hide things from the people of the world is not conducive to democracy.

Cycloptichorn

"by which you cannot mean anything other than killing civilians" huh? how do you figure? It means no more streams of propaganda being displayed from Indonesia to Morocco. It means no news about the glorious martyrdom of jihadists.

I am worried that you can not see that and figure it only means the deaths of more civilians. as though that could be the only possible outcome.

So, take your facist remarks and park them. They have no bearing on this conversation.

So basically you are saying the war could be won if there was no media showing anything positive for the other side at all. That is your solution?

You really think that information wouldn't leak out anyways? You really think that supression of the enemy's propaganda will lead to victory in Iraq? C'mon, McG, get serious! We're looking for real-world solutions here.... this is the same kind of thinking that said Iraqis welcomed us with open arms...

'What!!?!!? The media is showing that we aren't doing everything right in Iraq??!!? They dare to comment that there are two sides to this conflict! We must SHUT THEM DOWN, because if it isn't on TV, it didn't happen.'

Right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre
Foxfyre, I know that in your heart you want the Iraq war outcome to be beneficial for the US and the Iraqi people. I've never questioned your humanity regarding that.

However, my question places you in the same trap as the one Kerry is placed in. How does anyone fix the disastrous mess in Iraq. The fact that you can't answer my question should give you and everyone pause when they demand a solution from Kerry.

Kerry is not currently president with access to information equivalent to what Bush has. Even if Kerry wins, it won't be until January 2005 and things will get a whole worse by then. Kerry is limited in his access to discussions with commanders in the field and with Iraqi leadership. He would be accused of trying to undermined Bush if he did. He has to be careful in talking to foreign leaders in other countries for the same reason.

You try creating a viable plan with these restrictions and see how well you would do. It's a whole lot harder than you think. It's unreasonable to demand that Kerry come up with the solution to the Iraq mess other than what he has tried to do in general terms. Bush would jump all over him if he did more, accusing Kerry of underminding him and giving comfort to the enemy.

Don't you realize you are asking Kerry to do now what you criticized him for doing after he left the military during the Vietnam war?

BBB

0 Replies

Kerry apologizing to the troops sends a clear message to Al Qaida and other terrorists groups that he has had a change of heart and he won't be any pushover should he be elected.

I am absolutely anti-war and I highly resent the terrorists starting this one.

Overwhelming force means whatever it takes to achieve the objective in the shortest amount of time that will save the maximum number of lives. I will leave it to the military generals to develop the strategies to accomplish that. (I should have put that on the list - listen to what the military tells us should be done to achieve the objective.)

McG is right that we should restrict the press in militarily sensitive areas and, within reason, give the Iraqi security forces encouragement to do whatever needs to be done to get the job done.

There is no more costly, deadly, or ineffective policy than half-measures when it comes to war against an irrational enemy.

0 Replies

If he wants to be president, he dam well better come up with a plan before Nov 2nd. because no matter how flawed the left claims Bush to be, he has a plan.

0 Replies

Quote:

Kerry apologizing to the troops sends a clear message to Al Qaida and other terrorists groups that he has had a change of heart and he won't be any pushover should he be elected.

This is ridiculous. The terrorists on the ground in Iraq don't give a damn about what Kerry says... sheesh...

Quote:

Overwhelming force means whatever it takes to achieve the objective in the shortest amount of time that will save the maximum number of lives. I will leave it to the military generals to develop the strategies to accomplish that. (I should have put that on the list - listen to what the military tells us should be done to achieve the objective.)

Perhaps the military strategists are already DOING that. Remember the generals who told us we would need hundreds of thousands of troops to win this war? The one we fired for saying that, do you recall?

Quote:

I am absolutely anti-war and I highly resent the terrorists starting this one.

No terrorist started the war in Iraq. I don't even know what logic you could use to try and prove this to yourself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

My quarrel with Kerry, that BBB so strenuously objected to, is he has come up with plan after plan after plan to see if they'll 'fly' with the electorate until nobody can believe he has one at all.

0 Replies

Cyclop, you are young and have no memory of a time when the U.S. actually went to war to win and did. I do. The only reason we got our tail kicked in Vietnam was thinking like yours. I have put my opinion out there and have nothing to add to it. I believe you are dead wrong on every point, and I believe you will not be convinced of that. So I really am going to get back to work now.

0 Replies

Foxfyre
Foxfyre, I think that former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's apology to the US and the Vietnam veterans was the only apology required. John Kerry has nothing to apologize for as he was reporting from the field what we later learned was true.

If you think that al Qaeda gives a rat's ass about Kerry's military record and his political actions, you are sadly mistaken. Al Qaeda is focused on its own world agenda, which did not include Iraq until Bush created a haven for them in the cities and towns of Iraq.

I'm not concerned about what Kerry must do to earn your vote, I'm concerned about how we get out of the mess in Iraq.

BBB

0 Replies

I already gave you that answer BBB, you just didn't like it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The only reason we got our tail kicked in Vietnam was thinking like yours..

Foxy, you know how much I admire your debating ability?

I'm gonna pretend you never wrote that.

0 Replies

OK, here's BBB's offer
Do we have to destroy Iraq in order to save it? Or is there another way?

OK, here's my reward for anyone who can come up with a real and acceptable solution for the US to get out of Iraq without an unacceptable level of troop and civilian deaths and without leaving the country as a failed state in a civil war that will spread to other moslem countries.

If I think your solution plan is worthy of Kerry's consideration, I will refrain from posting on A2K for one full day. If your plan is worthy of Bush's consideration, I will not post on A2K for two full days.

Now, that's an offer no one can refuse. Get your brains in gear and get to work solving the problem.

BBB

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyclop, you are young and have no memory of a time when the U.S. actually went to war to win and did. I do. The only reason we got our tail kicked in Vietnam was thinking like yours. I have put my opinion out there and have nothing to add to it. I believe you are dead wrong on every point, and I believe you will not be convinced of that. So I really am going to get back to work now.

Really? I remember us going to war and winning quite handily in 1990. Same place, too. Perhaps you forgot that one.

The reason we got our asses handed to us in Vietnam had much more to do with the fact that we consistently underestimated the North Vietnamese in every category than any war protest back home.

It also maybe had to do with the fact that many Americans find the slaughter of innocents to be abhorrent, even if it does meet someone's larger military objective. We also don't go for burning jungles and villages to the ground in the name of peace.

You belive I'm dead wrong on every point, and then state that you won't be able to convince me of that fact. Why do you think that? You didn't even attempt to do so. I'm still waiting to hear you say that it doesn't matter how many Iraqis we kill as long as our objectives are accomplished, because that is the attitude you are espousing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Panzade wrote

Quote:

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The only reason we got our tail kicked in Vietnam was thinking like yours.

Foxy, you know how much I admire your debating ability?

I'm gonna pretend you never wrote that

Sorry to disappoint you Panzade, but I can't back down on this one. I have listened too closely to people I know, including members of my own family, about how much power and effect the people back home have on the morale and effectiveness of our troops. And I've read and listened closely to the effect the media and the rhetoric coming from the American people have had on our enemies.

Quote:

In later years, after the Communists were firmly in power in Vietnam, they admitted that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for them. In a 1995 interview in the Wall Street Journal, a Communist official stated frankly that the key to their victory was the American home front, and that they were encouraged to fight on by all the anti-war demonstrations in the United States.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040414.shtml

0 Replies

You don't think that the fact that many of our troops were drafted, and didn't want to go kill people somewhere else, had anything to do with Morale, Fox?

You think it was treasonous for people to consider burning villages and killing innocent people wrong, even if some high-up official in your government says they are bringing 'peace' to the Vietnamese?

I think it's treason to the American way to expect everyone to have the same opinion, and to expect those who disagree with you to keep their mouths shut. It's the most anti-American thing you can do.

Something you might want to think about. Maybe if that many Americans (and troops) were against the war in Vietnam, we deserved to lose. Because we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and we shouldn't have forced our sons to go fight.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Text & highlights of John Kerry's 9/20/04 speech re Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know