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

Like I said Cyclop, I think you're dead wrong on every point, but I'll defend forever your right to making them anyway.

0 Replies

BBB,

Well I can see that you are a bit cranky about it, but then so am I. I don't believe Iraq is a no win situation. It is certainly a difficult one that involves several risks. However the cost and risk of not prevailing are much worse.than that required in continuing successfully. We can win, and I believe it is important that we do.

Moreover I believe that the alternate strategies being proposed by Senator Kerry have two key defects; (1) They keep changing, suggesting to me that he is either not dealing seriously with the underlying issues, or that he imagines the world will give him more flexibility than one can realistically expect; and (2) they involve techniques and assumptions about the behavior of other key actors in this drama (the UN, France, Germany, etc.) that have been proven again and again to be utterly unrealistic. I believe Kerry is better suited to the abstract world of discussion and rhetoric than he is to the real world of the competing interests of nations and cultures. History offers us numerous examples of the harm done by such types when they are thrown into difficult situations requiring resolve, a willingness to do what is required to solve great difficulties now rather than roll them over to a more dangerous situation later on.

I also have other adverse impressions of Kerry's character, arising from other issues, not a direct part of this conversation, but which add to my impression of his unsuitably. A comparison with two civil war generals - McClellan and Grant - may be partly illuminating. The first was well-spoken and generally cut a much more attractive figure in the conventional sense to the political constituencies he served, both in the Army and beyond it. However he lacked resolve, kept changing his plans to avoid salient difficulties, and thereby wasted many lives and opportunities for no good effect., The second understood that resolute pursuit of a coherent strategy would yield far better result, stuck to it through many difficulties and finally won the day.

Rescinding the tax cuts on high income earners will yield little additional revenue. Indeed in the long run it may yield less tax revenue due to the attendant adverse effect on investment and entrepreneurial activity. The truly rich clip coupons on tax-exempt bonds and employ other like devices to avoid taxes. Raising tax rates on earned income will yield no new tax revenues from them. It is people who are working hard to become rich or merely prosperous who will feel the effects of Kerry's tax proposals. Unfortunately it is frequently these people who create the growing new enterprises that feed our economy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rescinding the tax cuts on high income earners will yield little additional revenue. Indeed in the long run it may yield less tax revenue due to the attendant adverse effect on investment and entrepreneurial activity.

There is no evidence other than conjecture to support this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.

Not exactly. We both underestimated the North Vetnamese and later far overestimated them. They won the war through the lack of resolve that you refer to in your second paragraph above. They hung on long enough for our internal political process to lead us to call for a face saving way out. By the end they had little military capability left. (They were out of SAMs and we could fly at will, unmolested, over North Vietnam.) We spent the lives of Americans and Vietnamese and much treasure for no result whatever. (It is worth noting here that those wonderful "agrarian nationalist reformers" have now had 30 years of uninterrupted governance of Vietnam: what have they achieved? Vietnam is among the most backward and oppressive countries in Asia.)

Like it or not such actions as you cite are required to win wars. The last two years of the American Civil War were a bloody process of attrition, involving slaughter and the deliberate destruction of cities, farmland and industry. Was the result worth the cost?

Do you believe humanity has reached a new higher state of development in which such disputes can routinely be resolved peacefully? If you do then you have assumed a rather large burden of proof considering the history of the last 104 years.

0 Replies

This may in fact be too simple, but I think one way to help undo the mess we made of Iraq is to start thinking of Iraq as their home with their interest instead of our interest.

Simply give up all control over everything with no "reserve the right to this or that" and just be on hand to help when asked. If they want to hold elections tomorrow, let them no matter who wins even if it is an islamic clergy. (I don't know what they call their religious leaders) They are not children and we are not their parents.

As far as the insurgents, I believe that if the insurgents saw that America has let go of Iraq in truth then the violence would lessen. Since we made the mess we have to be hand to help the Iraqi Army until such time as they no longer need us and ask us to leave.

The Iraqi's do not trust the people that are currently in charge now, they see them as American puppets. We have to get people in there that the Iraqi's want and so no matter the security mess, I think true democratic elections need to be held with no restrictions on who can run. (unless they are criminals and that would be up for the Iraqi's to decide who is a criminal and who is not.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you believe humanity has reached a new higher state of development in which such disputes can routinely be resolved peacefully? If you do then you have assumed a rather large burden of proof considering the history of the ladt 104 years.

No, but we shouldn't stop trying.

We have an unprecedented ability to solve conflicts now days WITHOUT going to war, as compared to the past. Diplomacy has come a long way in the last 300 years or so, along with the military.

Noone is saying that we shouldn't use the military forces ever. Just when it is ABSOLUTELY neccessary. And in this case, it wasn't absolutely neccessary. This has been bourne out by the evidence; no wmd found, no ability for Iraq to attack anyone at all.

My second paragraph isn't about 'lack of resolve.' It's not a lack of resolve that brings me to condemn atrocities, even if you believe they are neccessary. It's morality.

The North Vietnamese won the war because they proved that we weren't going to win it without burning the whole country to the ground. This was unacceptable by any standards of moral decency, so we left. That's not weakness. It's judging a situation and finding that the costs far outweighed the gains. How hard is that to understand?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

George
tsk, tsk, tsk, George. I see you've joined the group that wants to criticize Kerry instead of answering my question or my challenge.

Is there anyone out there who wants to address the issue of how we get out of Iraq without leaving it a failed state. I'm not going to repeat my questions here because you all know them but are avoiding the difficult challenge of answering them. Yet you want Kerry to answer them from the disadvantageous position he is in as a candidate rather than the president.

This little exercise clearly demonstrates the quagmire in which we find ourselves.

And George, I was astonished to read that you think Kerry doesn't have what it takes to do what is necessary. Does that mean that you think Bush is qualified when you know his life history, his lack of actual military experience, his poor educational performance background, his lack of knowledge about the world partly because of his lack of curiosity and lack of world travel? Do you think his record in foreign policy, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in building international coalitions, his untruths to the American people ala "Baghdad Bob" style gives him more cache than Kerry?

In my opinion, George W. Bush was and is the least prepared, least qualified, least experienced, worst performing president in US history---bar none. He would never been chosen by the Republican Party except for his name backed up by the corporate financing of his election---and Karl Rove in charge of his campaign. A life pattern for George W. Bush which disqualifies him a presidential material.

I'm getting crankier by the day.

BBB

0 Replies

I thought I was pretty clear on that BBB. My choice to get out of Iraq and leave it in better shape than we found it is to win.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, but we shouldn't stop trying.

We have an unprecedented ability to solve conflicts now days WITHOUT going to war, as compared to the past. Diplomacy has come a long way in the last 300 years or so, along with the military.

I don't believe you can offer even a weak proof or demonstration that this is true. On the contrary one could easily demonstrate that the reverse is true - there was much less war during the centuries following Augustus in the Roman empire and during the early Middle Ages. It has been largely downhill ever since, and the past three centuries have been among the very worst. Certainly the unlamented 20th century was one of the bloodiest in the history of mankind.

Quote:

The North Vietnamese won the war because they proved that we weren't going to win it without burning the whole country to the ground. This was unacceptable by any standards of moral decency, so we left. That's not weakness. It's judging a situation and finding that the costs far outweighed the gains. How hard is that to understand?

Not hard at all. Our problem with North Vietnam was that we didn't think seriously of burning down much of North Vietnam (as opposed to the South) as an incentive to them until it was far too late. We watched war materials flow in to Haiphong by ship for six years before Nixon authorized the placement of a minefield that closed the port solid for the last year of the war. After that they depended exclusively on a mostly single track rail line from China - we didn't have much trouble cutting that as fast as they could repair it. A little more of that and they would have caved. However the war was finally lost in the domestic process in the U.S., meaning all the blood was shed for nothing.

0 Replies

But we're not anybody Foxfyre, we are noisy "neo-cons", Beneath BBB's contempt. I, too answered, maybe too simply, but I wanted the left to be able to understand it.

0 Replies

Well at least I'm 'neo' and not 'old' Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Not hard at all. Our problem with North Vietnam was that we didn't think seriously of burning down much of North Vietnam (as opposed to the South) as an incentive to them until it was far too late. We watched war materials flow in to Haiphong by ship for six years before Nixon authorized the placement of a minefield that closed the port solid for the last year of the war. After that they depended exclusively on a mostly single track rail line from China - we didn't have much trouble cutting that as fast as they could repair it. A little more of that and they would have caved. However the war was finally lost in the domestic process in the U.S., meaning all the blood was shed for nothing.

Yeah, we got all over their shipping. And we did blow up that rail line. And do you know how much that affected the North Vietnamese? Not one bit.

Not at all. It turns out they were shipping supplies on the backs of donkey trains through the jungles with nearly the same efficiency as the trains. They were moving materials around during the entire war far better than we ever gave them credit for.

By the time we figured this fact out, we had already lost the war. The problem wasn't with the protestors. The problem was that our higher-ups just couldn't believe that all our tanks and planes and guns, our military superiority, just didn't mean a hill of beans when you are fighting in the jungle.

Unless you are willing to burn that whole jungle down, and all the villages in it, then our military might meant nothing. The VC could move in and out of a symphathetic populace all they wanted, and short of slaughtering all of the civilians in Vietnam they weren't going to. This was a bitter pill to swallow for generals who were still in the WWII mode of thinking, and their reluctance to shift strategies and take the enemy seriously cost us the war.

The story of the Vietnam war is the story of American military leadership learning just how bloody guerilla wars can get, and also learning that no matter how much military superiority you have, if you don't take your enemy seriously, you are going to lose.

The protests back home had more to do with our citizens waking up to this fact than they did with anything else.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Sorry Fox, townhall history revision aside the war was immoral and illegal and was based on a creaky domino theory that is now bankrupt. The real tragedy is that I and my friends knew it was useless in 1967...too many of my friends had to die before our government realised it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But we're not anybody Foxfyre, we are noisy "neo-cons", Beneath BBB's contempt. I, too answered, maybe too simply, but I wanted the left to be able to understand it.

[/color]
I never use the rolling eyes emoticon as I consider it the rudest one there, but I am almost tempted.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
But we're not anybody Foxfyre, we are noisy "neo-cons", Beneath BBB's contempt. I, too answered, maybe too simply, but I wanted the left to be able to understand it.
[/color]
I never use the rolling eyes emoticon as I consider it the rudest one there, but I am almost tempted.

Let me do it for you. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I'm getting crankier by the day.

True! I'll vouch for that.

Quote:

I see you've joined the group that wants to criticize Kerry instead of answering my question or my challenge.

Is there anyone out there who wants to address the issue of how we get out of Iraq without leaving it a failed state. Yet you want Kerry to answer them from the disadvantageous position he is in as a candidate rather than the president.

I believe we are on more or less the right track now and that if we continue we will prevail. A basic principle of warfare is that one wins only when he deprives his enemy of the hope opf victory. In Iraq we must deprive the enemies who seek either chaos or a theocratic state of hope that they will prevail.

There is a wonderful anecdote in Winston Churchill's first volume of the history of WWII in which he describes a luncheon conversation between himself and von Ribbentrop, Hitler's Foreign Minister. The incident occurred shortly before Munich - Chamberlain was the Prime Minister and Churchill was very much on the political sidelines, but arguing strongly for speedy preparations for a war with Germany that he saw as inevitable. Churchill describes an innocuous conversation about hunting and the characteristics of the various national breeds of hunting dogs in which he asked the German if he knew why the English Bulldog's nose was so oddly placed, set back so far behind its jaw. "No, I don't", replied von Ribbentrop. "So he can breathe without letting go", replied Churchill with evident satisfaction. I'm sure it helps when you write the history yourself, but the anecdote reveals a fundamental truth about the conflict that ensued.

Quote:

And George, I was astonished to read that you think Kerry doesn't have what it takes to do what is necessary. Does that mean that you think Bush is qualified when you know his life history, his lack of actual military experience, his poor educational performance background, his lack of knowledge about the world partly because of his lack of curiosity and lack of world travel? Do you think his record in foreign policy, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in building international coalitions, his untruths to the American people ala "Baghdad Bob" style gives him more cache than Kerry?

Cache is not what is required of a leader. Persistence and a willingness to press on in the face of difficulties are usually much more important. I tried to outline the salient defects I see in Kerry in a previous post. Bush spent three years in flight status as a fighter pilot - that beats 13 weeks in swift boats switching band-aids and backdooring Purple Heart write-ups in my book. On critical matters leaders set the agendas for others; followers pay attention to nuances and try to accommodate others. Kerry is a follower.

0 Replies

Panzade wrote

Quote:

Sorry Fox, townhall history revision aside the war was immoral and illegal and was based on a creaky domino theory that is now bankrupt. The real tragedy is that I and my friends knew it was useless in 1967...too many of my friends had to die before our government realised it.

Thomas Sowell writes a nationally syndicated column run extensively by both right slanted and left slanted newspapers. It is quite narrow minded to reject it because Townhall also includes him and happens to be the fastest place to find an archived copy. But I'll overlook such narrowmindedness because I like you so much Panzade. Smile

The legalities, proprieties, or the whys of Vietnam were irrelevant once the President and Congress were in agreement to the military action. The South Vietnamese and numerous allies also put their blood and treasure at risk to fight an unconscionable and dangerous enemy. So we invested a decade of treasure and something like 55000 American lives in a war that would have been much shorter, decisive and 1/10th as costly if we had just committed overwhelming force and got the job done from the beginning. I have a good friend who was in the evacuation of Saigon. He still remembers the South Vietnamese in their yellow raincoats watching the last helicopters leave the embassy grounds trusting the Americans to return for them before the Vietcong closed in. No helicopters ever went back for them.

Was Vietnam ill advised? It didn't have to be. The motives were not immoral or illegal. We were involved in talks with the North Vietnamese attempting to negotiate a peace almost the entire time.

But as already documented in this thread (and in numerous places elsewhere), we tried to fight a 'sensitive' war so as not to further upset the anti-war protesters, and because of those very protesters, the Vietcong was inspired and encouraged to hang in even after they were essentially beaten. And in the end, we tucked our tail and withdrew, betraying our Vietnamese allies, consigning them to more decades of poverty and oppression, we denied all our soliders killed and wounded the satisfaction of success, and we lost a strategic democracy for the world.

I never never want the United States to do that again. If we're gonna fight, I want a president with the will to win.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
But we're not anybody Foxfyre, we are noisy "neo-cons", Beneath BBB's contempt. I, too answered, maybe too simply, but I wanted the left to be able to understand it.
[/color]
I never use the rolling eyes emoticon as I consider it the rudest one there, but I am almost tempted.

Let me do it for you.

Thanks, I guess I asked for it.

0 Replies

I think we can agree that further debate on Vietnam would be tiresome...we disagree but are agreeable. If you are trying to use Vietnam as instructive in the course of the Iraqui war I must wait and see what conclusions you've drawn. No need to patronize me because you like me...I've seen some narrowmindness from your end too.

Muahhh

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, we got all over their shipping. And we did blow up that rail line. And do you know how much that affected the North Vietnamese? Not one bit.

Not at all. It turns out they were shipping supplies on the backs of donkey trains through the jungles with nearly the same efficiency as the trains. They were moving materials around during the entire war far better than we ever gave them credit for.

By the time we figured this fact out, we had already lost the war. The problem wasn't with the protestors. The problem was that our higher-ups just couldn't believe that all our tanks and planes and guns, our military superiority, just didn't mean a hill of beans when you are fighting in the jungle.

Unless you are willing to burn that whole jungle down, and all the villages in it, then our military might meant nothing. The VC could move in and out of a symphathetic populace all they wanted, and short of slaughtering all of the civilians in Vietnam they weren't going to. This was a bitter pill to swallow for generals who were still in the WWII mode of thinking, and their reluctance to shift strategies and take the enemy seriously cost us the war.

The story of the Vietnam war is the story of American military leadership learning just how bloody guerilla wars can get, and also learning that no matter how much military superiority you have, if you don't take your enemy seriously, you are going to lose.
Cycloptichorn

I think you are talking about some aspects of war and geography that you evidently don't understand. The NVA was indeed using trucks and bicycles to transport war materials from the North into the South in sufficient quantities to support moderate level combat operations in the South. However those materials and much more (fuel, fertilizer, and Surface to Air Missiles) entered North Vietnam by ship through Haiphong and by rail from China. Once we cut those links in the chain it no longer mattered much what they could truck and manually haul down the HCM trail - they no longer had the fuel for their trucks, or the crew served weapons, the ammo to ship. Morer significant they no longer had the ability to defend themselves from our airpower which, in the absence of surface-to-air-missiles, was overwhelming. This was the situation when the domestic politiaal protesters finally won the war for them.

While there were many flaws in the military strategy we pursued in Vietnam, and many much more serious flaws in the political micromanagement of it by LBJ and McNamara, most of our military leaders had a fairly good understanding of war, both in"jungles" and out of them. I believe you are underestimating their understanding of such matters, and very greatly overestimating your own.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know