SwiftVets.com

[Tom Poole]

[Fort Campbell]

[Fort Campbell]

[joeshero]

[CyberAcorn]

In response to the question "Who's top target, bin Laden or Saddam?" John Kerry stated "...And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.4/index.html

My question: I thought part of the argument against the war was that we had not found WMD. From where are these weapons coming? What are they? Who do we have to go get next? (Syria, Iran, France)

If President Bush would listen to what kerry actually says, he could shut him down using kerry's own words. Instead, President Bush already knew what he wanted to say and allowed kerry to espouse anything he wanted.

I would like to see someone challenge kerry on the WMD statement.

VR,
JH

[Paul R.]

Hey, I've been away from the computer since Thurday night. ("Life"!) Don't have time to follow this thread all the way back to my last post, or rerun the debate this morning. So if this has been covered, ignore me, or if I need correction, please correct me. And please fill in details if you have them & it seems worthwhile.

I remember Kerry stated more than once that Iraq was stretching us too thin, was a costly diversion of resources, implied we were "90%" tied up in Iraq, etc.

But he also quoted someone (high ranking) that we went into Iraq with vastly insufficient forces. The number 700,000 - 800,000 sticks in my mind: Is that correct?

The implication is, I guess, that we should have made up the difference by building a larger coalition.

Now, obviously we did not need those extra troops to defeat Saddam, so
Sen. Kerry must be saying we needed them for long term duty to control Iraq after defeating Saddam.

Question: How many coalition troops from other countries were with us in Gulf War 1?

Fact: Many countries contributed forces to the coalition in Gulf War 1 because Saddam in control of most of the Middle East's oil directly threatened them, in one way or another.

The threat today is different: What kind of fantasy world does Kerry live in to think that we could possibly build a coalition remotely near what we had in Gulf War 1? Much less half a million or so troops from other countries, to help control Iraq for however long it takes. Specifics, Senator Kerry: How's you gonna get that? Your winning personality?

A small point perhaps, but it is really bugging me.

Also, a question for someone in the know, military-wise: What is a realistic assessment of how much of the U.S. capability is "tied up" in Iraq?

Thanks.
_________________
Paul R.

[Paul R.]

[homesteader]

Paul R,

Another aspect of your point.....

Many of Kerry's surrogates use Gulf War 1 as an example of how a coalition should be built when criticizing the President. They say he should have done things like his Dad did and get others (mainly the Saudis) to foot the bill.

Question: If that was the model of how to do it, why was Kerry one of the very few to vote against it?

[Me#1You#10]

With appreciation to all the participants, it's now time to get the Main Forum refocused on SBVT critical issues.

I'll be moving this shortly to the Geedunk Forum for any afterthoughts.

Thanks

[USAF66-70]

Poole & others:

Kerry did NOT say, “Now let me say, I should be president because I’m tough. And I’m tough because I served in Vietnam....”

That transcript is: Bush v. Kerry, Round 1 – Abridged. ABRIDGED!

Kerry said plenty of horrendous things. No need to make stuff up—leave that to the Dems.

[Tom Poole]

[Rich]

"""""""""Question: How many coalition troops from other countries were with us in Gulf War 1?"""""""

If I remember right there were roughly 400,000 Americans deployed in Gulf-1 along with 200,000 coalition personel. If I remember right the numbers deployed during Iraqi Freedom were about 250,000 Americans and about 45,000 coalition personel. Most of which came from Great Britain.
There was never any chance for a "larger coalition". If the world community was going to overlook all the violations of ITNTL Law that Saddam commited then how could we expect them to join in a coalition. There was no way a larger coalition could be formed, no-one could have done it. The "world community" couldnt have cared less what Saddam did, "as long as he wasnt putting at risk their oil supplies". As he did in Gulf-l . And the UN was to busy stealing money from starving Iraqi kids in the "oil for food program".

When will Americans learn the "world community" and the United Nations couldnt care less about us? They made a bunch of noise post-9/11 but since the American military already had their oil resources secured they werent about to risk another attack on Saddam. The world is an amalgamation of nation states that act only in their self-interest. With the exception of Britian I dont believe we have "real friends" in the world and most countrys are hunting down Islamic terrorists, not only for their own self-interest, but out of fear of the American military.

From the begining I gave the chances for Iraqi democracy to be, at best, 50/50. Its easy to sit in an armchair, somewhere in America, and say were going to build a "free Iraq". But I have been tempered by 18 mos in that twisted region and I am not so confident. How do you give freedom to a people who are so completly indifferent to it? Whos very religion allows them to be so casually brutal to each other?............Rich
_________________
"Freedom" is never "free"

[Paul R.]

[Paul R.]

[Paul R.]