Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Kerry for redeployment before he was against it

Election 2004 John Kerry

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 01:07 PM

"In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."

That's your definition of a flip flop???   :unsure:
Posted Image

#22 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 02:10 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 19 2004, 01:05 PM, said:

"In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."

That's your definition of a flip flop???   :unsure:
Going from 'maybe we should consider it' to 'it's crazy to consider it' . . . I'd call that a flip-flop.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#23 Meepski

Meepski
  • Islander
  • 166 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 02:44 PM

Let me try to put this on an objective basis by breaking the quotes down to their essence line by line, stripping off the inflammatory language and whatnot, and see what we have left.  Admittadly this is not a science -- deciding what the essence is -- but here is my best shot.

Kerry, August 1st:


I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops [in Iraq].

I will significantly reduce troops in Iraq.

We will probably have a continued presence of some kind, certainly in the region.

But not withdraw completely.

If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world.

Using diplomacy, we can change how our troops are distributed in the world.

In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps.

Perhaps in Korea and Europe.


Kerry, yesterday:

"And this hastily announced plan [of Bush's] raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitment than it provides real answers.

Bush's plan raises doubts about our intentions and commitment.

For example why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons."

For example, why are we withdrawing troops from Korea while negotiating with North Korea?

Summary

Quote #1

I will significantly reduce troops in Iraq.
But not withdraw completely
Using diplomacy, we can change how our troops are distributed in the world.
Perhaps in Korea and Europe.

Quote #2

Bush's plan raises doubts about our intentions and commitment.
For example, why are we withdrawing troops from Korea while negotiating with North Korea?

My conclusion

There is no flip-flop or contradiction here that I can see.  Alternative "essence summaries" could show a flip-flop -- I think that would be interesting to see.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great struggle. -- Philo of Alexandria

#24 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 03:43 PM

It's absolutely not a reversal. I've heard him say before either of these comments that we're there and unilaterally withdrawing can't be an option. In fact, he's been knocked by other Democrats for saying so.

But he does say that if we use diplomacy as a tool we won't have to use so many troops - and he's right. If only  Bush had used it as a tool instead of a bludgeon this country wouldn't be paying for the war in Iraq by itself - the out-of-control spending the last couple of years by Republicans, who are usually fiscally conservative, has had me scratching my head anyway. You'd think they were a bunch of spend-happy Democrats. :p And the war budget is very conveniently not even included in the deficit.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that maybe if we mend some diplomatic fences it can only work to our advantage.

Edited to add: I see Meepski beat me to it. Well said.

Edited by Rhea, 19 August 2004 - 03:44 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#25 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 04:10 PM

On a per capita basis other nations such as Great Britian, Poland, Australia, the Ukraine or Bulgaria have supplied the same roughly ten percent of thier force strangth that the US has. I already have threads detailing the entire Polish, UK and Australian military pinned above the fray that you can check thier total force and level of commitments vs. thier deployment in Iraq.
As it is the nations that surpass the US in level of military personnel are nations such as China, North Korea or India that don't need to be in Iraq and couldn't move more than a tiny token force there on thier own anyway.(India because of the issue of Hindu peacekkepers in a muslim nation not due to the more obvious reasons of the PRC and China) France, Germany and the UK are the strongest miltarilly of the US's NATO allies and even they do not have anything like the amount of personnel in the US military. They couldn't supply an equal number of troops for the simple reason that they don't have that many to give. Even Russia only has a total army size that is equal to that of the US now and thier is no way that they'd be able to get enough troops out of thier homeland to equal the American troop commitment even if by some miracle they could be convinced to join. None of the nations involved in the coalition have as many total military personnel as the US and the only nations that have more in the entire world are the PRC, North Korea, and India.
A few nations haven't supplied ten percent of thier total force for Iraq such as Spain and Italy but the vast majority have done so. It may take me a while but I can start posting total military strengths of every nation in the Coalition and then we can have a free comparison of troop strength vs, deployed strength.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#26 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 04:18 PM

Meepski, on Aug 19 2004, 12:42 PM, said:

There is no flip-flop or contradiction here that I can see.
Thank you.

Lil
Posted Image

#27 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 05:52 PM

I can't see any flip flop either and I think it's something of a stretch to find one there. :blink:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#28 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 06:02 PM

If you're not seeing the flip-flop, it's probably because you're looking at the Iraq part of this. The flip-flop is that he was first suggesting withdrawing troops from Europe and Korea, and then blasted the idea of withdrawing troops from Europe and Korea. Iraq is just incidental here.

#29 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 06:20 PM

I see what you're saying Del, what muddies the water is it is unclear exactly what he means by "change deployment"(though I would venture to guess he's banking on diplomacy to be able to reduce troop size).

The best I can do is say it may be a flip-flop. At the very least, he's saying it's only a good idea if he's the one to do it.

#30 ZipperInt

ZipperInt
  • Islander
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 19 August 2004 - 11:45 PM

I'll have to agree and say that it "may" be a flip-flop, depending on what Kerry meant by 'change in deployment' in other areas. I'll admit that I thought it was a flip-flop at first, but I'm willing to give Kerry the benefit of doubt on this one (although it sure seems that he needs to be more explicit in what he says - enough with the politicking!).
The second greatest podcast in the history of ever:
http://geeksonaplain.blogspot.com/

#31 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 20 August 2004 - 06:27 AM

ZipperInt, on Aug 19 2004, 10:43 PM, said:

(although it sure seems that he needs to be more explicit in what he says - enough with the politicking!).
He was; it's just not in that particular quote. It's like that quote was chosen out of the whole speech just to give him wiggle room. But other parts I've heard from the same speech right around that quote make it clear that he was indeed saying that withdrawing troops from Europe and Korea would be good.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, John Kerry

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users