Kerry Would Expand Military As President

[arcos]

Kerry Would Expand Military As President

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Tuesday he would expand the U.S. military within his first 100 days as president, contending 40,000 more troops are needed to meet America's responsibilities around the world.

<snip>

Kerry noted that Dean, bunched atop the field of Democratic contenders in most polls, supported the war in Iraq only with UN Security Council authorization.


Dean embraces a "'Simon Says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first," Kerry said. "That is just as wrong as George Bush's policy of school yard taunts and cowboy swagger."

<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_foreign


My comments:

Simon Says? huh??

[jpgray]

1. This is a poorly-worded statement from Kerry, and I'm a fan. (nt)

[tlcandie]

2. ouch....

:wow:

[OrAnarch]

3. Another strike against kerry

With our starving children in America and out of work families, we can hardley afford to expand our military, thus diverting more hard earned dollars towards weapons and away from social services.

[denverbill]

5. It might be a strike against him, but not for the cost.

$4 billion would probably cover 40000 new troops.

What I disliked was that he indicates he favors unilateral preemptive war, but that he'll just be less of an asshole about it than Bush. I don't think that's really the right image to project.

[DemOutWest]

13. It would take the burden

off of the reserves and national guard that Presidente Bush has made full time. It would allow them to get back to their full-time jobs and families.

This would not be an escalation of weapons.


Please read his full speech in context not just little snippets.

Senator Kerry also has many plans for education, the environment, healthcare and getting americans back working to make our economy strong.

[OrAnarch]

16. What burden?

Such a statement operates upon the premise that we will constantly be involved in foreign wars, and hence, needing to have such a burden lifted from our national gaurd. Im not intrested in these philosophies, sorry.

There is a much simpler way to relieve our reserves of any burden, which revolves more around ceasing support of unjust foreign invasions.

[DemOutWest]

18. The burden now

Do you really think we will be out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan this time next year. If we are, believe me bush will have us somewhere else. JK's statement is in regards to today's world. If things change he will downgrade it.

JK will still fight for all americans when it comes to education, the environment and healthcare. John Kerry has always stood up for what is right and has always fought for all americans.

We are in Iraq, can't go back in time. We need a plan that will get our men and women out of there with no more deaths.

[OrAnarch]

21. Makes no sense

Bush has us in there, but wouldn't the situation in itself change if he was no longer president. John Kerry is building a policy based upon the premises that Bush sets forth, rather than structuring a policy on how to fix that in the best utilitarian way. Again, I am not intrested.


"We need a plan that will get our men and women out of there with no more deaths."

And you think such a plan consists of recruiting more military to replace the national gaurd? I find this particular point to be absolutely irrelevant to gtting us out of Iraq, period. And if he is so intrested in getting us out of Iraq, then that should be his concetrated method of "relieving the burden" rather than recruiting more people into the military.


Whatever floats your boat I guess.

[DemOutWest]

27. Water

usually floats my boat.

40,000 more troops would help ensure the safety of the troops there now.

If the UN comes in and takes over the peacekeeping mission, then Kerry will get the troops out, We can't walk away from the mess Bush got us into.

[OrAnarch]

31. How will this ensure any more saftey?

If the additional are only going to replace the National gaurd members so that they can go home to their families, as you originally stated? This would not effect troop strength. It would also take some time to recruit and train 40,000 troops, as well as deploy them. Within such time, I would hope, a democratic president would be able to allready involve the UN or other international organizations.


I think your grasping at straws to justify a stupid policy. All candidats make mistakes. Not everything they do is perfect. Relax and chalk one up.

[DemOutWest]

34. You are

right on that point. I went back to the speech. Senator Kerry does want to enlarge our army by 40,000 troops to make sure that we are covered for the future. It would also mean that if we did need troops for any future "UN" supported actions on the true fight against terrorism, we would not have to rely on reserves and national guard.

For our safety in Iraq now, JK would ask the UN and other countries to come in and help out as we brought our troops home.

I do still believe that JK would not take any money away from domestic issues that he is fighting for everyday and has been since he came back from vietnam.

Out of here on my boat that floats on Water.

[OrAnarch]

35. I just gotta remark...

Rather than constantly building and expanding our military, the best way to meet these future crisises would be simply freeing up current forces. And yes, the constant buildup of our military, and our current defense budget, is something that both frightens and dissapoints me, so this is a major red flag IMO. For those who are not so worried about such militarization, Im sure this is fine.


BTW, Im also pretty cynical of the UN or any other white english speaking international state/organization having any effect in the political and military stabalization of Iraq. I truly do not think this will ever happen from any such force that follow the description I mention, and hence, makes it pointless, in my eyes, for us to be there at all now that the "war is over". Id much rather see us put up the money and other material support for forces consisting of Arab nations to direct and oversee the rebuilding of this country. It would cost less money, lives, and ensure a culturally aware and sensative organization is involved in mending the fences and creating a government consistant with the cultures present.

[DemOutWest]

37. My remarks

I also would like to see the US not being the cop for the rest of the world. If we had stayed away from every one else's business, including Iraq and Iran we probably wouldn't have terrorist threats against us.

I do believe that Osama is whom we should be after.

Can the US stay away from being the worlds cop? I don't know. We have so many nationalities, races and religions in this country. It would be hard to turn our back on human rights in other nations.

I'm not spouting any theory here. I really don't know the answer. I got involved in this Presidential Nominee race because of domestic issues. The environment, education, healthcare. I believe that JK has the best ideas and experience in these areas.

I wish we weren't in Iraq. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I have been an independent voter until this year. I want Bush out. I trust JK. He will do what is right for all americans.

DemOutWest (really getting on his boat now)

[sandnsea]

43. You sound like Kerry

He's repeatedly called for Arab nations to participate heavily in Iraq in all levels. He also would spend alot more money in the ME, directly, to give the people a real economy and hope for the future. It's central to his global plans overall.

And he is simply being honest on the troop levels in regards to the varying situations that could arise and the need for different kinds of troops that we don't even have today. Peacekeeping troops. Whether we're in Iraq or not, we need differently trained troops to handle new missions that we haven't in the past.

And there's no reason to think this means an increased military budget. Wes Clark has said the budget can be cut by 25%, according to some of their supporters. If he knows it can be done without hurting the troops, then Kerry can do it too. Kerry has consistently fought against these massive military budgets and would continue to do that.

[mobuto]

39. No Kerry wants less money towards weapons and more to soldiers

The problem with our armed forces isn't that we have too many troops - in fact we have too few, as Kerry observes - the problem is that we spend far too much money on gizmos and gadgets and thinly disguised handouts to defense contractors and political contributors.

[Scott Lee]

4. There it is, folks!

For all of you who vehemently disagreed with me when I told you that Kerry is a weak willed Bush panderer. Need you any more evidence? Saddam captured = Kerry buckles and wants to out-war President War.

This one is going right by the numbers.

[private_ryan]

6. and here we go

trying to outbush Bush. Who proposed the Homeland Security Dept. to look tough on National Security, remember? Now Bush will do the same with the military, add another $50 billion for Halliburton and take credit. Thanks John.

[Don Claybrook]

7. Not good, John Kerry

You see the Dean logo next to my name. But John Kerry (and Wes Clark) are two candidates I could vote for if my guy loses and not be too upset about it.

This expansion of the military crap is a big negative for me. I'm not making any absolute sorts of statements, but I sure do like him less after reading this.

[WillyT]

8. Barf !!! --- Such An Obvious Pander !!!

So John, ya taken up the torch for the war on terra around the world???

Man...

I'm still ABB, I'm still ABB, I'm still...

:argh:

[hey2370]

9. As would Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, etc.

Bush has screwed us. Before Bush, everyone assumed that we were the heavyweight champ of the world. Other countries tried not to piss us off as a general rule. Now, our secret is out.

We have a technological edge, but we don't have the manpower to manage our commitments. If the military is not expanded, we are going to see our superpower bluff called. Even if it is expanded, everyone has seen the limits to our vaunted military machine.

The Idiot in Chief has shown our cards in a fit of arrogance and we will have to pay.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Yes.

and most people react to this as sucking up to Bush and the military.
When it really is just Kerry showing he knows far better than Bush how to manage the military.
Bush is playing on Kerry's turf and he will lose when Kerry makes the case.

[WillyT]

12. I'll Give You Guys Half Credit Each...

It may be just as you say in your tought provoking analysis, but he's still sucking up to Bush and the military.

Timing is everything, no???

:shrug:

On edit: Too many justs, not enough justice.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

54. Right. Kerry never talked about the military before

you get zero credit.

[nn2004]

10. We need a department of peace - not more war mongers

If the US would reduce its military many other nations would not consider us a threat and likely invite us back in to the nations of peace.

[DemOutWest]

14. John Kerry is

not a War Mongerer. If you honsetly think we would be in the mess we are in now if JK was president, well then you haven't been paying attention.

The truth is, we are in Iraq. John Kerry wants to get us out of there. The troops he are talking about are to take the burden away from the reserves and national guard who have been forced into being full-time soldiers because of king george IV.

No matter if you were for the war or against, it doesn't change the fact that we are in Iraq. We need a plan to get out of there but still ensure peace in that area.

Senator Kerry's remarks and speech were great. Read the whole speech. This is a man who would never suck up to anybody. He is a leader who is showing the path for our country. It would be great to be isolationist again, it ain't going to happen in this changing world. If we want to be the leader in the world and to spread democracy, this is what we need to do.

War-mongerer. I love it. I wionder if anyone on here really wants a better world or country. If we do no one would have anything to bitch about on du.

Kerry is a leader who deserved better then the stuff that is written on here.

[nn2004]

19. Out of Iraq now

We have no business there. It's time to dismantle the war machine not expand it. We can create wealth by providing the best healthcare in the world. Cuba has done it and we can learn from them and join them in providing doctors and free healthcare for the entire world. We will be loved and the days of terror and wasted money on arms will be gone forever. In 2004 it begins...

[DemOutWest]

24. Duty

Yea, let's pull all of our troops out now. Leave the area totally a mess. It ain't going to happen.

I agree, this war was idiotic. That doesn't change the fact that we are there and we have a duty to the people of the area. If the UN comes in, great. That is want JK is encouraging. To help our forces and to help ensure their safety.

[ozone_man]

An idealist, even more than me.

I totally agree about health care and Cuba. We are about the worst in health care among the industrial nations. Cuba is so far ahead of us in health care and literacy, it isn't funny. And this while being penalized for 40 years.

Regarding Iraq, I would say that the first step is to get the U.N. back in, letting it lead the way, supporting the U.N. troops with our own troops, and slowly phase out, after a stable Iraq government has been established. This may or may not be achievable the way the U.S. envisions it, but may have a chance with the U.N. involved.

A larger army, like Kerry wants, to me means that we are implementing PNAC. Let us instead strengthen the U.N. and stop being the world's cop, or worse, the world's dictator.

[DemOutWest]

28. I agree

and I know this is what JK is envisioning. He has said this all the time. We need the help of the UN and other countries to take the burden off of us.

I am a idealist also. I would like to see all americans with health care. I would like to see every child have the same chance at a great education and college without worrying about cost.

Sorry, JK is the man for me, because he is a progressive in any area.

The problems of thje world will not go away. John Kerry knows that we need to be the leader in the UN. He will make allies of other countries.

Peace Out.

[jamesinca]

25. I don't think Kerry is a warmonger

I do think he knows there is something to timeing, and I do think he knows that Bush received a bump in the polls when Hussein was captured. He watches and pays attention, I also think he is trying to take advantage of this. He is doing this for his own reasons, be they getting elected or a Bush suck up I don't know. He is a shrewd student. I fault him for waiting for it to be popular to say, and not saying it based on having a spine. All I can offer for an argument, by somebody that does not follow Kerry, is he was not saying this during the summer when war popularity was nose diving. He did not vote against going to war. I think it shows a lack of security or self confidence.

[JailBush]

15. Here's a winning formula!

President - Joe Lieberman
Vice President - John Kerry
First Lady - Laura Bush

[DemOutWest]

17. Actual quote.

"we need to add 40,000 troops – the equivalent of two divisions – to the American military in order to meet our responsibilities elsewhere – especially in the urgent global war on terror. In my first 100 days as President, I will move to increase the size of our Armed Forces. Some may not like that. But today, in the face of grave challenges, our armed forces are spread too thin. Our troops in Iraq are paying the price for this everyday. There’s not enough troops in the ranks of our overall armed forces to bring home those troops that have been in Iraq for more than a year.

President Bush’s policies have overextended our military – and turned reserves into fulltime soldiers. "

[arcos]

22. so? he's criticizing Dean for wanting UN authorization! n/t

[DemOutWest]

26. Not what

this is about. Go to another thread on Dean/Kerry and the whole IWR mess.

I'm choosing a leader to bring us into the 21sy century. The past is over. The future of our country is at stake next year.

I was against the war, but I am for JK, because he is a realist that will get us out of there safely.

[arcos]

36. I started this thread...

and yes, this thread is in part about it. It seems that Kerry supports unilateral action, and that is not for the 21st century.

[DemOutWest]

38. Sorry.

You are right. It seemed everone was talking about the 40,000 troops. I forgot about the other snippets you included. I will leave that battle for others. I'm about a better environment, better education veteran benifits and healthcare.

I will let another JK supporter take on this whole, old and boring IWR, uni vs. multi, he said/no he didn't debate.

DemOutWest for a better America

[ozone_man]

20. Guns instead of jobs, health care?

Poor choice there Kerry, but helps confirm that you're not my candidate.

[DemOutWest]

23. Where does

it say anything about no healthcare, or jobs or education.


No where does it say this. Getting 40,000 more troops in Iraq that would be full-time soldiers.

John Kerry would not, I repeat WOULD NOT do this if it made thing worse at home. He will fight for clean skies, clean water, education for all americans and more jobs.

I picked a candidate this past November on the environment and education. Senator Kerry is that candidate. I still believe he is that candidate. He is a realist who understands the world we live in.

I encourage you to go to his website and read his plans on all of the issues.

All I have heard the past few weeks is that we need someone who can beat Bush. This is the man (and Clark) who can fight bush and rove .

DemOutWest

[ozone_man]

30. He's obviously pandering to Bush with this,

just like he voted for the IWR and later had reservations, backpeddling on his vote. Now he's back pandering to Bush again. This guy is all over the place.

If we let the U.N. take over, we can reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Bush is the one leading the PNAC charge into the middle east. We don't want to do this.

What little money there is in our budget needs to be allocated to creating jobs and health care. The massive deficit spending has to stop before it escapes our ability to pay the interest.

[sandnsea]

44. Let the UN take over, yes

It won't reduce the number of troops in Iraq. There are NO UN troops. I really don't know why Dennis keeps saying that, it honestly makes him look foolish. He knows better.

The UN will simply augment troops to help secure Iraq until Iraqi's can do it themselves. Kerry's speech was clear on this. Then US troops will come home, the National Guard which doesn't belong there in the first place. If we have to replace them with regular Army, at least they will be well-trained for peacekeeping. We need peacekeeping troops, we don't have any.

Saying 40,000 troops is going to sink our budget is just silly. It'll cost a billion a year, which is nothing in our military budget. Once we have more cooperation with the world again, all of these expenses won't fall on us alone anyway.

This is the truth of the situation we find ourselves in. At least Kerry is bringing up the reality of needing more troops, which will eventually lead to the question of where those troops will come from, which will eventually lead to the draft and make Americans question who they want to trust their kids to. Bush or a Democrat?

[imhotep]

29. haha

going down swinging, huh......

[WillyT]

32. Just Saw The Tape of The 'Simon Says' Remark !!!

So Kerry now embraces the unilateralist approach to foreign policy???

Don't think he really MEANT that, but it sure reminded me of the 'mushroom cloud' impression left by the fuckwads we have in power right now!

:grr::nuke::mad:

[mobuto]

40. We must always be able to threaten unilateral action

and in some cases I'm sure it'd necessary. We should whenever possible attempt to work within a coalition, but if the safety and security of the United States is ever threatened in a way it which it wasn't during the prelude to the Iraq war, the President needs to have the power (even if he doesn't use it) to defend America unilaterally.

[WillyT]

46. Ok, I'll Bite !!!

It would seem that unilateral action was necessary with regards to Afghanastan, or Japan in WWII for that matter, it would seem...

But what we just witnessed, was the U.S. starting a war against a country that had not attacked us. That, plus the hundreds of other reasons why this was an illadvised and unjustifiable war.

And as I said before, timing is everything.

Right now this just looks like a desparate attempt by Kerry, to say and do whatever is necessary to get back into the game.

Two years ago or so, Kerry was the only guy I thought could beat Bush. Numbers of things have happened in the intervening time that have convinced me otherwise. This is most assuredly, one of those 'things'.

:argh:

[mobuto]

48. The point

isn't that unilateral action was good in this case. Kerry will be the first to tell you that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq the way we did.

The point is, for the United States to remain a credible force for change, and not simply react to changes elsewhere, it needs to be able to threaten unilateral force. If you take away that threat, you suspend the disbelief of our enemies.

[tlcandie]

33. If we pulled our troops out of all the mid-Asian countries and more

there would be enough. But that won't happen. Looking at a map of where soldiers are stationed shows a person with half a brain what is happening.

HUGE presence in mid-Asia to go against China, Russia and any others who stand in the way of US/Israel or Israel/US taking over the reserves of oil and gas..that is the power and what will determine that WE are the supreme ruler in the end. It is another Cold War buildup and you better believe it.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/military.map.html

Called Operation Enduring Freeom

EDIT: This is propsed site for future didn't have time to get actual still working on that one!

SEcond EDIT: Actually if you do look you will see current bases on that map as well.

[mobuto]

41. Excellent Remarks by Senator Kerry

1. Our army IS too small to handle our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also deterring threats elsewhere. We have our smallest army in more than half-a-century and it shows. Where we spend too much is on gizmos and gadgets and a whole wide range of handouts to the Lockheed Martin Corporation. We need to spend less on NMD and the F-22 and new attack submarines, and more on the men and women who defend America's interests. Kerry's hit on a real winning issue: Democrats care about soldiers, Republicans care about missiles.

2. Dean was wrong to have backed the bill that would have forced the US to rely on the UN. Bush should have relied on UN authorization, but if Congress had made such a request explicit in the law, it would have weakened tremendously the powers of the President.

[sandnsea]

42. To replace the National Guard

They're supposed to be here at home, not on year long missions.

If we're going to support the UN when it needs peacekeepers, we're going to need troops specially trained to do that. Iraq makes it evident. That necessarily means more troops.

You wanted an honest, straight-shooting leader, you've got it. He isn't going to play pretend. He has said terrorism will not be fought with the military, but there may be occasions when countries like Somalia will require peacekeeping action in conjunction with the UN. That is part of fighting terrorism. It's also part of creating stability in war torn areas which are all over the globe. Accept it and vote for a reasonable person who will not take our troops into unilateral unnecessary wars, or elect someone who the American people will reject because he has no clue on security and foreign policy. That's the choice.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. We do need more manpower and less toys in the military

Our military CAN and SHOULD be used for good. We CAN restore order to areas in the world where needed such as Africa and are NOT prepared at this moment.

I agree with Kerry. We need to replenish all the troops lost and disabled as a result of two wars.

[tlb]

47. Is Kerry really a factor anymore ?

Hardly seems to matter what Kerry says at this point. The only pertinent question about Kerry is who he will endorse as he drops out of the race.

This new statement though seems to imply he would reinstitute the draft. If correct then that further implies he would support another president who would do so.

[DemOutWest]

49. Yes he is a factor

Wait until the newest polls come out in Iowa.

However, the main thing is, NO ONE HAS VOTED YET!

They will all be factors until February.

[IndianaGreen]

50. A vote for Kerry is a vote for a PNAC foreign policy!

I am glad to see Kerry unmask himself as another clone of Joe Biden and Sam Nunn. So much for Kerry's torturous explanations of his IWR vote. Thanks to Kerry, we now know that Kerry voted for IWR because he wanted to go to war as badly as Bush did.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for a PNAC foreign policy!

[DemOutWest]

51. Righhht

Wrong again. If you honestly believe we would be at war if John Kerry was president then you nothing of the man.

He wanted Bush to try every diplomatic way to settle this. Bush started the war.

Kunicich is and was the only true anti-war democrat.

Once again, we have serious problems here at home. Look at what Kerry would do if president.

This election will be decided by middle america. The middle class. Those who have loved ones in Iraq. Those who want a safer country where their children can get an education. Bush must go and Kerry is leading the fight to make sure that this country will do the right thing.

[dansolo]

52. So does Kerry now want us to withdraw from the UN?

Kerry apparently doesn't believe that we should abide by the UN security council, or perhaps he feels like the US should be the only country with veto power.

[Fleshdancer]

53. Simon says....

Dean embraces a "'Simon Says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first," Kerry said. "That is just as wrong as George Bush's policy of school yard taunts and cowboy swagger."

um okay. Am I odd for not wanting the US to go around starting wars? I'm pretty sure this made me "normal" three years ago. :wtf: