Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Kerry's speech calling for and suggesting an exit strategy from Iraq

  1. Oct 27, 2005 #1
    What is this?

    A Democrat with an idea. :bugeye:
    http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2005 #2
    Apparently Republicans have ideas too.

    Bush: "Let's invade Iraq. It'll be great. Everyone'll love it."
  4. Oct 27, 2005 #3
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  5. Oct 27, 2005 #4
    Wow counds like he is actually thinking about the well fair of the US, and Iraq. Good on him!
  6. Oct 27, 2005 #5
    I had misgivings about John Kerry, but I always thought he would be far more capable of resolving the Iraq mess than Bush.

    I don't believe we can reshape the ME for the better. Nor do I believe we have the right.

    On a side note.

    I wonder what kind of flack Kerry would have gotten for Katrina, if he had been elected?
  7. Oct 27, 2005 #6
    :biggrin: *feeling an urge to blend in*

    I think I finally understand why Kelly failed to curry favour with the Americans, he is too intellectual (!). Any way Bush is nice in his own way as well, bringing every religiosity, banality, cruelty, hypocrisy, stupidity that America has to offer to the fore and to a head too.

    The rest of the world would have otherwise been duped for some more years if it were not for him.

  8. Oct 27, 2005 #7
    This is exactly what Bushco dont want to do.
  9. Oct 27, 2005 #8
    In all fairness, it's a lot easier to stand up and say what he did when you've LOST the election. And staging a pull-out of Iraq is easier to say than do.

    I think there's a better way to pull out of Iraq, and this is going to sound anti-American but it's not at all. Pull out the American troops and send in more troops from other countries.

    Think about it.

    Who gets all the blame for the mess in Iraq despite the fact they were only one of the members of the coalition, and one of two countries pushing strong for the invasion in the first place?

    Which country are those who use Iraq as a platform for anti-western activities most preoccupied with?

    Which country's troops come under the most criticism for brutality (e.g. torture), ineptitude (e.g. friendly fire), misconduct (e.g. bombing where they shouldn't) and being ill-disposed (e.g. climate problems)?

    America is a symbol for anti-western and anti-coalition sentiment, and the American troops have been a source of discontentment for Iraqis and non-American soldiers alike since the beginning of the war. I think their very presence ironically makes them pulling out more difficult.

    Like I said, that's not an anti-American sentiment. Most of those reasons are entirely due to America being the most powerful country in the coalition, and so naturally deemed the most responsible for the foul situation.
  10. Oct 27, 2005 #9
    Slight problem there, other countries dont want to go in...

    true, I dont think he is denying that, but I dont see any Plans from the administration do you?
  11. Oct 27, 2005 #10
    True enough. Those countries that supported the coalition, though, have a responsibility to rebuild Iraq. If the best option is a US-free option, and I believe it is for the reasons I stated, then they have a duty to implement it.

    Of course, the more obvious problem is one of numbers.

    That's my point. It's easy to state plans and intentions when you don't have to do anything about it. Governments get held to plans, so it's no wonder, given the unpredictability of the situation, that the Bush administration keeps it vague.

    On the other hand, it could be they don't even HAVE a plan, which is consistent with the lack of forward-planning they've demonstrated so far.

    Regardless, politicians say things when they're not in power they wouldn't necessarily do if they were in power. I don't see the point in applauding someone for an orotund pronouncement of the way forward when they have no capacity to deliver.

    I'm not saying don't support his argument; I'm just saying it's hardly surprising the opposition have vocal ideas about how to get out of Iraq.
  12. Oct 27, 2005 #11
    When the American people reelected Bush they closed that option.

    There is little incentive for other nations to help out. With America in charge, and Bushco in charge of America, the situation is only going to get worse.

    Why would any other nation want to get involved in a lose lose situation?
  13. Oct 27, 2005 #12
    I aggree, but by publically stating what he just did he is creating more public presure on the goverment to do what is needed, and is being asked for, which is a good thing...
  14. Oct 27, 2005 #13
    Which as a Senator in the minority party is one of few avenues left.

    This speech is in line with what he was saying during the campaign. Maybe you missed it amid all the coverage of the swift boat smear campaign.

    [edit]Not directed at you you Anttech, just in general.[/edit]
  15. Oct 27, 2005 #14
    Yeah, I remember the plan for withdrawal, from the campaign. 4000 troops would start coming home last January.

    And Skyhunter, I don't know that:
    is an accurate representation of what happened.
  16. Oct 27, 2005 #15
    That would depend on if he was to have appointed someone unqualifed to run FEMA too, wouldn't it?
  17. Oct 27, 2005 #16
    I am not convinced either. But it is not pertinent to the point. He is the President and enough people did vote for him that to other nations the American people are viewed as supportive of his policies.
  18. Oct 27, 2005 #17
    I have.

    What he mentioned in the end was the criticism levelled at them from the end of the war onwards.

    Pull out immediately and let them get on with it ...

    When Saddam fell, there were no terrorist in Iraq.

    This would not have been abandoment had they invited the UN to take over but ... well, they wanted all the lucrative contract for themselves.:rolleyes:
  19. Oct 27, 2005 #18
    Well, the man we elected in 2000 did *this* in the aftermath of Katrina:



    I think this stands in stark contrast to what Bush did(n't do).
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  20. Oct 27, 2005 #19
    True, it's not pertinent to the point. I am not trying to derail the thread.

    But, I believe phrasing is important - Look how many comments from overseas relate to ideas like "How can the American people have elected this man?":grumpy:

    In other words, the american people are being blamed for something that they may not have done.

    There's no doubt that roughly half the population voted for Bush. But the entire population gets painted with the same brush, and had Kerry been sworn in, even though roughly half the populatioon had voted for Bush, the comments from overseas would be more along the lines of "Americans have come to their senses."

    And it's ironic, because the two descriptions are very different, but the votes would have been just about the same.

    Thankfully, most people are smart enough that if they look at the numbers they realize that half of us were very opposed to this person.

    This is all pure opinion on my part, based on sweeping comments I have seen made by non-Americans since last November.

    I am not saying Kerry won. I am saying exactly what I said in the previous post: I don't know that "the american people reelected bush" is an accurate comment.
  21. Oct 27, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I read the section entitled "The Kerry Plan" and from what I can see, it only takes us through the end of December and the removal of 20,000 troops. What of the other half a million (guess) troops?

    Not much of a plan. :rolleyes: (anyone surprised?)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook