[ND4SPD]

I didn't watch the whole thing, maybe about 20-30min. worth total. What seemed to stick out most to me was that Kerry had a 4yr plan for everything, but never really said much about what those plans are!?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

SORRY FOR SHOUTING!!!

I think you're missing Kerry's point. You can make the point that we got into this mess for the wrong reasons, without a coalition, and a military plan that doesn't look like it's working and still support your soldiers and basically state that you'll do whatever it takes to clean up this mess and get them out. Why can't you tell your brave soldiers that help is on it's way and that a revised stradegy may save more soldiers and still accomplish the mission. Like Vietnam, we never fully committed our military, we sent small numbered troops in, they got overrun/killed, we sent another small numbered troop in, they get killed, send another small numbered troop in, etc. Soldiers complained that the government was never serious about winning that war.
LBJ could have disagreed with what got us in there, but could have wanted authorization to launch full scale attacks to try and turn the tables possibly winning the war (although I'm not sure we could have ever "won" ) and speed up the process of getting our troops home. My point is, I believe a President who inherits a bad situation can disagree with who or what put them there, but can also want to lead them out of the mess and still accomplish the original mission.

Then there is the other side of the coin that says the more our "leadership" tries to draw parallels with another conflict it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.....

Anyway, I get the point he is trying to make, just don't agree with it.
Imho he is politicizing the headlines for personal gain. If he wants to be taken serious, "apply for the job" tell us how he would fix it, and then show us precedent in his record where he has been successful with a similar venture...

Let's talk about his record, and how it proves he has the ability to lead the country, then I will listen to him with vigor....

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

I didn't watch the whole thing, maybe about 20-30min. worth total. What seemed to stick out most to me was that Kerry had a 4yr plan for everything, but never really said much about what those plans are!?

Read them on his web page....they took the current plan and changed the timetable as near as I can tell. The claim they will execute quicker, but don't really substantiate how the will do it...

[ND4SPD]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Read them on his web page....they took the current plan and changed the timetable as near as I can tell. The claim they will execute quicker, but don't really substantiate how the will do it...

Execute quicker? I'm not so sure I like that. In a way it can be good, but it also increases the chance of mistakes by making rushed decisions

[bwhip]

Kerry did better than I expected, Bush about as poorly as I feared, however...

Kerry calls our coalition partners "the coalition of the bribed and coerced" and then expects to improve the relationship with them?

Kerry calls the Iraq war "a grand diversion" and "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and expects that to help the morale and effectiveness of our troops, or the willingness of other countries to help out to get us out of there sooner?

[Baketech]

My thoughts on Bushy's lack of speaking skills are a love/hate thing...

I wish he could articulate his positions better...

On the other hand, I like the fact that he doesn't have a glib mouth full of $100 words....

[ccwilli3]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Kerry's "plan" seems optimistic at best (probably unrealistic) but what are you going to do if you inherit the mess that Bush got us into.

We are only in said mess because for 8 years, the nameless president allowed unchecked agression to run rampant and these terrorists had time to reload, plan and strike... Repeatedly. All because of his beef with the FBI. Story is, the FBI was investigating the clinton/gore campaign for contributions from the Chinese gov't for "favortism" towards their gov't (you may remember hearing about it). All of those terrorists strikes should have been labled terrorists acts so the military would have been involved. But they were not, instead they were labled "incidents" under the FBI's investigation. Remember the shakeup at the FBI during the clinton years? They were doing internal investigations of the white house and clinton had no love for them.

Another thing you don't hear about in the mainstream media is when clinton DID finally strike (though only with a few tomahawk missles from a ship) against terrorists cells, they were not effective. The handlful of tomahawk missles caused only a small amount of worthy damage. We struck a factory and had to pay the sudanese gov't reparations for our mistake. Over 18mil.

Now THAT is a mess to clean up! Thing that pisses me off the most is now kerry claims to not support the war in Iraq? What about our guys on the ground there now? Do you no longer support them like you did your fellow vietnam mates? He supported it and voted for it at the time of inception, why you say!? Because it was popular to do that then... I do not agree with a lot of the politics that bush believes in (ex, the gay rights issue, abortion, etc), but I do believe as far as this military action is concerned, we got it right. He supports our troops and our military supports and believes in him. They DO NOT believe in kerry, nor do they like him nor will they go to battle enthusiastically for him. Trust me, I hear it about everyday at home... Military peeps HATE kerry.

[ccwilli3]

PS: I didn't see the debates!

[ccwilli3]

Originally Posted by bwhip

Kerry calls the Iraq war "a grand diversion" and "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and expects that to help the morale and effectiveness of our troops, or the willingness of other countries to help out to get us out of there sooner?

Exactly. Bwhip, I know your son serves and that you are very proud of him. I too am and are grateful for his service and his dedication to his country.

Leadership is everything and our troops believe in our commander in chief because he believes in them. He doesn't negate their willingness to die for their country by saying what they are doing now, that what they are dying everyday for, is just plain wrong.

With statements like the above, I guess he is just assuming that he can totally write off the military vote and still win?

[ER]

I caught about 30 minutes of it as well. Most of the political analysts are saying that Kerry was the smoother and more "rehearsed" candidate. I'd have to agree. But if you listen to what both of them said you'll see a clear contrast. By far the scariest thing from Kerry was his insistence on involving the UN and the rest of the world in the decision-making of our national defense. He has made it pretty clear in that past (and he reiterated last night) that the UN should have a much bigger role in the important interests of the US.

But once again, I can't say most should learn anything from these debates since both candidates established their positions long ago. Well, Kerry has established two positions to try and appeal to everyone, but you get the point.

[ccwilli3]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Like Vietnam, we never fully committed our military, we sent small numbered troops in, they got overrun/killed, we sent another small numbered troop in, they get killed, send another small numbered troop in, etc. Soldiers complained that the government was never serious about winning that war.

whoa man, you should read Tommy Franks' book, The American Soldier. It's awesome. He talks about the "old army" and how things were VERY different back then. Any doubts that we were fully committed to this are alleviated in the first few pages. This conflict was handled much differently than anything in the past ever was. But, back to the old army, it was not a volunteer army like we have now, but a selected military of service. He talks about why it failed and how changes in the new Army have made differences. How there were guys dealing drugs right out of his battalion, things that would NEVER happen now but were common place in the old army. Half of the guys in Vietnam did not want to even BE in the military at all, nevertheless, fighting in canopy jungle. Take J Kerry for example, didn't wanna be there, but sure does use his would be time there for political gain. I guess I don't really have a point other than comparing Iraq to Vietnam is wrong. Our army is VERY different, as is our opponent.

We wiped out the Iraqi military and took over the country in what, like 22 days or something like that? Mission accomplished. To all the nay sayers that say that terrorist supporters were not in Iraq, who do you think that we are fighting now? People from other nations have flocked to Iraq for sure... I give our guys the utmost respect. They went in there and did a job that no one wanted to have to do, but they did it with quickness and valor. The rest of the world, though they won't admit it ever, are glad that we are there doing what we are doing. If we don't do it, Israel will, and that will be much more ugly and with far more destruction than we could ever conceive.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by bwhip

Kerry did better than I expected, Bush about as poorly as I feared, however...

Kerry calls our coalition partners "the coalition of the bribed and coerced" and then expects to improve the relationship with them?

Kerry calls the Iraq war "a grand diversion" and "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and expects that to help the morale and effectiveness of our troops, or the willingness of other countries to help out to get us out of there sooner?

"a grand diversion" - The entire world was waiting for the discovery of WMD, none were found and the proof was admitted as being incorrect (possibly fabricated). We guarded the oil sites as the number one priority. The hatred for Saddam (whom we created). hmmm, maybe the building of 14 military bases right next to Iran?

"wrong war"? see above examples

"wrong place"? No AlQuida connections in Iraq (911 commission).

"wrong time"? War as last resort. Exhaust every and all means before sending troops into harms way.

"willingness of other countries to help out" Kerry wants to announce to world leaders that the past arrogant President (who thumbed his nose to the united nations) is gone and that there is a new leader who wants and needs to repair these relations with allies and rebuild a unified cause in keeping peace around the world, to watch out for each other and come to the each other's aid when necessary (please now help us with this Iraq thing). Some allies may never forgive, forget, or trust us again.

[ccwilli3]

what does kerry mean by hardening of roads and bridges? I am reading that in the transcript.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Kerry wants to announce to world leaders that the past arrogant President (who thumbed his nose to the united nations) is gone and that there is a new leader who wants and needs to repair these relations with allies and rebuild a unified cause in keeping peace around the world, to watch out for each other and come to the each other's aid when necessary (please now help us with this Iraq thing). Some allies may never forgive, forget, or trust us again.

There are a lot of us, present company included that think the UN failed, and applaud our president for acting to prevent a repeat of the Treaty of Versaille...

The UN is corrupt, witness the "Oil for Food" scandal that compromised France, Germany, and Russia to the point of stalemating the entire world. It's larger financially than any of the financial bubbles of the past. It robbed the US and others of huge amounts of cash and security....

The UN does not have overwhelming democratic membership, and thus has no stake in a free, democratic world. Most member countries do not want to see a democracy emerge in the Middle East.

Kerry can talk all he wants about UN involvement, but it's a failed institution that does not support US interest. My president will be the one that can face that challenge and act in our best interest when needed.

[QuikMike]

Originally Posted by ccwilli3

whoa man, you should read Tommy Franks' book, The American Soldier. It's awesome. He talks about the "old army" and how things were VERY different back then. Any doubts that we were fully committed to this are alleviated in the first few pages. This conflict was handled much differently than anything in the past ever was. But, back to the old army, it was not a volunteer army like we have now, but a selected military of service. He talks about why it failed and how changes in the new Army have made differences. How there were guys dealing drugs right out of his battalion, things that would NEVER happen now but were common place in the old army. Half of the guys in Vietnam did not want to even BE in the military at all, nevertheless, fighting in canopy jungle. Take J Kerry for example, didn't wanna be there, but sure does use his would be time there for political gain. I guess I don't really have a point other than comparing Iraq to Vietnam is wrong. Our army is VERY different, as is our opponent.

We wiped out the Iraqi military and took over the country in what, like 22 days or something like that? Mission accomplished. To all the nay sayers that say that terrorist supporters were not in Iraq, who do you think that we are fighting now? People from other nations have flocked to Iraq for sure... I give our guys the utmost respect. They went in there and did a job that no one wanted to have to do, but they did it with quickness and valor. The rest of the world, though they won't admit it ever, are glad that we are there doing what we are doing. If we don't do it, Israel will, and that will be much more ugly and with far more destruction than we could ever conceive.

Yep, mission accomplished in ousting Saddam Hussein. What about WMD? What about Bin Laden? What about Afghanistan? Was that not the purpose of this war in the beginning? To bring to justice the scum behind 9/11? I don't see how Bush can say "mission accomplished" when we haven't brought to justice Bin Laden. Yes, we have captured 75% of the Al Qaeda network, but mission accomplished means 100%, not 75%.

I have much respect and admiration for our troops deployed right now...no question, but I am willing to bet you money that just as many of the soldiers that hate Kerry feel the same way about Bush and the reason we're there...guaranteed...I hear it all the time from friends and family that are deployed...bottom line is, the current administration has misled the American public about the whole Iraq situation and I think there should be serious consequences behind them....

[gliberios]

I cannot believe how many people support Bush, I am not saying that Kerry is the answer but its a step in the right direction. Another four years of Bush is a scarry thought considering his last four years. More trees, less Bush

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by gliberios

I cannot believe how many people support Bush, I am not saying that Kerry is the answer but its a step in the right direction. Another four years of Bush is a scarry thought considering his last four years. More trees, less Bush

We're discussing the debates here....

[SuperDave]

Don't get me wrong, the UN bogged down and yes, in parts, were corrupt. But we can't survive in this world alone. It was very frustrating watching Saddam, but we still had 2/3 of Iraq under no fly zone. Too many points to make that although he's a pain in the ass, invading Iraq was not going to prove anything, only start up religous wars and more terrorism against the US.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, after Bush's State of the Union address I was ready to grab a M16 and die to protect my country from this Saddam who's about ready to destroy America. I was and still am very proud of our soldiers going there and kicking ass. THEN, like everyone else, I'm wondering where are all those weapons and tankers and plants like the ones in the intelligence photos? Keep waiting and then slowly it's leaked that our inspectors and high ranking officials told the President that there was NO evidence of nuclear building supplies, that trucks pictured were not biological/chemical carriers, these supposed WMD plants were indeed not WMD storages. That administration knew all this and spun it around to gain support for invasion. That's when my opinion wavered and began to be angered by this "mistaken intelligence". The war was now to be labled "Liberating Iraq". Wait a minute, no. You recieved all of our support from protecting our country from immenant (sp) danger from this madman who was ready to strike the US. No one argued about attacking Afghanistan (911 response). It was when rumors started that we were going to attack Iraq next when I first started questioning their supposed involvelment in 9/11.

cc, you make some good points. My point (although very vague) was now that were in this mess, we can't simply back out. Rather, figure on a stradegy that's going to give our soldiers the best opportunity to win (stabilize this new Iraq as best we can) and get the hell out of there.

Clinton did miss THE perfect opportunity to assasinate Bin Laden, but he feared the back lash because Saudi royal family members may be killed in the attack as well. We had him, Clinton aborted the mission in fear of the consequences. Hind sight is always 20/20.

(sorry, lots of spelling mistakes and my points are all over the place as I'm trying to work and rant at the same time )

[ccwilli3]

Originally Posted by QuikMike

Yep, mission accomplished in ousting Saddam Hussein. What about WMD? What about Bin Laden? What about Afghanistan? Was that not the purpose of this war in the beginning? To bring to justice the scum behind 9/11? I don't see how Bush can say "mission accomplished" when we haven't brought to justice Bin Laden. Yes, we have captured 75% of the Al Qaeda network, but mission accomplished means 100%, not 75%.

I have much respect and admiration for our troops deployed right now...no question, but I am willing to bet you money that just as many of the soldiers that hate Kerry feel the same way about Bush and the reason we're there...guaranteed...I hear it all the time from friends and family that are deployed...bottom line is, the current administration has misled the American public about the whole Iraq situation and I think there should be serious consequences behind them....

hey hey hey, I scored 75 on some tests in college and I graduated!

I don't expect anything to happen quickly either, that is where the president gets the nod to me, he is steadfast in his commitment to the mission at hand. I am not convinced that Kerry will stay committed to any decision he makes. He is very easily swain in the court of public opinion, and when lives are on the line, you have to stand by your decisions.

No soldier likes to be deployed, especially as long as some of the guys are getting it now. However, very few would rather be deployed by someone that doesn't back them and disgraces his fellow soldier when in a similar situation. I live with someone thats served and every close friend she has served or is serving, so I hear it everyday. Kerry is not their leader of choice...

off topic I know, but yesterday I was told: "kerry is the only soldier on record to get a medal for taking it in the ass." Ouch, that hurt, but was damn funny! A service person shared these intellectual thoughts with me!

[figment]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

...My point (although very vague) was now that were in this mess, we can't simply back out. Rather, figure on a stradegy that's going to give our soldiers the best opportunity to win (stabilize this new Iraq as best we can) and get the hell out of there. ... )

IMO there was never a time when we were not "in this mess". Did we ask for 911? no. Did we create a bad situation in Iraq? yes. Is the cost of freedom cheap or have and end to its payements? no. Wiil the "war" end after we finish with Iraq? no. Can Kerry do a better job than Bush? NO. (He cant even keep a consistent position.) Am I happy with Bush as a president so far? He could have done a better job, he could speak better, but his integrity is far superior to Kerry IMO.