Printable View
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The reality:Quote:
Kerry's appeasement philosophy is frightening. And regardless of what Kerry says about his plans for tax issues, the middle class will be the ones screwed.
People like GL bear a larger portion of the tax burden than they did before Bush.
Goes to show you what uninformed people will say when they don't know the facts.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reality:Quote:
Kerry's appeasement philosophy is frightening.
The United States bears 90% of the costs, 90% of the deaths and 99% of the responsibility for what's going on in Iraq. Things aren't going well and our military is stretched thin.
Getting others to contribute isn't appeasement. It's common sense. And it's the best thing for our troops.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 01, 2004 01:04 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
Jumper
I don't particularly like Bush and I don't think he is one of the most intelligent Presidents we have had, but he believes what he says and says what he believes.
Kerry is putting on a show and trying (unsuccessfully in my opinion) to act like a moderate common man. Which if so far from the truth that if you believe his act I have some waterfront property to sell you in the Everglades. Look at his voting records, when he bothered to be in Washington, he is one of the most liberal members in the senate.
If Kerry becomes president you can expect:a whole lot of ultra liberal domestic policy, but it's his willingness to give up US sovereignty to the UN is the worst of it.
How would you feel being ordered into combat by a French General with a blue helmet.
Whatever Bush's failings are he is an American and will keep the US free from outside influences.
Do you really want the deaths of thousand of Americans who gave their lives to start this country and keep it free to be meaningless?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even if it means failed policy, unnecessary lives lost and an even more unsafe middle east.Quote:
Whatever Bush's failings are he is an American and will keep the US free from outside influences.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And Bush is a moderate? The Republicans did everything they could to hide the religious right and right wing nutcase during their convention. Yet these are the ones that are his core base.Quote:
Kerry is putting on a show and trying (unsuccessfully in my opinion) to act like a moderate common man.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Trav, I really don't think the US is in any danger of giving up sovereignty. That's a bit paranoid don't you think??Quote:
If Kerry becomes president you can expect:a whole lot of ultra liberal domestic policy, but it's his willingness to give up US sovereignty to the UN is the worst of it.
I guess Trav and I are both paranoid when it comes to Kerry bowing to the UN for every decision he has to make...
"we need to build alliances"
"we can't go it alone"
"we need to win back the Muslim community"
And those were all just from the debate last night.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And all of those happen to be true.Quote:
Originally posted by G L:
I guess Trav and I are both paranoid when it comes to Kerry bowing to the UN for every decision he has to make...
"we need to build alliances"
"we can't go it alone"
"we need to win back the Muslim community"
And those were all just from the debate last night.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 01, 2004 02:35 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Trav, I really don't think the US is in any danger of giving up sovereignty. That's a bit paranoid don't you think??</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually no I don't.Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper69:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If Kerry becomes president you can expect:a whole lot of ultra liberal domestic policy, but it's his willingness to give up US sovereignty to the UN is the worst of it.
There are a lot of people in this country that would gladly hand power over to the UN. Next time you come over to my house, take a look at some of the signs and banners in the neighborhood. Things like one people one world and we are all one my sound like warm and fuzzy thought on the surface, but if you take them in the context that the people displaying them are admitted socialists then they mean a whole different thing.
It amazes me that the American people are accepting outside election monitors. America is the country that created modern democracy and we need a bunch of stuck-up socialists from Europe and uncivilized louts from third world countries to watch us?
The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 01, 2004 02:59 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok...what's the fear?Quote:
It amazes me that the American people are accepting outside election monitors.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok...what's the fear?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This may sum up a lot of discussion here and also in the nation.Quote:
Originally posted by reason:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It amazes me that the American people are accepting outside election monitors.
It's not fear, it's who the fuck are you Mr. UN to even step foot in America. It's bad enough we gave yoy a place to meet. Stay the fuck out of the rest of our country.
Some people feel this way and some don't.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems like he told it like it is. I might not like him, but those are three very valid points.Quote:
"we need to build alliances"
"we can't go it alone"
"we need to win back the Muslim community"
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems like he told it like it is. I might not like him, but those are three very valid points.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"we need to build alliances"Quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"we need to build alliances"
"we can't go it alone"
"we need to win back the Muslim community"
What do you think the coalition of the willing was?
Afghanistan Albania Australia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Czech Rep. Denmark Dom. Rep. El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia Honduras Hungary Iceland Italy Japan South Korea Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Micronesia Netherlands Nicaragua Palau Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia
Spain Solomon Isls. Tonga Turkey Ukraine UK
Uzbekistan
WWII Allies
United Kingdom Soviet Union France Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Canada China Denmark Greece Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland South Africa Yugoslavia
Seems to me Bush doubled the number of allies that FDR had.
"we can't go it alone"
See above
"we need to win back the Muslim community"
No they need to win back our trust.
Where is their condemnation of the attack on the world trade center, the Cole and all the others.
Where is their condemnation of the beheadings?
The hell with them.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
This may sum up a lot of discussion here and also in the nation.
It's not fear, it's who the fuck are you Mr. UN to even step foot in America. It's bad enough we gave yoy a place to meet. Stay the fuck out of the rest of our country.
Some people feel this way and some don't.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems like he told it like it is. I might not like him, but those are three very valid points.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ditto on Trav's answer to you.Quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"we need to build alliances"
"we can't go it alone"
"we need to win back the Muslim community"
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not trying to go out of my way and steal a line from John Kerry but, how many troops do we have over there, and besides the UK and Austrailia most of those countries have what, 100 or so troops.Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
Afghanistan Albania Australia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Czech Rep. Denmark Dom. Rep. El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia Honduras Hungary Iceland Italy Japan South Korea Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Micronesia Netherlands Nicaragua Palau Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia
Spain Solomon Isls. Tonga Turkey Ukraine UK
Uzbekistan [QB]
Coalition of the willing, more like Coalition of small countries that don't want to tick off the US. (Yes I know there are some "big name countries in there")
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now that we have the Solomon Islands on board, I feel much better. Thanks for clearing that up.Quote:
What do you think the coalition of the willing was?
Afghanistan Albania Australia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Czech Rep. Denmark Dom. Rep. El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia Honduras Hungary Iceland Italy Japan South Korea Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Micronesia Netherlands Nicaragua Palau Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia
Spain Solomon Isls. Tonga Turkey Ukraine UK
Uzbekistan
Now, remove the UK from the mix, and what have others offered. In terms of percentage of troops, weapons, etc, what have they given "the coalition?"
Oh...and you can cross Spain off your list.
[img]wink.gif[/img]
Raven, who is going to say how the post Saddam government of Iraq is formed? We are. It's better that we don't have a dozen other nations trying to influence the outcome. It's our call. A stabilized Iraq will go a long way to a stabilized Middle East. Same for Afghanistan. And so long as we depend on oil from that region it matters. It matters if everyone in this country wants to continue to enjoy the lifestyle we have come to expect. Yes, it IS about the oil.
In addition to Raven's comments, here's an update on trav's "coalition."
The Coalition of the Diminishing
Thailand: 423 troops leaving early on Aug. 31 instead of Sept. 20; 20 withdrawn on Aug. 10.
Norway: 10 currently in Iraq; 140 withdrawn on June 30. Cited reason: growing domestic opposition and peacekeepers needed elsewhere, such as Afghanistan.
Dominican Republic: 302 withdrawn on May 4. Cited reason: growing domestic opposition.
Honduras: 370 withdrawn on May 12. Cited reason: Troops were sent for reconstruction, not combat.
Nicaragua: 115 withdrawn on Feb. 4. Cited reason: lack of funds.
Philippines: 51 withdrawn on July 19. Cited reason: to save lives of hostages.
Singapore: 160 withdrawn on April 4. Cited reason: completed humanitarian mission.
Spain: 1,300 withdrawn on May 4. Cited reason: new government fulfilled campaign pledge.
Posted on September 30, 2004 at 10:09
Yeah, that is the problem I have, we want everything to be ours. We couldn't get the UN support to go into Iraq so we took our ball home and did it anyway. Why? Because we didn't get our way. Personally, I could care less if it is about oil or not, I am tired of seeing our boys die in what honestly looks like a losing battle. We have shown we do not care what others think. We have shown that we will not follow the guidelines of the UN. World opinion is at an all time low, and while some of you say "Who cares what people think"? I for one do, because the effects of Bush's actions will lead to ramifications for years to come and who knows maybe one day we will need to look for help and will not get it because of our "elected" president and his poor decision skills.
I would like to say that while I do not like Bush, he had a good couple of months right after 9/11, but then fell right off his high horse.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 01, 2004 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Jigsaw Jr. ]</font>
Funny, what little help we had is leaving...at a time when the situation is deteriorating. And we know it's gotten worse - Bush said so in the debate.
Seems like the coalition would leave after the election, huh?
We couldn't get UN support because France, Germany and Russia were all selling illegal material to Saddam. We could have waited years and the UN would never signed on.
Where have you been?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the obvious answer to this problem is to unilaterally invade a country without the necessary resources, without a viable plan, without a satisfactory explanation why we are even there - especially when there are other threats more pertinent.Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
We couldn't get UN support because France, Germany and Russia were all selling illegal material to Saddam. We could have waited years and the UN would never signed on.
Where have you been?
All this talk about the casualties...
Besides Trav and GL, has anyone EVER read anyhistory? The Civil War was brutal, WWI was brutal, WWII was brutal, Korea and Vietnam were brutal.
War is hell. Unfortunately, people die.
Keep in mind that we have an all volunteer military. The 3000 folks who died on 9/11 did not volunteer to be targets.
Ah the old 9/11 "flipper upper".
Then how come we are focusing so much on Iraq and not the Afghanistan/Pakistan border looking for the one responsible for 9/11? Which is where we should be focusing most if not all of our attention on. Don't throw 9/11 around to try to justify the way Bush has handled his term. Global opinion was on our side for retaliation in Afghanistan and the destruction of the Taliban and Osama, not to finish a job daddy tried desperately to complete before he lost the election to President Clinton.
Ah the old 9/11 "flipper upper".
Then how come we are focusing so much on Iraq and not the Afghanistan/Pakistan border looking for the one responsible for 9/11? Which is where we should be focusing most if not all of our attention on. Don't throw 9/11 around to try to justify the way Bush has handled his term. Global opinion was on our side for retaliation in Afghanistan and the destruction of the Taliban and Osama, not to finish a job daddy tried desperately to complete before he lost the election to President Clinton.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because Iraq was where the money was.Quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
Ah the old 9/11 "flipper upper".
Then how come we are focusing so much on Iraq and not the Afghanistan/Pakistan border looking for the one responsible for 9/11? Which is where we should be focusing most if not all of our attention on. Don't throw 9/11 around to try to justify the way Bush has handled his term. Global opinion was on our side for retaliation in Afghanistan and the destruction of the Taliban and Osama, not to finish a job daddy tried desperately to complete before he lost the election to President Clinton.
And that has what to do with 9/11?
So we have Trav who was going to vote for Bush before the debate and will still be voting for Bush after the debate.
We have Reason who was going to vote for Kerry before the debate and will still be voting for Kerry after the debate.
And we have Jumper who was leaning towards Kerry before he was leaning towards Bush before the debate and is now leaning towards Kerry before he leans towards Bush after the debate.
Just like the rest of the country
We find ourselves on the same side of the line on this one Trav.
My uncertainty stems mainly from Bush's total inability to articulate a coherent, fundamentally sound reason why we are in Iraq and this point in time. I also have issues with the Bush tax cut and the amazingly huge deficit we are accumulating despite the fact that is doesn't seem to bother Lake. I have issues with Bush's refusal to participate in the Kyoto Accords. I don't consider myself a particular granola type but when we screw up this earth, and we are, where are we going to go?? I think Condeliza Rice was a token black female appointee and is totally unqualified to be NSA. I cannot stand Karl Rove and his gang.
Overall, I have major problems with this administration.
My uncertainty also stems from the fact that Kerry says some things I like to hear but I have trouble reconciling his inability to point to his senate record as a synopsis of what a Kerry presidency would be like. After 20+ years as a Senator, I should think he could point to some significant acheivements as a guide to how he thinks. I also have issues with his military past. As a veteran, I have a real problem with his "medals", his time in country, and most of all, his testimony against the war.
I don't vote for the party. I vote the man. And what I hate the most is the spinmeisters telling me what their respective candidates said when I know it's not what I heard. I am not stupid. As much as both parties want me to be, I am NOT stupid.
So what am I supposed to do Trav? I like neither candidate. Yet I have to make a choice.
For die hard repubs and dems, there is not conflict. Unfortunately, I have one as I am neither.
I'm not a diehard Republican either Jumper. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. But I see him as the best person running for the job. Kerry's appeasement philosophy is frightening. And regardless of what Kerry says about his plans for tax issues, the middle class will be the ones screwed. I think a Kerry election victory would ensure increased terrorist attacks against US targets even before January. A Kerry victrory would embolden N Korea(in re nukes) and China (in re Taiwan) and Muslim fundamentalists and would increase turmoil worldwide. I think Kerry's penchant for saying how we should not be "going it alone" comes across to foreign leaders (especially totalitarian ones) as weakness. No now is not the time to change horses midstream IMHO.
And Kerry's statement last night that we need to "Stop alienating the Muslim world", Bullshit. 99% of terrorist acts in the world at any given time are Muslim extremists. More appeasement talk and hope they will just leave us alone if we give them what they want. We need a powerful POTUS. Not a UN pussy.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 01, 2004 12:55 PM: Message edited by: G L ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To add to this:Quote:
Originally posted by travelinman:
We couldn't get UN support because France, Germany and Russia were all selling illegal material to Saddam. We could have waited years and the UN would never signed on.
Where have you been?
What about the 17 UN resolutions to Sadaam? He was told time and time again to cooperate or pay the price. You can only tell someone something so many times before you have to do something.
What about the "oil for food" scandal as well?
France, Germany and Russia did not want us to go in there b/c they knew that we would uncover the shady things they had been doing with Sadaam
Heh, what about our shady dealings with Saddam?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ndshake300.jpg
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It took money to finance the attackes.Quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw Jr.:
And that has what to do with 9/11?
I see, because I thought we went over there because of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was one of MANY reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw:
I see, because I thought we went over there because of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There are many reasons we went into Iraq. WMD, Un resolutions not carried out, SH as a threat, Intelligence we had at the time. Bottom line is, Congress(including Kerry) gave the go ahead.
Whether or not you agree with going into Iraq...you have to look at what we do now. Kerry has no plan. He mentions training, elections, coalitions etc... HELLO, Bush is doing that.
Kerry thinks he can get more into the coalition? Umm who, The French Germans, and Russians. For one, I doubt that, and if he does, at what cost?
The nations who have helped liberate Iraq, are they going to be push aside for the French (et al) to profit from the reconstruction?
Kerry is already alienating the current coalition. It been reported that Kerry sister is activily cmapaining in Australia for the guy who wants to pull OUT of Iraq. Kerry has ridiculed Allawi(however you spell it). This is the man who is working hand in hand with Bush in the restoration of Iraq. It seems to me Kerry is trying his best for Bush to fail in Iraq...borderline treason in my book.
Kerry as a 20 year senator has done nothing. IMO if his ideas and policies are so great for the country, why in the hell hasn't he written/ sponsored bills in congress? How come, when he was on the intelligence committee, he didn't work to reform it then? Why did he vote to cut intelligence? Isn't that one of his campaign promises?
There are just way to many questions as to who John Kerry is. His goal is to become president. He is going to promise what it takes to get votes. He can say that "he can do better" until he is blue in the face....but his record doesn't back it up.
Bush's weak coalition is falling apart and he has lost the international leadership credibility to reverse that. Kerry has a better chance at strengthening the coalition, a necessity to reduce our costs and begin an exit strategery, a crucial element Bush should have had in place before starting the war.
Kerry has sponsored gobs of bills, obviously you haven't bothered to look. He voted to reduce the intelligence budget at a time when a major program had been cancelled. Since the intel community wasn't going to pursue that expensive program, it made sense to reduce the budget. The Republicans also voted to reduce the intel budget at that time, by an even larger dollar amount. It shows how shameless they are to attempt to turn their own votes around on Kerry.
Kerry made a very telling comment during the debate. When talking about Middle East policy he made the comment that his policy would be what was best "for the region, best for Israel and best for the United States..." Freudian slip? I don't think so. He simply puts America last in his thinking and we want that for POTUS?