Jhhnn, you can't expect heartsurgeon to actually read and understand the truth. He must maintain his glorious level of hyperbole and rhetoric and to actually admit to the truth would destroy everything he proclaims.
if you actually read the article (MSNBC) carefully, it never once actually mentions increasing troop levelsa from other nations...you are assuming this is what Kerry means, but what he says is quite nuanced..
he says:
"he did not anticipate sending more American troops to Iraq and hoped to bring ?significant numbers? home during his first term."
"?I would consider it an unsuccessful policy if I hadn?t brought significant numbers of troops back within the first term. And I will do that.?"
"He tied the withdrawal of American soldiers to his effort to win greater international participation in Iraq, citing increased roles in the reconstruction effort and decision-making process"
[no specific mention of troops, your assuming he means troops is meaningless..he never says troops]
"he would encourage other countries, particularly Arab nations, to contribute forces." - He doesn't link the withdrawal of U.S. troops to this..a linkage you assume.
Your reading of the MSNBC article is not very nuanced....Kerry's only definitive statements are that he will bring significant numbers of troops back...no specific linkage to foreign troops introduced into iraq..
just the facts..not your inaccurate interpretations please.
Kerry makes it perfectly clear that he will reduce U.S. troops in iraq...the rest is all vague, speculative, and he does not state that "American troop withdrawal is dependent on increased troop levels from other nations"
poor comprehension buddy.....
1. He might say that but he will cave to the partys majority, the left wing majority, that want to pull out of Iraq ASAP.
2. The Saudi Monarchy could easily fall. Its already corrupt from within, it wouldnt take to much to topple it.
So far he hasnt said anything about how he plans to get allied troops. Are you and him naive to think that if he becomes president France and Germany or Russia, or anyone, will aid the US? Its not going to happen, we wont be seeing any more non US forces enter Iraq. I bet we lose more allied forces than we gain.
If the House of Saud falls isn't that due primarily to the fact it has minimal support amongst the people? Don't we unambiguously endorse the rights of people to rule their government as opposed to the other way around?
On John Kerry's wish list:
1) competent and plentiful Iraqi National Guard/Border Patrol/police force . . . doubtful.
2) several thousand troops from NATO, other allied countries, Arab League, or ad hoc Muslim force . . . doubtful.
3) Iraq runs out of terrorists . . . highly unlikely . . . thnx GWB.
4) Contractors start hiring Iraqis only to rebuild the infrastructure . . . may happen . . . except for US and Kuwaiti contractors.
5) UN and Arab League endorse a new (and plausible) plan for Iraq . . . possible.
6) Iraqis execute free/fair elections and are generally happy with the outcome . . . unlikely but we can hope.
Items 1, 3, and 6 are not necessarily dependent on US leadership. Items 2, 4, and 5 will likely require new leadership. In either case both Bush and Kerry would love the delivery of anything on the list but they unlikely to any and "all" is a pipe dream.
On John Kerry's wish list:
1) competent and plentiful Iraqi National Guard/Border Patrol/police force . . . doubtful.
2) several thousand troops from NATO, other allied countries, Arab League, or ad hoc Muslim force . . . doubtful.
3) Iraq runs out of terrorists . . . highly unlikely . . . thnx GWB.
4) Contractors start hiring Iraqis only to rebuild the infrastructure . . . may happen . . . except for US and Kuwaiti contractors.
5) UN and Arab League endorse a new (and plausible) plan for Iraq . . . possible.
6) Iraqis execute free/fair elections and are generally happy with the outcome . . . unlikely but we can hope.
Items 1, 3, and 6 are not necessarily dependent on US leadership. Items 2, 4, and 5 will likely require new leadership. In either case both Bush and Kerry would love the delivery of anything on the list but they unlikely to any and "all" is a pipe dream.
Spin it any way you want, HS, Kerry "hopes" to bring home many troops during his first term, a four year period, obviously depending on a lot of factors. Not exactly the cut and run scenario you've painted in your opening statement-
"A Kerry presidency in my opinion would clearly include a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and would also "embolden" Al Qaeda in their belief that political pressure can force the U.S. military posture to change."
Which amounts to little more than sensationalist fear mongering, based on a double layered set of assumptions.
Oh, yeh, and there's the absurd six month reference in the header...
"A Kerry presidency in my opinion would clearly include a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and would also "embolden" Al Qaeda in their belief that political pressure can force the U.S. military posture to change."
Which amounts to little more than sensationalist fear mongering, based on a double layered set of assumptions.
Oh, yeh, and there's the absurd six month reference in the header...
Nice thread topic - everyone should invent a hypothetical chain of events that forecasts doom relating to some internal political decision or event & post it here on AT P&N. (good job EDoG2K, but please start a new topic like this one).
Some ideas for people that need them:
Some ideas for people that need them:
well, i can't take complete credit for the thread...i got the idea from tec699 and his visionary thread entitled.
"If elected to a second term will Bush start a world war"
i'm very sure that you've made the same comment about that thread already...no doubt....
One thing you dimbulbs fail to recognize, is that by disengaging (somewhat) from the middle east, you remove the fuel from the al quaede fire. Without the US, al quaeda probably doesn't even exist. Leave the friggin people alone, stay out of there friggin business...and, in all likelyhood, they no longer hate your guts and want you dead. Confusing eh?
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
Al Qaeda has declared war on all americans....if you have forgotten.
"disengagement?" this will accelerate the radicalization of the middle east...iran will take over southern iraq, the kurds will break off the northern half of iraq and declare an autonomous country (which will destabilize eastern turkey (who has the largest land army in all of Europe), Syria and the Baathists located there will grab the western portion of iraq, the Saudi goverment will overthrown promptly, and the bulk of middle east oil will come under the control of religious fanatics who are anti-western.....
the price of oil will skyrocket, and the world economy will go into the tank....
and..strategically...just like the Democrat engineered debacle in Vietnam, despots in the future will point to the utter lack of political will of the U.S. to carry out military interventions abroad, and this will embolden them (just like Saddam was, and Bin Laden).
we are still paying the price today, for the disasterous Democrat policies in Vietnam, and what it did to the perception of our "will to fight".
He's a flaming liberal because he supports becoming less dependence on a volatile part of the world? You wouldn't like to be less dependent on the middle east?
We would all like to be, but being less dependent on oil is not a reality. And please, don't tell people not to drive their SUVs.
Maybe Todd33 should stop driving his car to reduce our country's dependence. Or, we can sieze the oil while its there before another nation does.
No its not currently a reality, but why not invest in that future? Certain technologies show a lot of promise. Why would we not explore them. And he has every right to try and convince people that their SUV's are a poor transportation choice. I bet Todd33 does try to drive cars that are fuel efficient. That after all is a choice he can make in reality, not driving a car at all would not be living in reality.
Perhaps I am reading this thread wrong. Are you, heartsurgeon, suggesting that we base our use of deadly force on a hypothetical chain of events where we assume we are the only stabilizing factor?
This concept of needing to "fix" the rest of the world is what gave us Osama in the first place, lest we all forget where he came from. Remember, back then it was the Soviet Union we were worried about. Well they certainly managed to fall apart mostly on their own, but thanks to our "intervention" we now have Osama to deal with.
Whether or not your situation COULD happen, your argument in deeply flawed because you wrongly believe the US is the only variable factor. In a situation like you describe, there are many factors that affect the outcome. You can't possibly assume that our presence or absense would affect the outcome in a positive way. Well, I guess you can, but I'd like to see some substantial support for the basic theory along the lines of "The Middle East will become worse if we don't stay, and it will be better if we do."
Your argument doesn't address how you made that leap, you simply give a dire prediction and say only we can stop it. I ask again, WHY do you believe that?
Edit: I still can't remember the name of the logical fallacy you are engaged in. But it basically goes, "Y will happen unless you do X." Everyone is scared of Y, so they want to do X without even thinking of where that cause and effect assumption comes from. A great example is Orrin Hatch and his protecting the children laws. Unless you support his bills, children will be taken advantage of on the internet. That kind of argument is really stupid if your audience has more than two neurons to rub together, but it seems a lot of people do not.
This concept of needing to "fix" the rest of the world is what gave us Osama in the first place, lest we all forget where he came from. Remember, back then it was the Soviet Union we were worried about. Well they certainly managed to fall apart mostly on their own, but thanks to our "intervention" we now have Osama to deal with.
Whether or not your situation COULD happen, your argument in deeply flawed because you wrongly believe the US is the only variable factor. In a situation like you describe, there are many factors that affect the outcome. You can't possibly assume that our presence or absense would affect the outcome in a positive way. Well, I guess you can, but I'd like to see some substantial support for the basic theory along the lines of "The Middle East will become worse if we don't stay, and it will be better if we do."
Your argument doesn't address how you made that leap, you simply give a dire prediction and say only we can stop it. I ask again, WHY do you believe that?
Edit: I still can't remember the name of the logical fallacy you are engaged in. But it basically goes, "Y will happen unless you do X." Everyone is scared of Y, so they want to do X without even thinking of where that cause and effect assumption comes from. A great example is Orrin Hatch and his protecting the children laws. Unless you support his bills, children will be taken advantage of on the internet. That kind of argument is really stupid if your audience has more than two neurons to rub together, but it seems a lot of people do not.
man next five years are doomsday no matter who comes to power 
...Legalize a third term in office? CLington again
...Legalize a third term in office? CLington again Perhaps you just aren't reading the thread at all....
the thread is about what Kerry plans to do with our troops in Iraq if he gets elected.
everything he has done in the previous 30 years of his life, along with his most recent statements, indicates to me that he plans to rapidly withdraw nearly all of our troops from iraq, within months, rather than years.
i am specifically not addressing ANY issues dealing with the past. the decision to invade iraq is not the topic of this thread (that topic has been beaten to death in numerous other threads).
we are in iraq. the discussion is about what might happen with a rapid withdrawal of U.S. and coallition troops from iraq.
we have critical national interests in the middle east (yes, oil is one of them).
Originally posted by: hatim
man next five years are doomsday no matter who comes to power
Keep in mind, those aren't virgins waiting for you, they're Virginians. Angry Virginians.
And please, don't tell people not to drive their SUVs.
Maybe Todd33 should stop driving his car to reduce our country's dependence. Or, we can sieze the oil while its there before another nation does.[/quote]
It's not a reality because of people ike Bush, who has a vested interest in seeing the oil industry continue. Far more money could be pumped into developing alternative energy sources, but the status quo is better for Big Oil.
No one claims that our oil dependence is Bush's fault. We blame him for not pursueing a policy that will contribute to us being less dependent on oil in the long term.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter