DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Other Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk-9/)
-   -   "Tough-On-Defense" "War Hero" Voted Against Gulf I (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk/378889-tough-defense-war-hero-voted-against-gulf-i.html)

OldDude 08-07-04 09:14 AM

"Tough-On-Defense" "War Hero" Voted Against Gulf I
 
In spite of his recent remarks about being tough on defense and building alliances, "war hero" voted against the measures taken to check Saddam known as Gulf I. A war that France, Germany, and the UN supported, but Kerry and fellow MA liberal Ted Kennedy didn't. Apparently 5.5 months of murdering, looting, and raping Kuwaitis wasn't enough time to determine Saddam's true intent and more "speaking harshly" probably would have resolved it. :lol:

Just as a reminder, we had an alliance with Kuwait and were sworn to defend them by the terms of that alliance. While I recognize the need for time to get our forces together, we should have been bombing Saddam's palaces and army positions daily, for 5.5 months while we formed up.

Kerry can always be counted on to assume all positions on all sides of an issue. His voting record is his only true record and it says "Why waste even a single dollar on defense when you can just give it to poor people." He probably wouldn't have responded to Pearl Harbor, saying we needed more time to determine why the Japanese were so frustrated and "venting."

An editorial from IBD
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=8/7

Kerry In The Eyes Of The Storm
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

National Security: Among the positions we'd like to hear John Kerry reconcile is his stance on the latest war with Iraq and the one he took on Desert Storm in 1991.

If we understand the senator correctly, a key difference he sees between himself and President Bush is he'd be better at building an alliance that would help fight and finance our effort in the Middle East.

"I know what we have to do," he told the Democratic convention. "We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to the American taxpayers and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home."

But "that won't happen," he insisted, "until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership so we won't have to go it alone in the world."

Sounds good, like so many of the senator's vapidities. But where did he stand 13 years ago, when the first President Bush assembled what might be called the mother of all alliances to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait?

A total of 34 countries joined that coalition, including France and Germany. Of the 660,000 troops committed, nearly one in four came from a country other than the U.S. Of the $61 billion spent, other nations (including Germany and Japan) picked up $53 billion.

The U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing member states to "use all necessary means" to liberate Kuwait passed 12 to 2 (Cuba and Yemen), with one abstention (China).

Hardly a case of "going it alone" and not consulting with other countries, allies or no. Yet when it came to that fateful Senate vote of Jan. 13, 1991, on whether to empower the first President Bush to use U.S. armed forces to expel Iraq from Kuwait, Kerry voted "no."

It wasn't like the Senate was acting rashly. Saddam, as you recall, had invaded Kuwait 5 1/2 months earlier, and (much like what's happened since) had been given ultimatum after ultimatum and deadline after deadline. The final one, approved by the U.N., was Jan. 15, 1991.

Still, the junior senator from Massachusetts wanted to continue debating not only on going to war, but also on legalistic points such as whether the president had the authority to wage war without Congress' approval.

In resisting a vote, Kerry stood shoulder to shoulder with Massachusetts' senior senator, Ted Kennedy, who predicted the war would be "brutal and costly," as evidenced by "the 45,000 body bags the Pentagon has sent to the region."

Desert Storm, of course, lasted all of six weeks (including a 100-hour ground war) and cost 393 American lives (148 in battle).


Iraq wasn't the only loser. So was the credibility of many of the 45 Democrats and two Republicans who predicted it would go badly. They included Sam Nunn of Georgia, whom the Democrats always trotted out as their big thinker on military matters, and whose presidential ambitions tanked along with his prediction that a ground assault would be much bloodier than it turned out.

As for Kerry, his *****-footing at that time of national decision doesn't seem to enter into the current discussion of whether he has the judgment and decisiveness required of a commander in chief.

In retrospect, however, his performance back then seems to reinforce his reputation now as a flip-flopper who avoids taking firm stands and who seems interested more in political viability than national security.


classicman2 08-07-04 09:30 AM

The title of the thread is so typical of Repub friends: If you voted against the Gulf War, you can't be for a strong national defense. What hogwash!

Come on!

Had I been a member of the senate, I would have voted against the Gulf War. I've always fashioned myself as being one who believes in a strong national defense.

My basic reason for the war is that Kuwait was primarily the 'guilty' party and the U. S. and the world community, in general, did nothing to address the legitimate grievances that Iraq had against Kuwait. We turned a blind eye and permitted them to continue to steal Iraqi oil and violate the agreements they had made with Iraq.

Of course our Repub friends had rather resort to the use of words that tend to inflame, such as murder, looting, raping, etc. instead of looking into the legitimate reasons that the Iraqis might have had for invading Kuwait.

BTW: I'm still of the opinion that the U. S. would have taken no action if we had not had concerns about Saddam's intentions toward Saudia Arabia.

Therefore, our Repub friends will have to look elsewhere to condemn Kerry for being soft on defense.

Pharoh 08-07-04 09:55 AM


Originally posted by classicman2
The title of the thread is so typical of Repub friends: If you voted against the Gulf War, you can't be for a strong national defense. What hogwash!

Come on!

Had I been a member of the senate, I would have voted against the Gulf War. I've always fashioned myself as being one who believes in a strong national defense.

My basic reason for the war is that Kuwait was primarily the 'guilty' party and the U. S. and the world community, in general, did nothing to address the legitimate grievances that Iraq had against Kuwait. We turned a blind eye and permitted them to continue to steal Iraqi oil and violate the agreements they had made with Iraq.

Of course our Repub friends had rather resort to the use of words that tend to inflame, such as murder, looting, raping, etc. instead of looking into the legitimate reasons that the Iraqis might have had for invading Kuwait.

BTW: I'm still of the opinion that the U. S. would have taken no action if we had not had concerns about Saddam's intentions toward Saudia Arabia.

Therefore, our Repub friends will have to look elsewhere to condemn Kerry for being soft on defense.


All true perhaps. However, I think the vote on the Gulf War I is far more telling than the vote on the recent action in Iraq. After all, isn't it Senator Kerry who decries supposed unilateralism and demands diplomacy and international coalitons? Hasn't he claimed to desire clearly defined mission goals and exit parameters? Weren't all of those present back during the Gulf War?

I fully understand your rationale for being against the first Gulf War, I can not fathom Senator Kerry's, especially given his recent stance and "I'm tough" statements. They don't square.

Mutley Hyde 08-07-04 12:39 PM

-ohbfrank-

I can't even respond. Everything I write just comes off too condescending. I can't understand how anyone would vote against intervention of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It ****ing boggles my mind.

Tsar Chasm 08-07-04 01:02 PM

What will Bush do after his single term presidency? Speaking tours? rotfl

X 08-07-04 01:05 PM


Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
What will Bush do after his single term presidency? Speaking tours? rotfl
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=351718

DodgingCars 08-07-04 01:31 PM


Originally posted by Mutley Hyde
-ohbfrank-

I can't even respond. Everything I write just comes off too condescending. I can't understand how anyone would vote against intervention of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It ****ing boggles my mind.

See classicman's post. Kuwait was not invaded unprovoked.

Jeremy517 08-07-04 01:50 PM

Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. They were slant-drilling to get to Iraqi oil.

Jeremy517 08-07-04 01:52 PM


Originally posted by Pharoh
I fully understand your rationale for being against the first Gulf War, I can not fathom Senator Kerry's, especially given his recent stance and "I'm tough" statements. They don't square.
Something somewhat big happened between then and now, don't you think? There is no chance that any of the major candidates would have ended the war on terror (or pulled out of Iraq) any time soon if elected president, no matter what their voting record in the past was.

OldDude 08-07-04 01:54 PM


Originally posted by Jeremy517
Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. They were slant-drilling to get to Iraqi oil.
Yeah, that's much more worthy of invasion than killing hundreds of thousands of people. So we approve of War for Oil when Saddam does it, but falsely accuse the US of it when it has other reasons for taking out Saddam, Sweet, now I understand completely. Saddam is good, Bush is bad, end of discussion.

Jeremy517 08-07-04 01:59 PM


Originally posted by OldDude
Yeah, that's much more worthy of invasion than killing hundreds of thousands of people. So we approve of War for Oil when Saddam does it, but falsely accuse the US of it when it has other reasons for taking out Saddam, Sweet, now I understand completely. Saddam is good, Bush is bad, end of discussion.
Give me a break. I didn't say anything about whether or not I supported the latest war, and you most certainly will never hear me saying that it was for oil, because it clearly was not.

I don't like Kerry OR Bush, so you don't have to attack me.

OldDude, I suggest you read this post from another thread.


Originally posted by X
I think the most ardent pushers of their candidates are doing more harm to them than good by turning off people who could be appealed to by reasonable discussion.

Mutley Hyde 08-07-04 02:19 PM


Originally posted by DodgingCars
See classicman's post. Kuwait was not invaded unprovoked.
So provocation by way of siphoning off resources is an excuse for war, not to mention, as c-man puts it, for murder, looting and raping (all against Geneva, yadda yadda yadda)? I see. Something tells me had that happened to us, from say, Mexico or Canada, people would cry and piss and moan all friggin' day had we gone to war rather than to the UN and plead with them for decades to do something about it. I don't know the history, so maybe Saddam did go to the UN, or tried some other diplomatic method first. We all know about his legendary dimplomatic savvy, after all -rolleyes- . But all I'm saying is that some of you are willing to give Saddam a pass for going to war rather than endlessly playing the diplomatic game, while ripping Bush a new ******* for doing the same. Like I said, I don't know the history, but I'm damn sure Saddam didn't try to resolve the issue diplomatically for 13 years before he invaded Kuwait.

Pharoh 08-07-04 02:23 PM


Originally posted by Jeremy517
Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. They were slant-drilling to get to Iraqi oil.

That is a very debateable point, one that many think would have been impossible for Kuwait to do.

Alyoshka 08-07-04 02:27 PM

I think, more importantly, what the article fails to mention is that Kerry voted no because he thought the timing was wrong. There were legitimate things to debate before going to war. As the article does mention he wanted to talk about what war powers the President actually has. Also, there were legitimate concerns about the slant-drilling. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have voted yes to the war if they had discussed some of the concerns in congress.

Jeremy517 08-07-04 02:34 PM


Originally posted by Pharoh
That is a very debateable point, one that many think would have been impossible for Kuwait to do.
Perhaps.

Saddam was also supposedly told that the US considered it a local dispute and would not get involved.

Either way, there are numerous things that could have been talked about/investigated before going to war. I think the no votes could certainly be justified by saying that they just wanted more time to hear both sides of the story.

And no matter what the justification for a no vote was, it has no relevance on how a no-voter would behave today as president, since a lot has happened since then...

Mutley Hyde 08-07-04 02:36 PM


Originally posted by Pharoh
That is a very debateable point, one that many think would have been impossible for Kuwait to do.
Yeah, I was gonna mention that, that I didn't think that had ever been inconclusively proven, but I decided not to waste my breath (typing strikes).

Pharoh 08-07-04 02:36 PM


Originally posted by Jeremy517
Something somewhat big happened between then and now, don't you think? There is no chance that any of the major candidates would have ended the war on terror (or pulled out of Iraq) any time soon if elected president, no matter what their voting record in the past was.

True, but not very relevant to me. It seems to me that the good Senator has more of a problem with our methods of actions than our actions themselves regarding Iraq, namely our supposed lack of diplomacy and success in getting international cooperation. Those are both things that existed in abundance during the Gulf War. What were Senator Kerry's objections then? I don't think 9/11 would have changed the dynamics that existed then, unless of course we are speaking about the political dynamics, but nobody could ever suggest that Senator Kerry would vote a particular way just for political expediency, now could they?

In the for what it's worth department, if the good Senator had voiced concerns over saddam's half-hearted attempts at a diplomatic solution, or if he publicly decried Kuwait's practices, which did drive down the price of Iraqi oil whether or not they actually slant-drilled, I might believe differently than I do.

Pharoh 08-07-04 02:41 PM


Originally posted by Jeremy517
Perhaps.

Saddam was also supposedly told that the US considered it a local dispute and would not get involved.

Either way, there are numerous things that could have been talked about/investigated before going to war. I think the no votes could certainly be justified by saying that they just wanted more time to hear both sides of the story.

And no matter what the justification for a no vote was, it has no relevance on how a no-voter would behave today as president, since a lot has happened since then...



We seem to be typing over each other, so after this one, I will take a break from this thread, for a short time at least.

In the absence of a concrete and feasible plan put forth by a candidate, which Senator Kerry has not done, what else can we draw information from about said candidate? I don't think the vote 14 years ago is predictive of what actions Mr. Kerry would take as President, I do think it goes to show his thoughts and beliefs, it allows us a glimpse at the man he is. That is worthwhile to me at least.

Jeremy517 08-07-04 02:49 PM


Originally posted by Pharoh
In the absence of a concrete and feasible plan put forth by a candidate, which Senator Kerry has not done
Agreed.

Unfortunately for me, the independant voter, I don't like Bush's current plan for Afghanistan. I'd like to see a greater presence there, which Kerry has said he would do. I can't win :)

But that is off-topic, sorry.


Originally posted by Pharoh
I do think it goes to show his thoughts and beliefs, it allows us a glimpse at the man he is. That is worthwhile to me at least.
Depends on what his reasoning was. I think that a no vote could still be justified, even with international support, if there are too many unanswered questions. Maybe if he was given more time to get some answers, he might have voted yes, but only Kerry knows for sure (maybe :)).

OldDude 08-07-04 02:50 PM


Originally posted by Alyoshka
As the article does mention he wanted to talk about what war powers the President actually has
Isn't that a remarkable weak point as Congress was voting to authorize him to take action? Particular since he vote for action in Gulf II (but later regretted it). I don't know if he remembers voting against Gulf I which everybody else in the world supported; he probably later regretted against that later, since whatever position he takes, he later takes the opposite.

But really, once Congress votes to endorse his taking military action, how can there be any question.

DodgingCars 08-07-04 02:50 PM


Originally posted by Mutley Hyde
So provocation by way of siphoning off resources is an excuse for war, not to mention, as c-man puts it, for murder, looting and raping (all against Geneva, yadda yadda yadda)? I see. Something tells me had that happened to us, from say, Mexico or Canada, people would cry and piss and moan all friggin' day had we gone to war rather than to the UN and plead with them for decades to do something about it. I don't know the history, so maybe Saddam did go to the UN, or tried some other diplomatic method first. We all know about his legendary dimplomatic savvy, after all -rolleyes- . But all I'm saying is that some of you are willing to give Saddam a pass for going to war rather than endlessly playing the diplomatic game, while ripping Bush a new ******* for doing the same. Like I said, I don't know the history, but I'm damn sure Saddam didn't try to resolve the issue diplomatically for 13 years before he invaded Kuwait.
You said: "I can't understand how anyone would vote against intervention of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It ****ing boggles my mind."

Some people weren't ready to go to war with Iraq for defending its resources. But instead of addressing that, you turn the discussion into calling me a Saddam supporter and a Bush hater. I'm neither.

classicman2 08-07-04 02:54 PM


Originally posted by Mutley Hyde
-ohbfrank-

I can't even respond. Everything I write just comes off too condescending. I can't understand how anyone would vote against intervention of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It ****ing boggles my mind.

Simply look into the background of the war a little. Then you might not be so boggled.

We knew about it. We knew what the Kuwaits were doing. We knew that they were violating their agreements with Iraq. Why didn't we prevent the Kuwaitis from doing so - maybe it has something to do with American oil companies in Kuwait.

In addition, the U. S. Ambassador to Iraq gave the Iraqi government (Saddam) mixed signals about what the U. S. reaction might be if Iraqi took action against Kuwait.


Yeah, that's much more worthy of invasion than killing hundreds of thousands of people. So we approve of War for Oil when Saddam does it, but falsely accuse the US of it when it has other reasons for taking out Saddam, Sweet, now I understand completely. Saddam is good, Bush is bad, end of discussion.
There you go again with Repub simplicity once your argument has been totally deflated. :lol:

Mutley Hyde 08-07-04 02:56 PM


Originally posted by DodgingCars
You said: "I can't understand how anyone would vote against intervention of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It ****ing boggles my mind."

Some people weren't ready to go to war with Iraq for defending its resources. But instead of addressing that, you turn the discussion into calling me a Saddam supporter and a Bush hater. I'm neither.

Right, I said that, and then you offered up the whole oil siphoning thing, and I responded to that. I wasn't responding to your firt post in my second response to you, see? You brought in a new dynamic to our discourse, and I addressed it. That's kinda how these things work.

As for calling you this and that, no, I didn't call you a Saddam lover or Bush hater, I simply said that some people, yourself included perhaps, give Saddam a pass for not staying the course with the diplomatic route, yet criticize Bush when he does the same.

DodgingCars 08-07-04 03:00 PM


Originally posted by Mutley Hyde
[B]Right, I said that, and then you offered up the whole oil siphoning thing, and I responded to that. I wasn't responding to your firt post in my second response to you, see? You brought in a new dynamic to our discourse, and I addressed it. That's kinda how these things work.
Who are you talking to? I'm lost. I had only made one post. You had only posted one response to me. What are you talking about?

CRM114 08-07-04 03:02 PM

It appears that Kuwait was once claimed to be part of Iraq. The Brits "drew" the line for Kuwait in 1923. Iraq gave up its claim in 1963.

Besides century old claims to the land of Kuwait, I would think a neighbor stealing your oil would be grounds for invasion. but alas, Kuwait oil was in the US backpocket and Iraqi oil wasn't.

And OldDude, you can't compare Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to claims of US "war for oil" since Iraq was warring for THEIR oil. We war for other's oil.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.