Where's Kerry going to get 40,000 more troops?

[Cascadian]

Before I start to question Kerry's stance on Iraq and the military, I want to let you know I am voting for Kerry, okay? But, I still have my doubts about him on Iraq.

John Kerry wants to get 40,000 people into military service. How is he going to do that without a draft? Also, I still think Kerry should call for the withdrawal of all of our forces in Iraq. Bringing our men and women home from Iraq and harm's way does not mean we would be abandoning Iraq. We can always send money for aid to help rebuild their country. We do not need to keep our forces in a place where we are obviously not wanted. If a President Kerry continues to keep U.S. forces there, it will come back to haunt him in 2008. It would be worse if he decides to start a draft.

I will give Kerry a benefit of a doubt however, one must call b.s. if he continues Bush's failed policy. As for bringing in our allies, I honestly do not think the countries that refused to join the coalition of the willing are going to change their mind even with a new president.

John

[Rosco T.]

1. Not too hard...

- raise pay
- restore benefits
- actually give them equipment they need
- get other nations to join in

that will bring back some that have quit in disgust.

[neoteric lefty]

11. you forgot one very important action

- Get rid of a commander-in-chief that misleads and distorts the reasons for war for personal gain.

Once these men and women understand that they will only be put in harms way when it is absolutely essential, then they will flock back to the service again. Too many proud patriots in our country.

[Kanary]

15. agreed on the misleading and distortion........

but, how would you convince anyone that fighting, being injured, and dying in Iraq is "absolutely essential"?

Kanary

[yardwork]

37. You'd be surprised how many Americans will do this.

Millions of Americans believe in going to war for their country. You may disagree with them and be completely puzzled by their feelings, but they are real.

As Michael Moore said, all they ask is that we only send them when it is necessary.

Iraq is a mess right now. Shrub has created a disaster. A lot of Americans think it is a mistake to walk away. They will sign up to help fix the mess Shrub made, if they have trust in their new Commander in Chief.

That's why Kerry's speech last night was so brilliant. It spoke to the millions of Americans living in those heartland states who are patriotic. I know this for a fact. I grew up among them.

[Kanary]

38. The question was about "absolutely essential"

There are people now who will sign up, believing it's the patriotic thing to do.

What I responded to was the idea that Kerry will change things by only going to war if it's "absolutely essential".

How can that be said of Iraq? What's "essential" about battles there?

Kanary

[seabeyond]

2. you know what, i am going to really trust kerry on this

that he truly does have a feel for war unlike the chicken hawks and that he is smart and that he be given the opportunity to do this iraq thing

[Rosco T.]

3. on yeah.. that's another thing.. someone that UNDERSTANDS ...

.. the military rather than AWOL Shrub and Rumsfart.

[ParisFrance]

4. As much as I would like to leave Iraq we can't because

Crisis might occur in the middle east and then Oil prices may severly damage industrialized nations economies

[Rosco T.]

9. WE don't have to stay there by ourselves...

- prediction

Within 30 days of Inaguration, 30,000 troops from various countries will be made available to the Iraq situation.

[REVOLT823]

27. I'm with you on that,

I think our allies will step up to the plate once the idiots are gone

[DS1]

5. Well, isn't 40k really a small amount compared to the current

number of people serving?

Hell, it's a drop in the hat compared to the number of people that are providing "security services", there must be 50 Green Berets working for Blackrock alone.

With actual delivery of said better living conditions, and wages, and body armor, the army alone will keep 40,000 ~more~ people in than least year.

[no name no slogan]

35. There's 130,000 currently there-- another 40k is a 30%+ increase

but even sadder still, there's probably not any amout of US troops that could "stabilize" Iraq.

Right now, more than 70% of Iraqis want the US OUT, regardless of the consequences. These are not stupid people-- they know their country much better than any CIA analyst or suit in D.C. ever will.

The Iraqis are perfectly capable of making their own decisions as to who "rebuilds" their country. They currently have an unemployment rate around 80%, and yet we allow US companies to do the "rebuilding", with labor imported from abroad. No wonder they want us to get out.

The longer the military presense remains in Iraq, the more we stir up Al-Qaeda and its allies. And the more hatred we create in the Arab and Muslim world.

[jean]

6. he also said he would stop using Nat'l Guard the way bush has

[Indiana_Dem]

7. That's the only part of Kerry that irritates me.

Also the fact that Edwards says he thinks the war was justified and offers no explanation ever.

I kept waiting on Kerry to explain HOW we were going to get 40,000 more troops. That bothers me and I don't want to campaign for someone only to find out during the term that he will propose a draft. That's THE only thing that is bothering me.

I do think, however, that our allies may change their minds under a new administration. The new administration just may well be able to talk more diplomatically and create some new deals that the present administration may not be able or willing to do. That may alleviate some of our need for more troops. I hope it can be done.

[NMDemDist2]

8. k, I can see why you have a few questions, and I'll take a shot at em

the 40K won't come right away, they will build over a few years. He also said he didn't want the troops for Iraq he wants to take the pressure off...

JK said he wants to bring home the troops

and how to get our "allies" to come in? easy, let them share in the financial windfall that is rebuilding Iraq. Bush isn't giving anybody overseas a shot at any of the $$$$ Bush wants to coerce allies instead of using a bit of honey to bring them in, not to mention that the EU is still smarting over the way chimpy ran roughshod over them and they are saying NO because they can't trust him. JK has a reputation as an internationalist and Europe will be glad to support him with chimpy gone


hope that helped

[imax2268]

10. I believe...

that if Kerry is elected more people will want to join because they know they won't be used as chess pawns by the BushCo administration...

[Dover]

16. perhaps....but Iraq would be a VERY hard sell.

And I don't think people are all that trusting of any leader at the moment. We have been betrayed left and right.

[Droopy]

12. The Iraq issue is my only problem with Kerry

I don't know how he plans to put another 40k troops over there. I'm with you, Cascadian. I'd like to see them all brought home right now. The fear of that is that we'll end up with an Iraqi government that is not friendly towards U.S. interests. We've done so much with our foreign policy to harm the world, I wouldn't blame them if they weren't friendly to us.

But you know what? If Kerry were to say, "As president I will immediately bring the troops home," there would probably be no chance of him getting elected. It's sad really.

[stavka]

18. The previous government wasn't friendly to us...

nor were they much of a danger to us....

[Droopy]

19. Yeah I know

Iraq will never was and never will be any danger to us. But I think the power elite want a friend in the middle east. Somewhere where we can set up military bases and be business partners with. I think that is the main motivation behind keeping the troops there. But you never know. Maybe I'm just cynical and they really want a democracy in Iraq for altruistic purposes.

[depakid]

13. Assuming that the economy doesn't improve appreciably

and I think that's a fair assumption after 4 years of destructive Republican policies, then good jobs will be hard to come by for a long time....

[JohnnyRingo]

14. Bill O'Reilly said he'd go n/t

[Tight_rope]

26. That's right....Bill did say he would fight in Iraq!

[Kinkistyle]

17. UN plus NATO.

Equals a much easier time.

[JohnKleeb]

20. hes all for doing that I know

[WindRavenX]

28. bingo

I bet Kerry has been assured that if he wins, many countries will give troops, hence the 40,000 claim.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Except that the UN and NATO won't jump into the brier patch.

Unless we give them control of all the military. Fat Chance.

[ronabop]

21. 40,000...

Hm.....How many freepers are willing to fight for their country?

-Bop

[2Design]

22. rioght now they have 40, 000 reservist called up...to let them go

he needs 40,000 regular troops.....and he said they would not be going into iraq....there are troops all over the world and lots here that are full time.....

[Meldread]

23. We CANNOT leave Iraq.

Colin Powell told Bush flat out, "You break it, you bought it." Bush decided to break it, and the American people are paying for it. We cannot leave until the country is stabilized and the new Government can run effectively. Why? Because terrorists thrive in those environments. We basically would have destroyed a nation and then left them there to rot. All those lives lost for nothing. All those innocent Iraqi's dead for nothing. All of the American lives lost for nothing. We have *NO* other option but to stay within Iraq. There is no other option. Period.

What Kerry is going to do, however, is begin lowering our dependency on Middle East oil so we don't have to worry about anything like this happening again. Our interest and dependency on the Middle East will decline and we can begin shifting our focuses to elsewhere. We can stop shacking up with Israel, and we'll be liberated from the leverage the Middle East holds over us.

Hopefully with a new President and a damn good Secretary of State we'll be able to get other countries involved in Iraq so we can help shift the burden off American shoulders.

[drdtroit]

24. "We can stop shacking up with Israel,.."

That will never happen. :shrug:

[eridani]

29. Our presence is CAUSING the instability

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's pointless to say that we must put it back in at all costs.

[Cascadian]

32. That's baloney!!!

That we broke so we must fix it arguement is such bunk! I think the Iraqis are not as primitive as many people would like to think. They do not need us there. Let's give them money and materials to rebuild their country. They are killing our guys left and right. They do not want us there. Don't you get it? I am tired of people in this country who think the Iraqis cannot control their own destiny and we get this paternalistic attitude which smacks of colonialism and arrogance. BRING THEM HOME!


John

[Cascadian]

33. I suppose you would support a draft as well?

eom


John

[jmowreader]

34. Under limited circumstances, I'd support a draft

First: the draftees must not leave the Continental United States unless we are attacked. And then they can only be used to fight the attacking nation.

Second: the draftees must be brought in for only two years. Draftees will only be brought in for two years. Say the draft begins on 1 March 2005. On 1 March 2007 no more draftees will be accessed; on 1 March 2009 all draftees who have not enlisted will have been released.

Third: the sole purpose of the draftees is to buffer out the military during the transition from Bush War Mode to John Kerry Peace. We're gonna need a lot of guys in the service to protect America while we're training up new soldiers to replace all the guys who walked in the Bush maladministration. That's what these conscripts will be there for.

I don't support a draft as a means of gaining cannon fodder, but as a means of strengthening our defenses right now until we get guys who want to do it, a draft would be okay.

[Tight_rope]

25. People like me who said no to Bush...Will say to Kerry...."SEND ME"!

[Disturbed]

30. A shrinking global footprint for US forces

I googled this and grabbed the 1st article about the topic that seemed relevant. There are many other alternatives regarding troop dispersion.


A shrinking global footprint for US forces

In the wake of war, the Pentagon is positioned to rethink where troops are based abroad as well as military priorities.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0422/p01s02-usmi.html

[Cascadian]

31. kick