 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Flubber, Cooling of relations? Let's put it bluntly. The Canadian government has openly ridiculed the US president. And, this lack of fundamental diplomacy is the fault of the United States? |
so you hold our country responsible for the idiotic comments of an outspoken maverick MP, disavowed by everyone else.
Should we be getting all offended any time some republican senator from Buttlick says something offensive?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
Just heard the first few minutes of O'Reilly's radio show and even he admits that Kerry won this one, although it was certainly not a knock out.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mad Bomber
|
 |
Columbus, Ohio
Nov 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Berzerker
Those caveats are kind of important, might have avoided this war.
.......
He's right, finish the job at hand, not let a bunch of Afghan warlords go into Tora Bora and capture him for us. Who made that decision? Wasn't someone too concerned with capturing OBL. Any heads roll? Well, just the guy (Shinseki?) who said we'd need many more soldiers to pull this off. His head rolled because his advice was not only unwanted, but it conflicted with Rummy and the boyz...
They do add up, Kerry wanted the President to have the authority to go to war as leverage over Saddam but also wanted the President to try and avoid the war by following certain steps first, and it's clear the Bushies were planning to get Iraq within days or weeks after 9/11 so the steps they were planning on didn't include Kerry's ideas.
But Kerry is either a fool or using a ploy we see many in Congress use to avoid blame for dumb wars - give the power to declare war to the President. If he does and it blows up in his face, blame the Prez. If he doesn't, blame him for the results of inaction. If he does and wins big, try to get your picture taken with him at the first state of the union address of the second term. |
Lets face it Iraq was on the Agenda for the Bush administration from the day he was in office. Remember the "Axis of Evil" speech, that was given BEFORE 9/11 (where was Al-Queda or Afganistan?) The war in Iraq is not an adjuct to the war on terror; the war on terror is an adjuct to the Bush Administrations designs for Iraqi oil.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Kerry's main problem was that Bush did not put a coalition together on the scale of his father's coalition. Kerry has a lot of praise for Bush I.
But, even though this criticism is somewhat valid in that Bush might have been able to obtain a larger coalition by caving to French demands, this position is not consistent with the other Kerry position that Iraq was a colossal mistake and a diversion from the real war on terror in Iraq... the wrong war, at the wrong time and in the wrong place. That is pure Deanism and is wholly inconsistent with Kerry's "nuanced" first position on Iraq. |
This is actually 100% consistent.
Kerry says Bush promised numerous things would be done about Iraq before going to War:
1. Exhaust all other possibilities
2. Build a large and strong coalition as in the first Iraq War
3. He said he would plan it carefully
He also lied about there being Nuclear Weapons or a Nuclear Program (and it was known well before we went in that this wasn't true).
So, Kerry expects Bush to do all of those things, and Bush doesn't and goes in anyway.
Now we don't have enough troops to go around.
Why? No large and strong Coalition, and no careful planning on how to handle the aftermath. If we had both of those, we easily could have done Afghanistan AND Iraq. We didn't and so we can't. A new president is the only chance we have of changing the level of foreign help in Iraq now.
This doesn't mean cow-towing to foreign wants, but it means being aware of their desires and interests and working with them. The World is a community, and like a community you have to work together on big projects so that you can get them done right.
So, in short, Kerry was consistent (as he has been consistent, even though he doesn't always state his positions well). We could have done both quite well, but Bush didn't follow his plan; we needed a real coalition.
-Drachasor
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970 time: 21:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drachasor
This is actually 100% consistent.
Kerry says Bush promised numerous things would be done about Iraq before going to War:
1. Exhaust all other possibilities
2. Build a large and strong coalition as in the first Iraq War
3. He said he would plan it carefully
He also lied about there being Nuclear Weapons or a Nuclear Program (and it was known well before we went in that this wasn't true).
So, Kerry expects Bush to do all of those things, and Bush doesn't and goes in anyway.
Now we don't have enough troops to go around.
Why? No large and strong Coalition, and no careful planning on how to handle the aftermath. If we had both of those, we easily could have done Afghanistan AND Iraq. We didn't and so we can't. A new president is the only chance we have of changing the level of foreign help in Iraq now.
This doesn't mean cow-towing to foreign wants, but it means being aware of their desires and interests and working with them. The World is a community, and like a community you have to work together on big projects so that you can get them done right.
So, in short, Kerry was consistent (as he has been consistent, even though he doesn't always state his positions well). We could have done both quite well, but Bush didn't follow his plan; we needed a real coalition.
-Drachasor |

|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pax
|
|
The President surprised me when he did'nt just run off the stage. I think he was very happy that he was still standing when it was over.
Kerry did very well to point out the failings of the President. I feel more secure in my vote that Kerry believes that the reasons presented to him for going to war in Iraq were false. Unlike most dem politicians who are afraid to say that.
The fear I have is that after all the facts come out, people will still vote on the basis of likability vs intelligence. The President even pointed out that Kerry went to Yale. I'm sure that that earned him votes with people who do not know that the President went there also.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|