Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 10:17 AM

Now Kerry is going to argue that removing the 70,000 troops from around the world is bad... I guess he will argue anything that opposes Bush!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

CINCINNATI, Ohio (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is expected to argue Wedesday that President Bush might hinder the war on terror and other aspects of national security with his proposal to recall as many as 70,000 troops from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia.

In a speech prepared for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Kerry contended that Bush's policy would dangerously reduce forces at a time when the nation is fighting the al-Qaeda terrorist network in 60 countries across the globe, according to a campaign statement.

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 10:29 AM

This thread is redundant. Sorry djohnson but we are alredy having this discussion here: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=224411

Dr.HermanG. · Aug 18, 2004, 10:31 AM

You don't need military bases everywhere to fight terrorism, Mr. Kerry. You remove the larger, more expensive bases and leave behind the smaller ones with specially trained anti-terrorist units.

Millennium · Aug 18, 2004, 10:36 AM

I'm afraid this argument doesn't really hold much water. If we are attacking al-Qaeda's centers of power, then doesn't it make sense for the troops to be stationed where those centers of power are, and not in places which haven't needed our protection in decades?

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
This thread is redundant. Sorry djohnson but we are alredy having this discussion here: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=224411

This thread is not redundant. I am perfectly aware of that thread, but choose to create a new one due to this is solely about Kerry not wanting the US to remove its troops.

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm afraid this argument doesn't really hold much water. If we are attacking al-Qaeda's centers of power, then doesn't it make sense for the troops to be stationed where those centers of power are, and not in places which haven't needed our protection in decades?

I wonder what the Kerry supporters have to say about this. Funny thing is that this might end up hurting him worse than helping him.

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by djohnson:
This thread is not redundant. I am perfectly aware of that thread, but choose to create a new one due to this is solely about Kerry not wanting the US to remove its troops.

Topic: Removing troops is bad?

The topic sure sounds redundant

Kerry and his POV is already a part of the thread Simey started. Just got page 3 (if you have 50 posts per page as is forum default)

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Kerry and his POV is already a part of the thread Simey started. Just got page 3 (if you have 50 posts per page as is forum default)

Ahh but that was posted at 10:24AM CST this morning, well after I posted this thread. Sorry, but I cannnot see into the future.

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by djohnson:
Ahh but that was posted at 10:24AM CST this morning, well after I posted this thread. Sorry, but I cannnot see into the future.

WHAT

What good are u then 4???

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
WHAT

What good are u then 4???

Well I have a job to support my family.

Maybe that counts some?

voodoo · Aug 18, 2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by djohnson:
Well I have a job to support my family. Maybe that counts some?

OK carry on. As you were.

djohnson · Aug 18, 2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
OK carry on. As you were.

Ok back to the subject... How long until Kerry decides to switch sides and wants the troops to come home?

KaBlooey · Aug 18, 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by djohnson:
Now Kerry is going to argue that removing the 70,000 troops from around the world is bad... I guess he will argue anything that opposes Bush!

Bush's proposal to "bring home" troops is another one of his sugar-coated distractions, along the lines of going to Mars and suggesting eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants. The timeline for the troop pullout encompasses 10 years, and the timing of the announcement in this election year is no co-inky-dink. Look for more desperate measures from the Bush team as they realize they are doomed on Novenmber 2nd...you're gonna see lots 'o sugar and lots 'o sh!t flying.

itai195 · Aug 19, 2004, 01:26 AM

To be honest I haven't looked a lot into the details of Bush's plan. But in theory I'd say I probably agree with him over Kerry -- why in the world is Kerry taking this position?

BlackGriffen · Aug 19, 2004, 01:40 AM

"Whatever it is, I'm against it" -- Graucho Marx

In other words, if it contradicts Bush, and is in any way shape or form reasonable, it's a stance Kerry will probably take.

BG

itai195 · Aug 19, 2004, 01:42 AM

I figured. I have to say, that's becoming a real turn-off. I am enthusiastically in support of the realization that the cold war is over.... apparently some politicians are not.

chalk_outline · Aug 19, 2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by djohnson:
Ok back to the subject... How long until Kerry decides to switch sides and wants the troops to come home?

Maybe when the polls show that folks want the troops home. It's almost like he flip-flops to represent the change in American views. Instead we have Bush that doesn't-give-a-****-what-we-think.

Spheric Harlot · Aug 19, 2004, 06:48 AM

There's a great Kliban cartoon that I can't find online, with two picketers holding up signs, one's saying "FOR AGAINST" and the other's "AGAINST FOR".

-s*

macvillage.net · Aug 19, 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm afraid this argument doesn't really hold much water. If we are attacking al-Qaeda's centers of power, then doesn't it make sense for the troops to be stationed where those centers of power are, and not in places which haven't needed our protection in decades?

AL Qaeda is structured more like the Internet than the US Military.

They intentionally avoid a 'center of power'. Instead going for loosely knit cells. That way when a cell dies, the rest still function.

A cell is also easily capable of moving (as the 9/11 hijackers are said to have done many times), dispurse, and re-arrange; all at a moments notice.

It's like trying to end the internet by cutting 1 wire. Just can't happen.

Ideally you need to cut the power behind, and stop new cells from forming. Then erode cells. That's the idea behind curing cancer as well. Unless you stop the growth, doesn't matter how many you kill.

Iraq's biggest link to terror was the abuse of civilians, making them more likely to fall for bin laden's requests for jihad. Desparate people do desparate things. Put someone in the right position, and they will kill themselves to make a point. We've seen munks do it too (think back a bit, and some famous pictures will come to mind).

By removing that from the equation, no question you reduce their recruiting in that country.

The idea of Democracy for Iraq as a cure isn't so far fetched... but it doesn't solve the big problem: unless relations start to normalize between the western world and the middle east, there will always be tensions, and avenues for al qaeda to abuse.

Democracy in theory could be the biggest weapon against Al Qaeda... or could any form of government. The problem is it needs to be integrated into thee rest of the world.

Keeping the Saudi's and Pakistani's close was by far the best move Bush made in office regarding terrorism. These have been the two primary intelegence sources to date, as well as the most high profile arrests. Look what we got from countries we were 'hard' against. Iran, Syria... very little. Problem is Bush's motive was oil and fly-over rights... rather than fighting terrorism.

If the US is serious about fighting terrorism, it needs to change some deplomacy to further it's fight. Otherwise, we are swimming upstream with a current as strong as us.