It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry’s Secret Plan to End the War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I came across this article while searching for Kerry's plan on how to "End the War" once he took office.

msnbc.msn.com...

I have yet to find a difinitive answer to this question yet. All I have heard or read is very vague and offers no concrete plan for this issue that seems to be the white elephant in his living room. Does anyone have a clear and consise statement from the kerry camp for his plans of how and when troops will be removed from Iraq?




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Actually it is very hard for the candidate in the opposition to come out and offer and explanation of policies changing on the topic of the Iraqi conflict without first knowing the specifics of the plans this current administration had lay down, out right a pull out of Iraq is impossible due to the circumstances of the civilian conflict in that nation, now a plan of replacing US troops for foreign troops seem to be a better approach.

After all the current administration has already committed this country to the rebuilding of Iraq, Is not such thing of ending the war because we supposedly never were in war with Iraq.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
You aren't going to find one. It is safer (from a political standpoint at election time) to often be as vague as possible so you can do whatever the hell you want once you get in office and don't have to worry about being accused of lieing. Remember Bush Sr.'s "No New Taxes". Most of the people I know remember him specifically for that statement before any good qualities.

You also can not say that the solution will not work if you don't know what the solution is. What do you expect? They are all pollitcions.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I don't think we will hear anything too specific until after the GOP convention. You don't want to give Bush that big of a platform to shoot down your ideas, and if you said anything now, Bush could steal the idea ("I was gonna do that too!").



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
someone should take out karry he seems very evil. probably be a crapy pres.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Gov
someone should take out karry he seems very evil. probably be a crapy pres.


The question needs to be asked: Is our children learning?



Sorry, I couldn't resist!



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Actually it is very hard for the candidate in the opposition to come out and offer and explanation of policies changing on the topic of the Iraqi conflict without first knowing the specifics of the plans this current administration had lay down, out right a pull out of Iraq is impossible due to the circumstances of the civilian conflict in that nation, now a plan of replacing US troops for foreign troops seem to be a better approach.

After all the current administration has already committed this country to the rebuilding of Iraq, Is not such thing of ending the war because we supposedly never were in war with Iraq.


I completely agree that an all out pull out from Iraq is near impossible. And I also know that it is difficult to have an infaulible plan for ending the war, but shouldn't there at least be a rough draft. Something to counter the current administrations actions so far, and a plan for cleanup. Of course nothing can be done or said with certainty right now, but I'd like to have a sketch of what we can expect our troops to go thru during a Kerry presidency. I just had my brother get sent over (left on a flight to CA today and from there 3 days later to Iraq) and I have a bit of a personal interest in how long he will be over there as well as the rest of our soldiers.

All I seem to know about his stance on war in general is that he is a proud Vietnam Vet who opposes this war. But I have nothing else to go on.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
I don't think we will hear anything too specific until after the GOP convention. You don't want to give Bush that big of a platform to shoot down your ideas, and if you said anything now, Bush could steal the idea ("I was gonna do that too!").


I had thought about that as well. So let's say for arguments sake, the GOP convention comes and goes and still no plan, then what? Do you just have a blind faith that this guy will just "figure it out" once in office?



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The only problem I see with our troops in Iraq is that right now they are becoming targets to any group in Iraq that oppose the US and that is the issue Kerry needs to address, our troops should not be used to humanitarian purposes that is the job of UN, our troops already did their job and a good job they did indeed.

Right now our troops are used for the wrong reasons, they are the bodyguards of the government in Iraq and that is not their job, they are used for police purposes and for escort services. Our troops are fighters not puppets.

mpeake, I hope your brother is out of harms way.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Kerry will not give the American people his plans in detail, he is trying to use the same "secret" plan platform (created from a journalist's story) Nixon used to win his election in 1968 Presidential bid.

If Sen. Kerry has a "secret plan" that can solve the problems the US is having, and is holding "his" desires, to become President, above the lives of our soldiers fighting overseas, this is beyond belief, however, I do not believe a plan exists and he is just putting it out there so people who will vote for "any" wishful change to our current situation, cast their vote his way.

Another example of promises, which Americans find pleasant to hear, and no details to show how the promise will be fulfilled.

Typical politics, and if I were running for office, I would probably be using this type of campaigning, because it has been very successful, and no matter how many times promises go unfulfilled, the suckers fall for it every time.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I thought I would add a couple more links to the Nixon secret plan reference,



Vietnam War History
Kennedy was assassinated that summer, and McCarthy was unable to overcome Humphrey's support within the party elite. Humphrey won the nomination of his party, and ran against Richard Nixon in the general election. During the campaign, Nixon claimed to have a secret plan to end the war.

Opposition to the Vietnam War in Australia followed along similar lines to the United States, particularly with opposition to conscription. Whilst Australian disengagement began in 1970 under John Gorton, it was not until the election of Gough Whitlam in 1972 that conscription ended.

Nixon was elected President and began his policy of slow disengagement from the war. The goal was to gradually build up the South Vietnamese Army so that it could fight the war on its own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine." As applied to Vietnam, the doctrine was called "Vietnamization."

Searching For The Democrats
The biggest disappointment is the section on the war in Iraq. The platform writers begin by noting that everything about this war has been flawed: “this administration badly exaggerated its case…did not build a true international coalition…disdained the United Nations weapons inspection process… did not send sufficient forces into Iraq…[and] went into Iraq without a plan to win the peace.” Rather than state the obvious, “You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken #” (to quote LBJ), the Demos wimp out; their plan is not to withdraw troops but rather to internationalize the mission. The document warns, “If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces…there is no successful exit for us and other nations.” Unfortunately this is what seems likely to happen—Iraqi security will worsen, leading to civil war. The Democrats give no hint as to what they would do if this occurs. It’s deeply ironic that John Kerry’s famous speech to Congress, against the Vietnam War, was in response to the policies of Richard Nixon, who won the 1968 presidential election, in part, by saying that he had “a secret plan” to end that war. Now it appears that Kerry and his advisors have their own version of a secret plan if the situation in Iraq further deteriorates.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Even Ted Kennedy's Speech in 1996, said how "dangerous" Dole's secret plan
to cut taxes were. Coincidence, I think not.


Senator Edward Kennedy speaks at the Democratic National Convention
Bob Dole will not tell us how he would pay for his plan, but a secret plan to pay for a Dole tax cut is as dangerous as Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the war. You and I know what our opponents would do. I have watched Bob Dole on the floor of the Senate vote to cut Medicare, not once, not twice, but time and time again. I know his votes. I know Bob Dole. And Bob Dole is no friend of Medicare.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is not a NEW tactic, it has been used before and will be used again..



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
One more to show I am not biased in this topic, just steamed that it continues to fool the American people.


Bush Copies Nixon's 1968 Foreign Policy Play Book
Bushes policy is to support Israel with more weapons and missile defense systems, while keeping the Bush family business partners in the Arab oil patch in line on supplies. Bush is for maintaining the status quo through force of arms. Like Nixon before him, winning the White House is more important than saving lives by making peace. But by running against the peace process, Bush is campaigning on a war platform.

During the 1968 campaign, Nixon claimed to have a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. In the event, the war continued for 5 more years, with tens of thousands of American deaths, and millions of dead Vietnamese. More Americans died under Nixon's presidency than under Johnson's. Nixon waged an illegal, secret war in Cambodia and Laos. Similarly, Bush is promising more military support to our friend, Israel, while threatening more aggressive action to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If you look you will find many more examples of this successful tactic in American politics, now will you be suckered or will you ask for the details of any "secret plan?"



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Come on, that article was written in May. It's not a secret. Well, maybe to the author of that piece:

"But for John Kerry, the struggle to talk about Iraq seems as hard as the administration’s struggle to find an exit strategy. He hedges and he dodges; he issues caveats and subordinate clauses."

Is that guy serious? Lazy? Stupid? Just check out what Kerry has written and said.

Kerry Site



# Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

# Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

# Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

# Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   


# Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.


NATO is already involved, there are still differences of opinon which is limiting the overall effort, the rest of the statement is a "hopeful" promise. It needs definition. If the current Arab plan to take over security of the troops comes to fruition, our troops will be home soon. We can all agree this situation is difficult, but my opinion is to help the Arab nations police their own, so I would do everything in my power to see this plan succeed.


# Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.


This statement betrays the fact that the US wanted more participation in the Iraq war, but "our" allies (France, Russia, Germany to a lesser extent), looked in their own wallet and based their opposition to the war based on their potential losses for their economy. Both France & Russia were profiting, by dealing with Iraq while sanctions were in place, while I will not tell a country that they cannot try to improve their economic situation, I will also not reward them with contracts to make money of of the blood of the coalition forces. Germany has its own political turmoil which I haven't seen directly connected to the money making which France & Russia were involved in. If anyone can enlighten me to the contrary please do. France is heavily involved with Iran economically as we speak it is not hard to find these things out. Canada has also capitalized on opportunities left open when the US restricts it's own companies from dealing with other nations (Libya, Syria to name two), and yes it is mostly oil. To take the US face off the liberation of Iraq is to dishonor those who fought for this liberation.


# Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.


Already covered above, another promise which sounds like "nothing has been done to work towards these goals", which is false.


# Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.


Again already brings up alot of work that is ongoing, the only part I cannot agree with the forgiving of multi-billion dollar debt, that should be up to individual countries, I for one believe that once the Iraqi's elections take place and their new government starts to take hold, one debt that should be paid is to the US and coalition forces for giving them the chance to be a free country. Not a demand payment in full situation just to give them a reminder, come budget time, of how they arrived at their freedom.

Now do I think that everything is going "according to plan?", of course not, I am not naive, but I also understand when Sen Kerry makes these statements, he is not putting anything new on the table.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Gov
someone should take out karry he seems very evil. probably be a crapy pres.


I suggest you be polite to the nice men from the Secret Service.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
I suggest you be polite to the nice men from the Secret Service.


I love it when we agree on something DG.

Looking forward to the "Campaign 2004" forum and your teams issues, I have to give you credit on one thing, you are very strong in your opinions, and if this new forum can have a DG "light" version, not so quick to "attack", who knows you might change my mind on some things.



[edit on 8/2/04 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think as long as Bush is in office, none of our allies are going to give us the help we desperately need. Even if Kerry doesn't do anything differently from Bush in Iraq (for the sake of argument) at least our allies will rally around Kerry. We can't do it alone, and we will stay alone if Bush stays in office.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The war in which we are currently engaged is GLOBAL in nature. Iraq is merely a small portion thereof. Kerry is sorely unprepared for the task of governing the United States. It would be folly to change administrations at this crucial juncture in U.S. history. And besides, he has got to be the darned ugliest dude I ever did see, save Shrek. Scary Kerry and his sidekick Fast Eddy Edwards. Sheesh, God have mercy on us all. Fast Eddy Edwards, in line for the Presidency, oh Judas H. Priest, talk about the prospect of putting the lightweights in where the Heavy Hitters now reside. Shudder to think of it.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Even if Kerry doesn't do anything differently from Bush in Iraq (for the sake of argument) at least our allies will rally around Kerry. We can't do it alone, and we will stay alone if Bush stays in office.


This is what I am referring to when I say suckered, no offense curme, but to think our allies will rally around Kerry is only a wishful idea, we do not know that his election would cause this to happen. What will he do to change how they feel about us? It is important to be able to work with other nations but not at the expense of our (US) hard earned status as a leader in the world.

Who provides more money to help other nations around the world?
Who tries to battle crimes against humanity?
Who throws money at the UN and provides the backbone to make this organization's decisions hold weight?
There is no other country who does more to help those in need.
Do we get thanks or credit? No, and the fact that we are still willing to help shows our country's strength and commitment to making the world a better place.

Are we always right in the decisions we make? Of course not, but we try to do what is right.

We need to remain strong in our dealings with foreign countries, we cannot put our tail between our legs and beg for acceptance from those who have recently disagreed with our actions.

Let us compare records of the allies in question, I think that on the whole, the United States outshines them all by a long shot and I will not bow my head to any country who easily forgets this.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join