Invasion of Iraq good or bad for War on Terror?

[Darth Wong]

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether the invasion of Iraq will be good or bad for the war on terror. It could still go either way, depending on how stable and democratic a government can be built up in Iraq.

Irrelevant and unresolvable crystal ball-gazing. The question only asks whether it is good or bad for the so-called "War on Terror" right now, and as of right now, it is bad.

But this idea that you can only deal with terrorism defensively I could not disagree with more. What are you supposed to do? Never go after them in their bases? Should we have left Al Quaeda running around loose in Afghanistan, and just hoped to catch them every time they tried to attack us? Is that what you mean?

Going on the offensive against Al Quaeda, and toppling the regime in Agghanistan that supported them was both necessary and smart. You never leave your enemy secure in his base. If you leave him a place to retreat to and rebuild his strength he'll go and do just that. And you will never solve the problem. And of course, you couldn't possibly hope to intercept every attack. Some would still get through. How the hell would you ever hope to solve the problem with a purely defensive strategy?

Strawman fallacy. He said "defending themselves from terrorism, catching terrorists etc." At no point did he suggest a purely defensive strategy; he was pointing out the ridiculous nature of treating all terrorism against Israel as if it is taken against America.

[Perinquus]

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether the invasion of Iraq will be good or bad for the war on terror. It could still go either way, depending on how stable and democratic a government can be built up in Iraq.

Irrelevant and unresolvable crystal ball-gazing. The question only asks whether it is good or bad for the so-called "War on Terror" right now, and as of right now, it is bad.

I'm not entirely convinced that is true. It is true that there seems to be a certain amount of acrimony between us and our usual European allies, but this is hardly the first time this has happened, and I think people are rather overestimating the long term effects of it on our foreign relations with Europe. As for how our actions in Iraq have supposedly whipped up anti-American sentiment in the Middle East to a frenzy... The 1993 WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack all occured before that fever pitch of anti-American fervor was whipped up, so I have real difficulty in believing that this has made the die-hard, fanatical anti-American terrorists hate us more than they did already.

And on the flip side, there are indications that both Syria and and Libya have moderated their policies and their support for terrorism since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. If this is so, this in hardly a negative effect.

I also think that the long term effects are likely to be more important, and the invasion of Iraq has the potential to produce good long term effects if the reconstruction is handled well. Hopefully, we won't screw it up.

But this idea that you can only deal with terrorism defensively I could not disagree with more. What are you supposed to do? Never go after them in their bases? Should we have left Al Quaeda running around loose in Afghanistan, and just hoped to catch them every time they tried to attack us? Is that what you mean?

Going on the offensive against Al Quaeda, and toppling the regime in Agghanistan that supported them was both necessary and smart. You never leave your enemy secure in his base. If you leave him a place to retreat to and rebuild his strength he'll go and do just that. And you will never solve the problem. And of course, you couldn't possibly hope to intercept every attack. Some would still get through. How the hell would you ever hope to solve the problem with a purely defensive strategy?

Strawman fallacy. He said "defending themselves from terrorism, catching terrorists etc." At no point did he suggest a purely defensive strategy; he was pointing out the ridiculous nature of treating all terrorism against Israel as if it is taken against America.

Excuse me, but Albino Raven stated:"Invading states that sponsor will not stop terrorism any more than killing the terrorists themselves." That would certainly seem to indicate that he regards actions like our invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban are pretty much useless. Vympel then agreed with this assessment. I do not believe it was a strawman distortion at all. It sounds to me exactly like they were in agreement that a purely defensive strategy of catching terrorists, rather than attacking their bases is best.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not entirely convinced that is true. It is true that there seems to be a certain amount of acrimony between us and our usual European allies, but this is hardly the first time this has happened, and I think people are rather overestimating the long term effects of it on our foreign relations with Europe. As for how our actions in Iraq have supposedly whipped up anti-American sentiment in the Middle East to a frenzy... The 1993 WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack all occured before that fever pitch of anti-American fervor was whipped up, so I have real difficulty in believing that this has made the die-hard, fanatical anti-American terrorists hate us more than they did already.

It hasn't, but you're missing the point. It made a lot of previously moderate people much more anti-American in their viewpoints.

And on the flip side, there are indications that both Syria and and Libya have moderated their policies and their support for terrorism since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. If this is so, this in hardly a negative effect.

And what did Syria and Libya have to do with 9-11?

I also think that the long term effects are likely to be more important, and the invasion of Iraq has the potential to produce good long term effects if the reconstruction is handled well. Hopefully, we won't screw it up.

You can believe that it can be rectified in the future if you want, but it's screwed up right now.

Excuse me, but Albino Raven stated:"Invading states that sponsor will not stop terrorism any more than killing the terrorists themselves." That would certainly seem to indicate that he regards actions like our invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban are pretty much useless. Vympel then agreed with this assessment.

Albino Raven mentioned "defensive approach" without elaborating, and Vympel elaborated on that to mean "defending themselves from terrorism, catching terrorists etc." Neither of them said "don't touch their bases." They were criticizing the moronic "War on Terror" rather than the act of attacking terrorist training camps etc., because you can't declare war on an idea. You're twisting their words grossly out of context.

I do not believe it was a strawman distortion at all. It sounds to me exactly like they were in agreement that a purely defensive strategy of catching terrorists, rather than attacking their bases is best.

It sounds to me like you're reading what you want to see. At no point did they say that nailing a terrorist base could not be part of an overall strategy of defending the US against terrorists, particularly the "catching them" part. But declaring war on an idea and then invading nations which are perceived as "sponsoring" terrorism through these tenuous links? That's what they were criticizing.

[Perinquus]

I'm not entirely convinced that is true. It is true that there seems to be a certain amount of acrimony between us and our usual European allies, but this is hardly the first time this has happened, and I think people are rather overestimating the long term effects of it on our foreign relations with Europe. As for how our actions in Iraq have supposedly whipped up anti-American sentiment in the Middle East to a frenzy... The 1993 WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack all occured before that fever pitch of anti-American fervor was whipped up, so I have real difficulty in believing that this has made the die-hard, fanatical anti-American terrorists hate us more than they did already.

It hasn't, but you're missing the point. It made a lot of previously moderate people much more anti-American in their viewpoints.

And are the moderate people likely to actively support terrorism? Not if they really were moderate to begin with.

And on the flip side, there are indications that both Syria and and Libya have moderated their policies and their support for terrorism since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. If this is so, this in hardly a negative effect.

And what did Syria and Libya have to do with 9-11?

Perhaps nothing. But then Al Quaeda is hardly the world's only terrorist organization is it?

I also think that the long term effects are likely to be more important, and the invasion of Iraq has the potential to produce good long term effects if the reconstruction is handled well. Hopefully, we won't screw it up.

You can believe that it can be rectified in the future if you want, but it's screwed up right now.

It is screwed up, but perhaps not as badly as many people think. The people constantly attacking U.S. troops in Iraq are quite often not Iraqis. And their indiscriminate use of force, claiming the lives of many innocent Iraqis, plus their targeting of Shi'ite clerics is giving them a bad image among the Iraqi people.

Excuse me, but Albino Raven stated:"Invading states that sponsor will not stop terrorism any more than killing the terrorists themselves." That would certainly seem to indicate that he regards actions like our invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban are pretty much useless. Vympel then agreed with this assessment.

Albino Raven mentioned "defensive approach" without elaborating, and Vympel elaborated on that to mean "defending themselves from terrorism, catching terrorists etc." Neither of them said "don't touch their bases." They were criticizing the moronic "War on Terror" rather than the act of attacking terrorist training camps etc., because you can't declare war on an idea. You're twisting their words grossly out of context.

Albino Raven elaborated at least to the extent of stating explicitly that invading states that sponsor terrorism is basically useless. I think that the invasion of Afghanistan, and the fact that toppling the Taliban regime deprived Al Quaeda of a secure base there eloquently refutes that statement. Does that mean that this is the only means we can and should use to wage the war on terrorists? No. But I think that attacking states that sponsor terrorism is a very effective tactic.

After 18 years of American sanctions, do you imagine Muammar Quaddafi randomly picked a date five days after Saddam Hussein was pulled out of a squalid little hole in the ground for the date of his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms? Or do you suppose he took a look at what happened to Saddam, and to Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, and conclude that it just might not be safe to play that game anymore?

Attacking terrorist sponsor states can be a highly effective means of waging war on terrorists. You may not be able to combat an idea. But you can sure as hell deprive the terrorists of some of their bases, thereby impairing their ability to conduc their terror operations, and also make the leaders of some countries think three times about whether or not it would be wise to support or harbor terrorists.

I do not believe it was a strawman distortion at all. It sounds to me exactly like they were in agreement that a purely defensive strategy of catching terrorists, rather than attacking their bases is best.

It sounds to me like you're reading what you want to see. At no point did they say that nailing a terrorist base could not be part of an overall strategy of defending the US against terrorists, particularly the "catching them" part. But declaring war on an idea and then invading nations which are perceived as "sponsoring" terrorism through these tenuous links? That's what they were criticizing.

Afghanistan wasn't perceived as sponsoring terrorism; it was sponsoring terrorism. Now invading Iraq may have been a mistake, because it was not so clear that it was sponsoring terrorism. But that does not invalidate the strategy of invading terrorist sponsor states and toppling the governments responsible for that. I think it is a good strategy, and should be applied to states that can be shown to sponsor terrorism.

[Darth Wong]

And are the moderate people likely to actively support terrorism? Not if they really were moderate to begin with.

That would be the big question, wouldn't it? And the great fear is that many of them will become capable of supporting terrorism if they learn to hate America enough, which this war is in danger of causing.

And what did Syria and Libya have to do with 9-11?

Perhaps nothing. But then Al Quaeda is hardly the world's only terrorist organization is it?

No, but it's the only one that concerns America. And don't tell me you buy into this "War on Terror" nonsense. The world is full of terror organizations which America is totally unconcerned with; they only care about those which attack either America or Israel.

It is screwed up, but perhaps not as badly as many people think. The people constantly attacking U.S. troops in Iraq are quite often not Iraqis. And their indiscriminate use of force, claiming the lives of many innocent Iraqis, plus their targeting of Shi'ite clerics is giving them a bad image among the Iraqi people.

Meanwhile, the real war on Al-Quaeda is starved of manpower because of this dalliance. The US is allowing Pakistan to do the heavy lifting against Al-Quaeda in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan because they're too busy with Iraq; how much sense does that make?

Albino Raven elaborated at least to the extent of stating explicitly that invading states that sponsor terrorism is basically useless.

It is. You don't see people bombing the Northeastern US because of the supporters there who funnel money to Irish terrorists, do you? Only those nations which directly support and harbour Al-Quaeda are legitimate targets in this war. Any broader definition simply created an open-ended war with no conceivable resolution. A "War on Terror" is like a "War on Violence"; it's stupid.

I think that the invasion of Afghanistan, and the fact that toppling the Taliban regime deprived Al Quaeda of a secure base there eloquently refutes that statement.

Too bad we were talking about the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Afghanistan was doing much more than simply "sponsoring" terrorism: a vaguely defined statement which could mean as little as some piddly payouts to families of suicide bombers according to some people. To equate Iraq and Afghanistan is absurd. My own country's government fully supported the action in Afghanistan; they did not support the action in Iraq.

[Perinquus]

I think that the invasion of Afghanistan, and the fact that toppling the Taliban regime deprived Al Quaeda of a secure base there eloquently refutes that statement.

Too bad we were talking about the war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Afghanistan was doing much more than simply "sponsoring" terrorism: a vaguely defined statement which could mean as little as some piddly payouts to families of suicide bombers according to some people. To equate Iraq and Afghanistan is absurd. My own country's government fully supported the action in Afghanistan; they did not support the action in Iraq.

Yes, but the whole point I was addressing is Albino Raven's statement that invading nations that sponsor terrorism is useless. It isn't. That's precisely what we did in Afghanistan, and it was far from useless. You may believe that invading Iraq was useless, and even counterproductive. Fine. But it is a mistake to conclude from that, as Albino Raven apparently did, that invading any state that supports terrorism accomplishes nothing. I completely disagree with that assertion, even if I concede that invading Iraq in particular does not help us in our campaign against Al Quaeda terrorists.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but the whole point I was addressing is Albino Raven's statement that invading nations that sponsor terrorism is useless. It isn't. That's precisely what we did in Afghanistan, and it was far from useless.

And my point was that Afghanistan is not a valid example of invading any and all states that "sponsor" terrorism because it was actually doing much more than that. Afghanistan was a valid example of the utility of invading a country which unabashedly harbours major Al-Quaeda operations, not a country which merely "sponsors" terrorism. The US has been known to "sponsor" terrorism.

[Edi]

And are the moderate people likely to actively support terrorism? Not if they really were moderate to begin with.

To elaborate on this point where America's European allies are concerned: The war in Iraq generated a lot of ill will toward America here in Finland and even more elsewhere in Europe, with the result that the next time something really serious happens, the US government won't have any credibility and whatever they propose will be met with just a shrug of the shoulders, a minimum of reassuring noises and a silk-veiled steely demand for concessions on things Europe sees as important to its interests in exchange for any kind of support, and while that itself is politics as usual, a lot of Europeans no longer give a shit about whether or not America is a target and becomes the victim of more terrorist attacks. The war in Iraq has shifted perceptions more toward the view that America deserves whatever (small-scale)n attacks are made against it because of its own actions.

There was great support for America after 9/11 and relatively few people had doubts about the Afghanistan venture (there were some idiots like that of course), but these days when there are news of Americans (soldiers or civilians) dying in Iraq or elsewhere of guerilla or terrorist attacks, the typical response in conversation is "Who cares?" Sometimes you even hear "Good!" in reply, but thankfully that's rather rarer.

And the saddest part of it is that people here generally have very little against Americans themselves, but it is hard to find anybody who has good things to say about the US government, and not enough people make that distinction.

If I was an American, I'd sure as hell hope that Kerry wins the elections in November, because that could cause a rather dramatic shift in US-EU relations. Bush and his administration have absolutely zero credibility here, and that is going to be reflected in every aspect of his deals with us if he gets a second term.

Edi

[Invader ZIm]

It hasn't, but you're missing the point. It made a lot of previously moderate people much more anti-American in their viewpoints.

That statement on its face is subjective. How would you quantify the amount of effect of US actions on "moderates"? What standard of measurment applies?

And what did Syria and Libya have to do with 9-11?

Nothing. But Senate Joint Resolution 23 doesnt require them to have. Read section 2a. "Nations, Organizations or Persons" are named as the subject of the law not Al Queda Specifically. S.J. RES 23 is not limited in scope as a response only to the 911 tragedy - it provides the President the full ability to pursue any of those "Nations, Organizations or Persons" to prevent future acts of terrorism against the US.

S.J. RES 23

You can believe that it can be rectified in the future if you want, but it's screwed up right now.

What should Iraq have looked like 1 Year (or any other time period) after the War if it wasnt "screwed up"?

[Perinquus]

If I was an American, I'd sure as hell hope that Kerry wins the elections in November, because that could cause a rather dramatic shift in US-EU relations. Bush and his administration have absolutely zero credibility here, and that is going to be reflected in every aspect of his deals with us if he gets a second term.

Edi

God no! I'd hate to see Kerry win, and for all kinds of reasons. He has consistently opposed military spending, and spending on our intelligence services for the past thirty years in the senate. He's trying to use his Vietnam record to make himself look like he's not soft on defense, but his political record speaks for itself.

And he's states clearly that he views operations against terrorists as more of a law enforcement matter than a military one, which I am convinced is a huge mistake. That's how it was viewed by Clinton, and that precisely why we didn't get Osama Bin Laden when the Sudanese government offered to hand him over - treating it as a law enforcement matter, we didn't have enough to hold him. Clinton admitted this specifically, saying: "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America".

And now Kerry has stated that he wants to do what Clinton did - treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem. That approach cost over 3,000 Americans their lives on 9/11/01. It's a recipe for disaster.

Imagine we manage to caprute a terrorist either here, or abroad and we manage to get him back here. Then, treating it as a law enforcement matte, we duly appoint the terrorist an attorney and attempt to try him like a criminal - even though we realistically can't reveal a lot of our intelligence sources, which would throw out an enormous amount of evidence against the defendant, and most of the relevant witnesses may live in other countries where they could laugh at a subpoena to appear in a U.S. district court. Remember that in 1996, even after Al-Qaeda had been involved in the first WTC bombings, Bill Clinton still didn't believe we had a basis on which to hold Osama Bin Laden. He knew Bin Laden was responsible, but probably didn't think that they prove it in a court of law.

Sorry, this approach is wholly inadequate to deal with the threat. It is not inconceivable that terrorists could obtain a small nuclear device. In an age where this kind of attack is not beyond the realm of possibility, I simply do not believe we can afford to follow this sort of unworkable strategy. I can just imagine someone in the CIA telling us, after a tramp steamer carrying a nuke blows up in New York harbor: "Well, yes, we did know who the terrorists were, and where their base was, but the administration didn't think we could make a case against them in court so we didn't take any action".

Bush may have fumbled diplomacy with some of our allies, but at least his approach - a military aproach - makes far better sense than Kerry's would. I'd far rather have an undiplomatic president aggressively targeting terrorists and taking military action, than a dovish president who takes insufficient action and allows the terrorists to stay at large and dangerous.

[Vympel]

Just once, I'd like to see his actual entire voting record listed, rather than smacks-of-right-wing-propaganda-straight-from-the-Bush-campaign broad generalizations like "30 years in the Senate show" and "consistently opposed" etc.

As for terrorism as law enforcement, what exactly did you expect Clinton to do? Declare a "War On People Who Think Bad Thoughts About America and Maybe Had Something To Do With Previous Attacks" and hold Bin Laden?

It's also highly deceptive for you to say "that approach" cost over 3,000 lives, considering that right now the Bush administration didn't have any approach save for pursuing their obscene erection for Iraq- and they, not Clinton, were on watch at the time.

[Ma Deuce]

Besides, no matter who was President on 9/11 (even Kerry), the US would still have gone into Afghanistan. To do otherwise would have been political suicide.

[Sea Skimmer]

As for terrorism as law enforcement, what exactly did you expect Clinton to do? Declare a "War On People Who Think Bad Thoughts About America and Maybe Had Something To Do With Previous Attacks" and hold Bin Laden?

How about not blow up an aspirin plant based on logic that Bush is bashed for, and refrain from using million dollar missiles to destroy dispersed mountain camps when they could have been bombed with just about anything for far greater effect.

[Vympel]

How about not blow up an aspirin plant based on logic that Bush is bashed for, and refrain from using million dollar missiles to destroy dispersed mountain camps when they could have been bombed with just about anything for far greater effect.

That doesn't answer the question, does it? We all know Clinton's mistakes.

[Darth Wong]

It hasn't, but you're missing the point. It made a lot of previously moderate people much more anti-American in their viewpoints.

That statement on its face is subjective. How would you quantify the amount of effect of US actions on "moderates"? What standard of measurment applies?

The statement is subjective because the subject is subjective, moron. We're talking about peoples' attitudes here, remember? As for measurement, one can only go by the information that is available, and all of the information that is available (every news article, 100% of testimony from people in Europe and the Middle East, poll results, etc) indicates that anti-American sentiment has sharply increased since the invasion of Iraq. If you have some countervailing evidence, feel free to present it. But it's fucking stupid to complain that a statement about peoples' feelings is subjective.

And what did Syria and Libya have to do with 9-11?

Nothing. But Senate Joint Resolution 23 doesnt require them to have. Read section 2a. "Nations, Organizations or Persons" are named as the subject of the law not Al Queda Specifically. S.J. RES 23 is not limited in scope as a response only to the 911 tragedy - it provides the President the full ability to pursue any of those "Nations, Organizations or Persons" to prevent future acts of terrorism against the US.

So the false connection is correct because the government passed a resolution saying so? That's stupid too.

You can believe that it can be rectified in the future if you want, but it's screwed up right now.

What should Iraq have looked like 1 Year (or any other time period) after the War if it wasnt "screwed up"?

The subject of this thread is the status of the War on Terror and the effect that the Iraq invasion had on it, moron. NOT the status of Iraq if we assume that a war was unavoidable.

[Sea Skimmer]

That doesn't answer the question, does it? We all know Clinton's mistakes.

Yeah it does in part, I expected Clinton to respond to terrorist attacks in an effective manner. Expecting him to declare a global war on terror might be unreasonable, but he was presented with clear targets. He stuck them lightly once and that was it, while specialized counter terrorist units like Delta where kept busy waiting to captured the big bad Serbian war criminals, then did nothing while the camps where rebuilt and expanded. Might that have been a suggestion that the attacks hadn't worked? Guess not.

[Crown]

In regards to Clinton treating Osama as a defendant in a trial in 1996, yes this is true, however later Clinton did order Osama's assasination, so while he initially didn't want to make it a 'military' issue and was more for a 'police or law' issue, he certainly did a 180 when the facts were clearly presented to him.

[Invader ZIm]

The statement is subjective because the subject is subjective, moron. We're talking about peoples' attitudes here, remember? As for measurement, one can only go by the information that is available, and all of the information that is available (every news article, 100% of testimony from people in Europe and the Middle East, poll results, etc) indicates that anti-American sentiment has sharply increased since the invasion of Iraq. If you have some countervailing evidence, feel free to present it. But it's fucking stupid to complain that a statement about peoples' feelings is subjective.

Exactly "who" is complaining? Its fucking stupid to attribute anything more to my question than an exploration of your original thought.

So the false connection is correct because the government passed a resolution saying so? That's stupid too.

I didnt say I agreed or disagreed. It is nothing more than a fact that has existed since the Congress passed that resolution. Considering the way Congress crafted the language it is likely to be a part of the geo-political landscape not just through the Bush Administration but for every one in our lifetimes.

The subject of this thread is the status of the War on Terror and the effect that the Iraq invasion had on it, moron. NOT the status of Iraq if we assume that a war was unavoidable.

Bite me. If you claim Iraq is "screwed up", you can defend it.

[Perinquus]

Just once, I'd like to see his actual entire voting record listed, rather than smacks-of-right-wing-propaganda-straight-from-the-Bush-campaign broad generalizations like "30 years in the Senate show" and "consistently opposed" etc.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Election 2004

Candidate: Sen. John Kerry (D) Mass

Voting Record

SEN. KERRY'S DEFENSE STRATEGY:
CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion.Kerry's bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... is.txt.pdf)

In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion >From Defense.Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

ü Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training." (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

ü Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews

ü Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one

ü Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force

ü Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program

ü Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... is.txt.pdf)

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

ü In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise.Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

ü In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay)

ü In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs.Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

ü In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%.Only 21 other Senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber.(H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL
TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts."Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel ... the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq."[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

ü F-16 Fighting Falcons."The Air Force would also play an important role in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba'ath regime. On April 4, two Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the house of Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. 'Chemical Ali,' in Basra." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The Hill, 5/21/03)

ü B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s."On the night of March 21 alone, the first of 'shock and awe,' coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. ... Involved were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, ... F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons..." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The Hill, 5/21/03)

ü M1 Abrams."'[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,' added Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. 'The tank was the tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.'" (Patrick O'Connor, "Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future Of Urban Warfare," The Hill, 5/21/03)

ü Patriot Missile."U.S. Central Command says the Patriots ... have improved to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis' short-range al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict." (Andrea Stone, "Patriot Missile: Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops?" USA Today, 4/15/03)

ü AH-64 Apache Helicopter."Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved success directly supporting ground troops. ... Whether in shaping the battle in a combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is known, or by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground commander, the Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and firepower for U.S. Army forces ..." (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams, "The 'Warfighter Mindset' and the War in Iraq," Army Magazine, 7/03)

ü Tomahawk Cruise Missile."The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile has since been used successfully in several other conflicts ... include[ing] Bosnia ... in 1995 and in Iraq again ... in 1996 ... [and in] strikes against training camps run by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in 1998. Cruise missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in 1999." (Vivek Rai, "Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea," MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

ü Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis cruiser] Bunker Hill ... was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk strikes against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31 missiles during the war. Its embarked ... helicopter detachment ... supported the rescue of United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the Northern Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city of Umm Qasr." (S.A. Thornbloom, "USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return," NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88 )

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending."On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

Sen. John Kerry (D) Mass Voting Record

As much as I know you'd really like to believe it's just "right-wing-propaganda-straight-from-the-Bush-campaign", the fact is that Kerry really has opposed defense and intel spending at virtually every turn for as long as he's been in congress. He is a classic tax-and-spend, soft-on-defense liberal. As I said, his record speaks for itself. He is not a man I feel confident would be a good leader in the war on terrorists.

As for terrorism as law enforcement, what exactly did you expect Clinton to do? Declare a "War On People Who Think Bad Thoughts About America and Maybe Had Something To Do With Previous Attacks" and hold Bin Laden?

What did I expect him to do? Treat Bin Laden like the military enemy we already knew him to be, that's what. Take the Sudanese offer and apprehend a proclaimed enemy of the United States whom we already knew to be at least partly responsible for the 1993 attack no the WTC, that's what. Issue the CIA an order to eliminate the bastard, that's what.

It's also highly deceptive for you to say "that approach" cost over 3,000 lives, considering that right now the Bush administration didn't have any approach save for pursuing their obscene erection for Iraq- and they, not Clinton, were on watch at the time.

It's not highly deceptive. We kept our hands off Bin Laden when we had a chance to nab him because we were treating terrorism like a law enforcement problem not a military problem, and because the Clinton administration was looking at Bin Laden as though he were a criminal defendant rather than a military enemy. As a result, Bin Laden remained free and was able to plot the 9/11 attack. Maybe it would still have gone forward without him, but then again maybe it woudn't. At the least we would have eliminated a highly dangerous enemy.

Kerry wants to treat terrorism the same way Clinton did, as a law enforcement matter. It's crazy.

[Darth Wong]

Exactly "who" is complaining? Its fucking stupid to attribute anything more to my question than an exploration of your original thought.

Oh I see, so you intended to ask a question that served no other purpose than to "explore" the painfully obvious tautology that statements about a subjective subject such as human feelings are obviously subjective. And you feel that this was not stupid?

So the false connection is correct because the government passed a resolution saying so? That's stupid too.

I didnt say I agreed or disagreed. It is nothing more than a fact that has existed since the Congress passed that resolution. Considering the way Congress crafted the language it is likely to be a part of the geo-political landscape not just through the Bush Administration but for every one in our lifetimes.

And this makes a relevant point ... how?

The subject of this thread is the status of the War on Terror and the effect that the Iraq invasion had on it, moron. NOT the status of Iraq if we assume that a war was unavoidable.

Bite me. If you claim Iraq is "screwed up", you can defend it.

I see that my previous explanation was not simple enough for your infantile mind. Very well, I will explain it more carefully: I said THE WAR ON TERROR is screwed up, moron.

I said nothing about Iraq being any more or less screwed up than one might expect 1 year after an invasion. This whole thread exists to ask the question of whether the invasion helped or hurt the war on terror, moron. Not to discuss the totally irrelevant question of whether Iraq should reasonably be expected to be better off than it currently is if we assume the invasion of Iraq to be unavoidable. Get it yet? I don't need to "defend" statements that you put in my mouth, asshole.

Here, just in case you still can't figure it out: IRAQ != ALQUAEDA. Get it?

[Invader ZIm]

Exactly "who" is complaining? Its fucking stupid to attribute anything more to my question than an exploration of your original thought.

Oh I see, so you intended to ask a question that served no other purpose than to "explore" the painfully obvious tautology that statements about a subjective subject such as human feelings are obviously subjective. And you feel that this was not stupid?

So the false connection is correct because the government passed a resolution saying so? That's stupid too.

I didnt say I agreed or disagreed. It is nothing more than a fact that has existed since the Congress passed that resolution. Considering the way Congress crafted the language it is likely to be a part of the geo-political landscape not just through the Bush Administration but for every one in our lifetimes.

And this makes a relevant point ... how?

The subject of this thread is the status of the War on Terror and the effect that the Iraq invasion had on it, moron. NOT the status of Iraq if we assume that a war was unavoidable.

Bite me. If you claim Iraq is "screwed up", you can defend it.

I see that my previous explanation was not simple enough for your infantile mind. Very well, I will explain it more carefully: I said THE WAR ON TERROR is screwed up, moron.

I said nothing about Iraq being any more or less screwed up than one might expect 1 year after an invasion. This whole thread exists to ask the question of whether the invasion helped or hurt the war on terror, moron. Not to discuss the totally irrelevant question of whether Iraq should reasonably be expected to be better off than it currently is if we assume the invasion of Iraq to be unavoidable. Get it yet? I don't need to "defend" statements that you put in my mouth, asshole.

Here, just in case you still can't figure it out: IRAQ != ALQUAEDA. Get it?

Very Well. Forget it.

[Vympel]

That's an article from Freerepublic- with their hysterical tone and use of words "voted to SLAAAAAAASHHHHHHHHHH (followed by exceedingly piddly amount)" intact.

As well as not a single justification for why any of these votes were unconscionable! And of course, absolutely no mention of his voting for every single regular defense appropriations bill and authorization bill[ since 1997- that would be way too objective.

That is *not* his voting record, that's selective cherry-picking, and not even cherry-picking with justifications- clearly tailored for the Freeper mindset where anything but an increase in defense spending is viewed as some sort of stab in the back. What's more, all of this cherry picking comes from the immediate aftermath of the Cold War.

Let's proceed to deconstruct:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews

Oh, the humanity! How many SSNs does the USA have again ... like ... more, superior submarines than the rest of the world put together? Are they still chasing down the massive Soviet submarine fleet? Or looking for Osama on the ocean floor?

Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one

"Too light to fight".

Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force

Oh, the humanity! How many fighters does the USA have again ... like .. more, superior fighters than the rest of the world put togehter?

Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program

Yes, because we all know how CRITICAL this program is to the defense of the United States. After all, they're based in ... Texas.

Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

Reduce the entire armed forces by 60,000 men? No! What will America do now?

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise

And voting to increase military pay is by definition good, and voting not to is by definition bad? Or does justification for some of this shit not enter into the freeper brain .. at all?

In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense

Yup, there goes that crazy whacko peace dividend idea.

In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs

How *dare* he, the filthy socialist! Clearly, he is committed to castrating the country!

In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%

Yup, there goes that crazy whacko peace dividend idea.

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber

Yup, those handful of $1 billion dollar a piece flying-procurement-fiascos were certainly a wise defense procurement decision that is immune from criticism. Obviously, explaining why cutting or eliminating funding would be a bad idea is above the moron who wrote this article.

Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense.

In a word: Good. Nice to see someone has a brain.

"Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel ... the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet."

Ah, he said he would've voted to cancel, as a candidate- but hasn't actually voted against any of the weapons on that list that actually have been valuable. The only weapons he has specifically voted against are strategic systems where there *are* legitimate arguments to be made against their utility versus their cost.

What did I expect him to do? Treat Bin Laden like the military enemy we already knew him to be, that's what. Take the Sudanese offer and apprehend a proclaimed enemy of the United States whom we already knew to be at least partly responsible for the 1993 attack no the WTC, that's what.

If they knew, how come they didn't feel it could come anywhere close to sticking? EDIT: And let's not even begin treating this supposed 'Sudanese offer' as uncontroversial fact, ok?

Issue the CIA an order to eliminate the bastard, that's what.

According to Dick Clarke, that's exactly what Clinton did.

[BoredShirtless]

Vympel's right, without knowing the "why"s behind Kerry's votes, you can't honestly accuse him of anything. Though some you can infer the justification from [Vympel made the submarine one bleedingly obvious].

[HemlockGrey]

I see Perinquus is breaking out the Sean Hannity "Sudanese Government had Bin Laden" bullshit.

[Crown]

In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense

Yup, there goes that crazy whacko peace dividend idea.

This, IIRC, was over a proposed 5 year time line and in specific area of military spending, and also IIRC the Bush Admin slashed $2-3 billion in the same area in 2 years ...