 |
| |
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Kerry’s hypocrisy
WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting, challenged the Bush administration Saturday to reimburse the families of U.S. troops "who had to buy the body armor" needed for protection in Iraq.
"If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
"But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support."
This is the same man who voted against almost every significant weapons system proposed over the last thirty years. I am seriously angry by the blatant and unconscionable electioneering. While I toyed with the idea of supporting a Democrat due to Bush’s seeming indifference to the plight of the common man, I see no point in supporting Kerry. We can not count on a man who would lie so openly in the public face, Bush may be unconcerned, Kerry is openly contemptuous of our ability to reason for ourselves.
Last edited by Capt Dizle on 07-03-2004 at 00:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. “[Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane.”
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases
As Senator, Kerry Also Pushed To Cut Intelligence Funding By More Than $2.58 Billion
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Kerry voting record against everything military is so extensive it brings to mind the line, was it Stalin's?, One death is a tragedy, one million a footnote.
In Kerry's case, his record is so mind numbing as to numb the mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Jimmytrick, you're being silly. Giving enough firepower to your men doesn't mean you need to back SDI and ICBM programs. Existing technology, which costs much less, is sufficient.
There are many armies with much less budget than the American who would have given body armour to their soldiers. |
And you accuse me of being silly. This hasn't anything to do with SDI or ICBM systems. And your comment, insinuating that our military was intentionlly ill armed, would be enough to get your nose bloodied if you uttered it in my presence or in the presence of the vast majority of Americans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
And you accuse me of being silly. This hasn't anything to do with SDI or ICBM systems. And your comment, insinuating that our military was intentionlly ill armed, would be enough to get your nose bloodied if you uttered it in my presence or in the presence of the vast majority of Americans. |
Are you a paralogician or a sophist?
First you need to specify which programs he voted against. I doubt things like body armour and choice of guns get down to the Congress, or the Senate, or any political power. The decision is made by the military authorities.
So, I insinuated that your military has been voluntarily ill armed? Well, I don't see what's wrong, especially given that someone, somewhere, makes a decision about what weapons will be used, and that perfectly fits into my definition of 'voluntary'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Thanks for that link Shi. It is obvious that "rnc.org" is only a parody organization trying to play real Republicans as incompetent extremists. Without your link to their mock summary of John Kerry, I might have believed them to be the real GOP in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Most of the weapons you cited are high end weapons there is some debate as to whether or not we need more low end capability.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Stealth aircraft is militarily insignificant. Do they really need them to drop their fragmentation bombs? |
So that goes to the point, if you are taking the stance that military technology is insignificant, then you must be either uneducated or intellectually dishonest, I suspect the latter, but in any case I will not such as you frame this or any other debate. It would be pointless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Kerry's a worldview on America is that America is the problem not the solution. He consistently takes the side of Communist régimes and opposes all forms of resistance to communism. He was (and still is) an advocate of the North Vietnamese and the Sandinistas. During the Cold War he opposed every weapon system that would give American the advantage over our Communist opponent.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Kerry was against removing him. Kerry was opposed to even protecting Saudi Arabia. Kerry saw no American interests in keeping the world's oil supply out the hands of a fascist madman.
When Kerry's campaign was in dire straits just prior to the Iowa caucuses, Kerry called in a number of liberal media folks and explained to them that had he been president we would have never gone to war against Saddam Hussein. Let us repeat that. He said, "Never." He did not say that he would've gone with French support.
Kerry has been among Israel's harshest critics to audiences other then Jews to whom he denies ever having criticized Israel.
If you like a pro Communist, anti-American anti-Israeli president, and Kerry is your man. |
1. Right now, in the U.S. press there is article after article pointing to the facts that Saudi Arabia is not much of an ally. Not a democracy. The 9/11 bombers were mainly Saudi Arabian. It makes more since to sponsor a regime change to the Arabic country with ties to 9/11. Yet we did not.
2. What should it matter to the average U.S. citizen if Kerry is pro or anti israel. I don't see any benefits from being pro israel although there is a benefit to being fair to both parties which we don't seem to be. When you are fair to both parties then you have credibility we don't have it. The question should be can Kerry get us some credibility as being a fair arbitrator between both parties or can he at least do a better job than President Bush. I find it troubling when the rhetoric from washington comes back everytime a Israel conducts an attack, builds a wall, and etc, the administration says "we are troubled" or "deeply concerned" by the recent events on the other side. The Palestinians are condemned for every suicide bomber, for every act berated and punished. It makes me wonder who's the hypocrite.
3. I doubt Kerry is pro communist. His wife is a big time capitalist. Just because he does not see communism as inherently evil does not make him pro communist.
4. As of today, there are no weapons of mass destruction the american people were promised. That leads me to believe that as of today, Kerry would have been right not to go to war with Iraq.
5. The U.S. has a technological advantage that is years ahead of the Iraqi's. At a certain point the effectiveness per dollar goes down. Why would you need the most expensive stealth aircraft to do X amount damage when a cheaper aircraft could get the same results and still come home safe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
He consistently takes the side of Communist régimes and opposes all forms of resistance to communism. |
Ned, having problems getting over the Cold War?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2004 23:53
|