American forces losing control in Iraq

[Blackmane]

Originally Posted by Neo

He voted for the war because he thought it was the right thing to do. He assumed Bush had a plan to win the peace which it turns out isn't entirely accurate. Also the cost of the war has gone what they promised it would. That shows a severe lack of planning. I believe he said we could reduce our presence by half in six months by replacing with UN troops.

And yet, Kerry is going out this week, after saying that he would reduce troops in Iraq, now saying that Iraq is more dangerous than ever. How does he intend on removing troops from Iraq without more greatly endangering the troops that are still there. Remember, that France and Germany have already said they will not come to Kerry's aid to replemish troops, and his constant alienation of our allies might end up making them uncommit their troops to the war effort, which would mean we would actually need MORE troops down there longer. Also, remember that Bush has training of the Iraqies moving along well, which is the best way to take care of security down there. The answer is, Kerry does not have a better plan. His only answer in the debate was bringing more allies into it, and we have all seen how good he is at doing that.

Face it, if you look at Kerry's voting record in the Senate, he has been on the wrong side of almost every national security issue that has come up. That is the best indicator of where he will stand on Iraq. My gut tells me that he will do what is takes to RETREAT and be defeated there because he is so strongly against war. It is fairly obvious comparing his speeches to his voting that he is willing to say anything to get the votes he needs.

[Neo]

I read somewhere that we're supposed to have trained 100,000 Iraqies by now but the real figure is closer to 20,000. I'll try to find the source.

From Kerry's own website:

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was off by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. Neither number bears any relationship to the facts. By the administration's own minimal standards, just 5,000 soldiers have been fully trained. And of the 32,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program.

[Blackmane]

I still don't see how you think Kerry will ramp up training while still minimizing troops in Iraq.

See, people can point out lots of problems with Bush's policies, but they can't explain how Kerry can improve on the situation.

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Blackmane

I still don't see how you think Kerry will ramp up training while still minimizing troops in Iraq.

See, people can point out lots of problems with Bush's policies, but they can't explain how Kerry can improve on the situation.

They can believe that Kerry won't continue to make more blunders as Bush will if he remains in office.

As to how this all could have been handled differently, I direct you to the post I made in that other Iraq thread oh so long ago. And I also want to make an observation: in the wake af Pearl Harbor, Americans were asked to step up, and they did. In the wake of 9/11, Americans were asked to step aside and let the professionals handle it. And they did. And this is the result.

At the very least, if Bush had managed to build up real support for the war in Iraq at home, he wouldn't have to deal with everybody always trying to "undermine" the effort.

[Blackmane]

Originally Posted by Xantar

They can believe that Kerry won't continue to make more blunders as Bush will if he remains in office.

As to how this all could have been handled differently, I direct you to the post I made in that other Iraq thread oh so long ago. And I also want to make an observation: in the wake af Pearl Harbor, Americans were asked to step up, and they did. In the wake of 9/11, Americans were asked to step aside and let the professionals handle it. And they did. And this is the result.

At the very least, if Bush had managed to build up real support for the war in Iraq at home, he wouldn't have to deal with everybody always trying to "undermine" the effort.

You can almost bet that he will not put focus into this war and will actually move to pull out, victory or not, instead of fighting and finishing this war in Iraq. That will simply show a message of weakness to these people, and thats something that is dangerous and can't be allowed to happen. If you don't believe me, take the time to look into Kerry's voting record and his anti-war feelings after Vietnam as proof of this.

Also, I'm not asking how things could have been done differently, because almost everyone who has a brain knows that the war could have been done differently. Hindsight is 20/20.

I'm asking what Kerry would do different from this point on. I have already made my case as to what I believe he will do. If you want to make a case based on his promises, which have no backing in reality, then go ahead.

Also, I believe there was support for the war in Iraq in the beginning. I don't know the % support, but I believe it was in the 70's or 80's. When things got messy and elections came up, dissent started rising in order to generate bad feelings towards Bush.