Reply With Quote
I understood him when he said it. I thought he was ed up then and I think he's ed up now!
A Washington Post story on John Kerry provides the following nugget that, having been picked up by Rush Limbaugh, may turn out to be a bombs :
John Kerry claims that he will never give the U.N. a veto over our right to undertake a given military effort. It's just that the U.N. can determine whether it is worth it for Americans to die in that military effort.
Glad he cleared that up!
I understood him when he said it. I thought he was ed up then and I think he's ed up now!
Well I owe Senator Kerry an apology...all this time I've been criticizing Kerry for being weak on defense...
It's not that he's anti-war, he's just anti-American. He's more than willing to watch American boys(Innocent Iraqi civillians as well) die in the name of corruption and elitism, and in the causes of those that hate America.
War for Oil is more than ok with the Senator...as long as the right countries are profiting.
So American troops can die for Jacques Chirac, or Schroeder, or , even Assad or Kim Jong Il (assuming they got UN to provide troops to help with something), but they can't die for America's interests.
Just what I was looking for in a president.
Nice gross oversimplification. Sean Insannity would be proud.John Kerry claims that he will never give the U.N. a veto over our right to undertake a given military effort. It's just that the U.N. can determine whether it is worth it for Americans to die in that military effort.
What Kerry is actually saying is that he is about using diplomacy to build real coalitions with our traditional U.N. allies instead of acting unilaterally when there is no solid evidence of a immediate or immenent danger to the U.S. or American interests.
Kerry has made it clear that the U.S. will retain the right to defend itself. That is why he voted to give W the authority to crack down on Saddam, given the intelligence that was coming out of the CIA and State Department at the time.
Eh, you say Teresa, Kerry says Terayza...
Since when did you join Kerry Campaign, Nbadanallah? I wasn't aware that you could devine what he was "actually" saying when he quite bluntly stated that American deaths were a greater tragedy if they were suffered under the U.N. flag.
And what we're saying is that in '91, when the whole ing world wanted to kick Saddam's ass, Kerry voted against military action. Past action trumps tired political rhetoric.What Kerry is actually saying is that he is about using diplomacy to build real coalitions with our traditional U.N. allies
So there will be a special needs draft in 2005?Past action trumps tired political rhetoric.
That's a stretch. So will the little green men who control the world through the Neocons and the Illuminati make an appearance anytime soon?
Probably the same SOB's who are hiding those WMD's in Syria and Iran, right?So will the little green men who control the world through the Neocons and the Illuminati make an appearance anytime soon?
Yeah, because Bush has already done that once in his pastSo there will be a special needs draft in 2005?
The only way there'll be a draft is if Kerry wins...and, well, he's gonna feel like Joe Torre does tonight on November 3.
the intelligence we had was saddam was a threat...all the intelligence said he was a threat. the duelfer report said he had every intent to go ahead with wmds as soon as sanctions were lifted. and he was gradually getting more and more in iraq by way of the oil for food program...
kerry voted for the war, but now acts like he didn't. he beat dean by acting like a war president and now is trying to be bush by acting like a peace president...
How the could you say that?? Calling someone, especially a vietnam vet an ant-american is just totally uncalled for. This global test is not that hard to understand, it's just closed-minded people like you that make it difficult.It's not that he's anti-war, he's just anti-American. He's more than willing to watch American boys(Innocent Iraqi civillians as well) die in the name of corruption and elitism, and in the causes of those that hate America.
He's just merely saying that we wen't into this war without the support of our allies, was he wrong for saying that? Every war we have been in, we have won because of support of our allies. This war is not on one country, but on the entire world becasue guess what smart ass? Terrorist are harbored everywhere. Korea, china, canada, japan, russia, even in the U.S. How are we supposed to win this war without the cooperation of the entire world when every country harbors terrorist. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
And I don't know why the , your talking as if this war was started be him. He voted for the war because like the rest of the nation he was mislead by our president. He then did not support the war because evidence started to point that the President was wrong. How is this flip-flopping when he was lied to?
It was obvious he went into this war for personal agenda, not terrorism. He went in before he was 100% sure of WMD, he went in before there was any escape plan or support. , he even mentioned Saddam as the man that was trying to kill his father. This is about revenge, not terrorism. After who else must feels the pain? Just only the thousands of families that lose their children and grandchildren in a sensless war as the president's kids are at a inpressive and expensive university with less than impressive grades and getting wasted every night.
I suggest you people think before you talk instead of letting you conservative little minds take over your actions.
He reached the same decision as the president based upon the same evidence. Kerry "misled" us just as much as the president.He voted for the war because like the rest of the nation he was mislead by our president
Again, based on the available evidence Bush made the responsible decision. If he hadn't, then Kerry would have spent this campaign lambasting Bush for not dealing with Hussein when he had the chance.
Also, you make the rather disingenuous leap from making the right decision based on inaccurate information to "misleading". In order to have 100% accuracy the United States basically would have needed unfettered access to Iraq and how do you get that as long as Hussein remained in power? If you think the weapons inspections were the way to go then as we found out with the Duelfer report Hussein was bribing some of the member nations of the UN Security Council in order to get the sanctions lifted and he had already had made preparations to start up his WMD production once he got the sanctions off of his back. Some chemical and biological WMDs don't require much time to produce.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-21-2004 at 09:20 AM.
I'm am neither conservative nor liberal. I do however believe removing Saddam was necessary. Yes there is much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Yes US troops die there every other day. In spite of that, we have created a future in a place where there was once none. I truly believe that both countries can grow and develope into great nations. I think this time we are living in will be a turning point in histroy. It will be talked about with the likes of the falling of the Berlin wall. No matter how much you support or would denounce what this country has done, I blieve we must see this through to the end. We can not back out now. We are pooriing the foundation for a peaceful world.
In talking with a coworker this morning. I had not really thought about this subject from another point of view. Has anyone else noticed that there have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil?
The US did not act alone in invading Iraq. Granted, not every nation was on board, but if we make our decision to deal with threats to this nation contingent on the approval of the "entire world" how is that not surrendering to a "global test"?How are we supposed to win this war without the cooperation of the entire world when every country harbors terrorist
Speaking of thinking, you might try that yourself sometime..
When you consider the UN a more noble organization and worthy of the ultimate sacrifice than the USA, that is pretty scathing. As for the global test, in the first Gulf war, that met all the supposed criteria of the "global test", he still voted against it.
Allies? I suppose if the French are against it, because of their corporate corruption, all the rest of the world doesn't matter. More than 30 countries have put the lives of their own people on the line with us.
To say Bush misled Kerry about WMDs is to say that Bush knew they weren't there and went ahead anyway. Are you crazy enough to suggest that? The only person guilty of trying to mislead people was Saddam. He did have WMDs... just check the graves of the hundreds of thousands who died when he used them on his own people. The flip-flop comes in when he's for the war, then against it, then for the war again, then against it again, all depending upon the audience.
"It was obvious he went into the war for his own personal agenda." How the do you come up with that? What personal agenda? For big oil? Don't make me gag on that regurgitated lie. After 17 UN sanctions that were ignored and avoided by secret deals with the French and Russians, how could we let a madman with $billions and a hatred for the US and ties to terrorists just hang around and cause more trouble? How does that compare with Bosnia? Didn't we go in there for humanitarian reasons? Going into Iraq was a good thing on many levels: dealing with terrorists and going after their money trail, removing a potential source of more WMDs, as well as the humanitarian reasons. I guess liberating millions of people from a madman who liked to watch people get thrown off of buildings and whose family kept rape and torture rooms going isn't really important if the French lose money. I suppose it's no big thing to put little kids in prison because they or their parents wouldn't salute the Fuerher...
My boy spent a year over there, and fortunately, he made it through ok, so I know the pain of watching the news and praying that he didn't take the plane that was shot down...
If we played along with that stupid "global test", the entire middle east would be a hotbed of fanaticism, aided and abetted by all the "oil for food" money... soccer teams would still be tortured for losing, and mothers would be wondering if their daughters would live after spending the night with Ouday and Kousay, and Al Queda would be living out in the open, rather than hiding in caves watching out for drones.
Thinking... it's a good thing... you might like it if you try it.
Kudos Crazy One! Thats a very well written piece!
More than 30 countries have put the lives of their own people on the line with us.
Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.
When you consider the UN a more noble organization and worthy of the ultimate sacrifice than the USA, that is pretty scathing.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{GONG!!!!!}}}}}}}}}}}}
Limpballs would be proud, but this fails the smell test
So what?Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.
What Global Test?
If you mess with the Us....BAM!, your're toast.
so, japan didn't have any troops in desert storm I, but gave millions did that make them any less of a coalition partner?
Only 13 countries have ever had combat troops in Iraq of any form.
the u.n. is pretty much about as good as this forum..just a place for debate...the un never votes military action.. when slobodan milosevic was committing genocide in bosnia all the un troops could do was observe...finally NATO, led by the US, said, enough was enough and pushed him out... and then again in 1998, when milo again was killing all the kosovars the u.s. and britain went against the u.n., france, russia, etc and launched a war against serbia... it got rid of them and later milosevic was toppled... we got no oil or anything from those two places... also, we fought for muslims in those wars...kosovars are muslim and so were the majority of bosnians being killed...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions