Force in Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
Nice one, !mitationRust, especially since you conveniently didn't mention the date of S.J. Res. 2...
S.J. Res. 2 was passed in 1991. Remember the first war on Iraq? That's what the vote was about. I'm not sure, but I think Tedob was talking about the most recent one

---

Oh, I’m, sorry did John Kerry’s record rear its ugly head again? I was under the impression that you used the word and I quote “always.” End quote. ;)

Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed.

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry's record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, "one of the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to, quote, "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force.

In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." End quote.
A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Senator Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Senator Kerry said, "That's none of your business." (Laughter.)

What happened to that "I have nothing to hide thing"? Ooooh yeah, that's only after he's elected. :D

I heard on the radio today that he plans to cut down the number of troops in Iraq within the first 6 months of office. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that put the rest of the remaining troops there in greater danger?

Quote:

---

I heard on the radio today that he plans to cut down the number of troops in Iraq within the first 6 months of office. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that put the rest of the remaining troops there in greater danger?

---

Only if they are required to maintain the same level of duties as previous.
If the numbers are reduced, then the standard method is to consolidate your remaining forces into certain areas, thus allowing them to be 'effectively' stronger.........

This does mean, however, that the bad guys get to run around a lot easier, although by then the Iraqi army will be holding its own........................wont it ?

UK forces in N Ireland, at peak 35000. nominal amount nowadays by comparison. But we don't cover the same area, or have the same need. Took THIRTY YEARS, and was only 30 min flying time from us...............

Northern Ireland is only 5,500 square miles [14250 sq Km] in area - about the size of Yorkshire or Connecticut.

Iraq:
Area:
160 000 sq miles
land: 432,162 sq km

Area - comparative: slightly more than twice the size of Idaho

And Iran, is four times the size of Iraq, with a population of 68 Million.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Were are these magical allies? The real world scenario is, Bush or Kerry "they" didn't support the US across the board. That line in my mind is BS. It's easy to say "I would have brought in more allies." Wouldn't have happened in fact I believe; just like Kerry believes he could have garned this massive world support out of nowhere, that Kerry wouldn't have done anything but pass another United Resolution to add to 10 years worth of red tape and pocket filling.

In addition Kerry openly spoke ill of the war at first. He didn't always support it, just like Vietnam, he's a hero, he hates all his brothers and calls them baby killers, then he's a hero again. We should accept Kerry's new found love for the war because "He didn't like the way Bush went about it"? Because Bush didn't wait another year or 2 for help that will NEVER come?

The troops are thin, where is 40,000 coming from? Large numbers of soldiers here, in the low thousands, have just returned and they already have marching orders in Feb of 2005 to go back for another year or more. Why is our military so thin? Answer = Bill. I hate to mention it but that is exactly what the national guard is for. It's amazing all the people I know who detested the war, spoke ill for a year about every aspect of it now think it's great. Where were these guys when it started, we would be out of there by now with that kind of support. ;)

Kerry should be careful adding 40,000 from nothing could mean a draft?

---

Seriously right!

John kerry "I'll lead a collation of free nations"........"You ain't leading but two things right now: Jack and ****. And Jack just left town!"( Memorable Quotes from Army of Darkness 1993)

Kerrys statement really has me wondering why. What could he possibly gain from this:

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - President Bush mocked rival John Kerry's stand on the Iraq war Tuesday and rejected the Democrat's timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops as the Republican campaigned with Kerry pal and Vietnam War hero Sen. John McCain.
Seeking to shore up his support in the military rich, GOP-leaning Florida panhandle, Bush assailed Kerry on the dominant issue of the campaign as the incumbent made his 24th trip to the swing state that narrowly ensured his election in 2000.
"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush said. "After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040810/D84CJ5MG0.html

could it be, and I know this may sound stupid to some, that this is what he was requested to do in order to avoid be dragged before a judge for lying about his cambodian adventures. He did testify before a senate hearing about our forces being there and the crimes that were committed and now there appear to be witnesses credible enough to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
Kerrys statement really has me wondering why.

could it be, and I know this may sound stupid to some, that this is what he was requested to do in order to avoid be dragged before a judge for lying about his cambodian adventures. He did testify before a senate hearing about our forces being there and the crimes that were committed and now there appear to be witnesses credible enough to prove otherwise.

---

Busted, he must think american voters are stupid!
Kerry's own words?
DRUDGE REPORT
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
"Does anyone have a shovel, this sh!t is really getting deep?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
Busted, he must think american voters are stupid!
Kerry's own words?
DRUDGE REPORT
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
"Does anyone have a shovel, this sh!t is really getting deep?"

---

The swift boat crap..comeonn we where in cambodia in 1968, MACV-SOG was conducting operations over the boarder along with operation SEALORDS. While no records where kept of these illigal and clandestin ops swift boats where used, Kerrys group was used, and kerry could well have been one of the captins involved. To claim that we where not in cambodia during 68 is a flat out lie.

http://www.bcres.com/benewah/sealords.htm
http://www.stormingmedia.us/78/7871/A787133.html
http://www.pcf45.com/sealords/sealords.htm

They aren't making that kind of blanket statement. In fact Kerry stopped saying he was in Cambodia a long time ago. They are pissed because on the night in question he was in another place. According to their affidavit he, John Kerry, lied to the Senate for attention and glory. What does John say about it? Haven't seen anything other that people trying to find dirt on these guys.

Humm lets see, we where running missions into cambodia at the time, we where using swift boats to do those missions....a bunch of wingnuts try and rewrite history to claim he wasn't there, and could have never been there...well thats not true, he and his boat could have been there...was he there, no way to prove taht one way or another, we have two groups with obvious political agends argueing both sides of this but to say that swift boats where not in cambodia in 68 is a blatent and rather mediocer lie.