NationStates Jolt Archive

Pick the ONE think you most look forward to Kerry doing should he be elected:

You assume bush won't win why is that?

I would look forward to him ending the doctrine of pre-emptive war. (wars of choice)

select from the list please

Looking at that list, he seems to have stated he would do all of them at one time or another.

Flip
Flop
Flip
Flop

I would look forward to him ending the doctrine of pre-emptive war. (wars of choice)

Thats a doctrine? One time use does not a trend make I am afraid. Plus 12 years of trying to get Saddam to cooperate was enough.

Thats a doctrine? One time use does not a trend make I am afraid.

Yeah, actually it is a doctrine (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)

resign ?

Yeah, actually it is a doctrine (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)

The CBC calls it a doctrine? Hardly a surprise there. I am sure the French do as well. ;)

No, it is an act of self defense. I would HOPE that ANY President would take whatever steps are necessary to prevent an attack on the US. Had Bush NOT done something and we were hit again, people would ask why he did not know about it and react. People STILL question what FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. Had we known the Japanese were going to attack there, would we have pre-emted them too?

And actually, reading the list carefully, "Provide Free health care" is not possible.

"Hugely raise taxes towards the 40% paid by canadians and then not charge at the doctor's office but reduce the quality of health care" is about all he could offer.

The CBC calls it a doctrine? Hardly a surprise there. I am sure the French do as well. ;)

No, it is an act of self defense

Umm, the CBC is a VERY credible Canadian news source. Oh btw, self defense you say, remind me again what Iraq did to the United States? Oh right, I forgot, NOTHING! :rolleyes:

the little **** would increase out taxes 1st and foremost...he has already said he would do so...then he would make a national holiday for himself for his 3 purple hearts that he does not even deserve!

He won't pull troops out of Iraq. That would leave it easy pickings for muslim extremists. He won't eliminate the patriot act either, but he might push to modify it. I voted raise taxes, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If he raises taxes on the richest while lowering the tax burden on the middle class he can actually stimulate the economy. A lot of people with a little extra in their pocket will spend more than a few people with a lot extra.

the little **** would increase out taxes 1st and foremost...he has already said he would do so...then he would make a national holiday for himself for his 3 purple hearts that he does not even deserve!

wow... well let's calm down a sec and look at the facts. there is no guarantee about where the economy will go, since the war and the loss of 2.2 million jobs (and, yes, the creation of 1.7... hmmm... -.5 million during his term?) has screwed it up so bad...

george bush is potentially talking about doing away with federal taxes...
and just having a 30% sales tax. but the economists say it would have to be 60% for the next ten years to balance the budget... and this is before we get into the issue of how that affects all of his millionaire friends and supporters... certainly they would be pleased, not having to pay so much property tax and taxes on their investments, while the working man would simply have to pay more and more for things he already can't afford...

but this is speculation. he said he would "explore" the option. just as saying kerry will raise taxes. frankly, i would think he would have to, as there is no way we can continue spending and spending and not pay back...

i'm scared he will spend the next 4 years rebuilding, and no one will really get to see what he is capable of, because he is being responsible.

so there.

Umm, the CBC is a VERY credible Canadian news source. Oh btw, self defense you say, remind me again what Iraq did to the United States? Oh right, I forgot, NOTHING! :rolleyes:


The key word being 'Canadian.' You didn't show proof of Bush or his military advisors saying 'our docorine is pre-emptive war.' Plus the article talks about previous wars to the Iraq conflict. Clinton had a pre-emptive in Kosovo, a country that was doing nothing to the United States, yet everyone was behind that... I don't see how it is different. Except that maybe Hussien had threated the US, Hussien had said he would make WMD and attack the US, Hussien killed his own people and Milosivich just killed his own people.

Off topic, but the answer is that Kerry would raise taxes. He'll probably cut defense spending. All he wants to do is to say 'hey, look, no more deficit aren't I great?' and then hope that nothing happens and he can get re-elected

well ya know what? I think bush HAS spent the last 4 years rebuilding...rebuilding what clinton did. the mid to late 90's were an economic bubble. a fluke. an economy can not just continue to grow like that, and the stock market will not always go up. there are trends. the recession had already started 8 months before bush took office. add to that the crisis in china in april 2001, 9/11, and the iraq war... how can you expect the economy to be excellent?

Umm, the CBC is a VERY credible Canadian news source. Oh btw, self defense you say, remind me again what Iraq did to the United States? Oh right, I forgot, NOTHING! :rolleyes:

The CBC may be a very credible news source in CANADA, but it is looked at dubiously here in the US due to it's obvious anti-American slant. I am sure the French consider their news sources credible too. Pravda was considered credible at one time too. :rolleyes:

any firm decision would be a nice suprise

The CBC may be a very credible news source in CANADA, but it is looked at dubiously here in the US due to it's obvious anti-American slant. I am sure the French consider their news sources credible too. Pravda was considered credible at one time too. :rolleyes:

Lets face it, any thing that basically isn't Fox cable news is seen as "dubious" in the United States. The funniest part about it is Fox is probably the most "dubious" of them all.

Lets face it, any thing that basically isn't Fox cable news is seen as "dubious" in the United States. The funniest part about it is Fox is probably the most "dubious" of them all.

Not true. I watch the CBS evening news with Dan "Whats the Frequency Kenneth?" Rather as well as NBC and ABC. I "sometimes" watch FOX for business news, but thats about it. I also read the newspaper. There are many credible news sources here in the US, but quoting a CBC article focusing on an American policy that isn't and holding that up as proof that it exists is not very credible now is it? Even Dan rather does not believe that is true.

If he raises taxes on the richest while lowering the tax burden on the middle class he can actually stimulate the economy....

hmmm dont you realize the richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes

No, it [the premptive strike against Hussein] is an act of self defense.
Wrong, since Hussein did not attack us and never was planning on doing so, as far as anyone can tell.

Not true. I watch the CBS evening news with Dan "Whats the Frequency Kenneth?" Rather as well as NBC and ABC. I "sometimes" watch FOX for business news, but thats about it. I also read the newspaper. There are many credible news sources here in the US, but quoting a CBC article focusing on an American policy that isn't and holding that up as proof that it exists is not very credible now is it? Even Dan rather does not believe that is true.

Well, given recent events, perhaps the Tiffney network is catching up, but they still have a long way to go to beat Fox for reporting utter bullshit and lies. I believe Fox is still winning that contest!

Wrong, since Hussein did not attack us and never was planning on doing so, as far as anyone can tell.

Actually he had threatened to many times. He was violating a lot of things he had agreed to and was generally a bad man. To say that taking him out equates to a "pre-emtive" strike policy without an official doctrine is disingenuous at best.

Well, given recent events, perhaps the Tiffney network is catching up, but they still have a long way to go to beat Fox for reporting utter bullshit and lies. I believe Fox is still winning that contest!

Well, FOX does put their slant on their interviews, but their news reports are no different than the other networks. Hurricane coverage is just that.....or do you think they will try to find a way to blame them on Kerry? ;)

Well, FOX does put their slant on their interviews, but their news reports are no different than the other networks. Hurricane coverage is just that.....or do you think they will try to find a way to blame them on Kerry? ;)

Haha, with Fox one can never tell.. :D

Haha, with Fox one can never tell.. :D

Maybe they will find a way....

I don't think they are any different from the other networks. If you had seen Dan Rather interview Clinton a few weeks ago you might have been as appalled as I was. His questions were very leading and with that obvious slant. I kept waiting for Rather to bury his face in Clintons crotch. ;)

Thats a doctrine? One time use does not a trend make I am afraid. Plus 12 years of trying to get Saddam to cooperate was enough.

Well, according to the US Senate (http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_jan/news_2003_january/news_2003_january_10.html) it is a doctrine....


Since you don't like the CBC.

If he raises taxes on the richest while lowering the tax burden on the middle class he can actually stimulate the economy....

hmmm dont you realize the richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes

That's just income taxes. The rest of the taxes fall proportionally more heavily on the poor.

And ... let's see, last I heard, the richest 5% own 95% of the country or thereabouts. Proportionally, they aren't really being taxed more, in spite of the graduated system, and when you factor in the nature of the tax structure as a whole, they are treated downright preferentially.

hmmm dont you realize the richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes
Maybe that's because the richest 10% control such a large percenage of the wealth?

Maybe they will find a way....

I don't think they are any different from the other networks. If you had seen Dan Rather interview Clinton a few weeks ago you might have been as appalled as I was. His questions were very leading and with that obvious slant. I kept waiting for Rather to bury his face in Clintons crotch. ;)

If you read up.. the "Tiffney network" is CBS, I already said they were catching up.. ;)

Haha, with Fox one can never tell.. :D
i love how he quoted me too, that is the exact same thing i said yesterday when they were arguing incessantly about how the tang memo is fake despite no news sources reporting it

That's just income taxes. The rest of the taxes fall proportionally more heavily on the poor.

And ... let's see, last I heard, the richest 5% own 95% of the country or thereabouts. Proportionally, they aren't really being taxed more, in spite of the graduated system, and when you factor in the nature of the tax structure as a whole, they are treated downright preferentially.
just wait until bush is reelected can you said 30+% sales tax and ZERO income tax? our country will become a 3rd world nation faster than we can fall over with the news this passed congress

Well, according to the US Senate (http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_jan/news_2003_january/news_2003_january_10.html) it is a doctrine....


Since you don't like the CBC.

One Senators comments do not make a doctrine either. Face it, there is no OFFICIAL doctrine of the sort.

If you read up.. the "Tiffney network" is CBS, I already said they were catching up.. ;)

I know what the "Tiffany" network is. They were slanted to the left before FOX ever came along. They are one of the reasons Murdoch created FOX to begin with.

One Senators comments do not make a doctrine either. Face it, there is no OFFICIAL doctrine of the sort.

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:

build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.


From The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html)

One Senators comments do not make a doctrine either. Face it, there is no OFFICIAL doctrine of the sort.

Sorry Bif, it is a doctrine. Look it up.

Sorry Bif, it is a doctrine. Look it up.

That is the Presidents policy, but actual doctrine is approved by the Senate. That has not been done to my knowledge. Is there a link to that?

I feel that Kerry will have to do some work to overturn President Bush's work this past administration. He'll have to raise (or at least fiddle with) the taxes, send MORE troops to Iraq, reduce government spending, and definitely get rid of those anti-American policies of preemption and the Patriot Act.

Dudes, preemption is a REAL administration policy - it's more or less saying that whatever President is in office is allowed to beat up any kid in the playground just because he looks at us funny. America should never have to do that.

Besides, if a war is "justified," we usually fight a lot better. Take a look at LBJ :)

That is the Presidents policy, but actual doctrine is approved by the Senate. That has not been done to my knowledge. Is there a link to that?

It's been coined as "The Bush Doctrine" by pretty much every one. It's not some fringe concept you'd expect TRA to post..lol It is the working policy of the Bush administration, thus very much a "doctrine" which is almost the exact match to the PNAC Doctrine.

somebody said they approved pre-emptive strikes and actually hoped any president would do such things in order to protect te usa from potential threats...now you'd ahve to grant these same rigths to all nations, right, you'll probably not say the usa is the only one to ahve the right to protect itself, do you? (and if you do, that already shows you are not on the lelvel that one can discuss things properly, so..). but according to that logic, the iraq would have had every right to attac the usa long before, because i don#t thin anyone will deny that the iraq had every reason to feel threatened by the US after the first bush-senior attack...if you develop this theory further, erveryone should be attacking veryone else constantly, because out of the potential that everyone could attack you anytime you'dahve to feel threatened by everyone else alll the time, therefore striking against them pre-emptively all the time.... you see, world order can only be maintained by that international agreement that NO war is waged unless there has been a concrete attack in the first place! and now don't tell me either iraq or afghanistan launched any concrete attack against the USA (hey, 9/11 was NOT an attack of any nation but a couple of crazy individuals, people, don't twist that around).


and just a tiny comment to the last thing on that list: kerry NEVER said he supported gay marrigae, in fact, he even explicitly said he is gainast gay marriage rights. yes, he supports homosexuals' rights in many ways, but he also says that he thinks the traditional marriage right should remain reserved to het couples.

It's been coined as "The Bush Doctrine" by pretty much every one. It's not some fringe concept you'd expect TRA to post..lol It is the working policy of the Bush administration, thus very much a "doctrine" which is almost the exact match to the PNAC Doctrine.

Yes, it is Bush's policy or "doctrine" but it, like all presidents policies go with them when they leave office. It is not written in stone.

You guys keep going on about the PNAC as if it is some sort of all powerful thing shaping the world. Are the members of this group also part of the "illuminati" or are they "freemasons" as well? :rolleyes:

Yes, it is Bush's policy or "doctrine" but it, like all presidents policies go with them when they leave office. It is not written in stone.

You guys keep going on about the PNAC as if it is some sort of all powerful thing shaping the world. Are the members of this group also part of the "illuminati" or are they "freemasons" as well? :rolleyes:

No, of course it's not written in stone, nothing is, not even the American constitution.. that's kind of a straw man argument I think though Biff.

As to PNAC, of course they are powerful and shaping the world. Members include but are not limited to,

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC has given birth to, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi had not set foot in Iraq since 1956.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

If that's not powerful and shaping American policy, then I don't know what is.

the little **** would increase out taxes 1st and foremost...he has already said he would do so...then he would make a national holiday for himself for his 3 purple hearts that he does not even deserve!

1) Watch the language.
2) Of course he'll increase taxes -- that's what you have to do to get us out of the debt this war's put us in -- money does not just come out of a magic hat.
3) Apparently, the army disagrees with you as they issued them to him... and if you are getting your information from the Swift Boat Vets, they have been debunked.

Yes, it is Bush's policy or "doctrine" but it, like all presidents policies go with them when they leave office. It is not written in stone.

:rolleyes:


Make your mind up Bif.

You started this debate by claiming that there was no doctrine of Preemption under Bush when Stephistan stated that this was the thing she would most look forward to Kerry ending.

Now you are saying it does exist but it just belongs to this President?

Wasn't that EXACTLY the point she was making to start off with?


:rolleyes:

Oh, and for the record - the House also recognizes it as an existing doctrine. Go look up: H. R. 3616 - A bill introduced in the house to establish the Commission on Preemptive Foreign Policy and Military Planning.

Boston Globe: Over the last several weeks, as the debate over whether to amend the state Constitution has unfolded, Kerry has refused to offer a detailed position. He had said generally that he opposes gay marriage as well as the ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that cleared the way for gay marriages

Gets ride of that reason... so what else will he do

"Kerry has a long and consistent record of voting against tax cuts and in favor of tax increases--no matter what the income level of the taxpayers in question.

In the 12 years since the National Taxpayers Union began grading the voting records of members of Congress on tax-and-spending issues, Kerry has received the grade of "F" eleven times. In 1996, the one year Kerry did not receive an "F," he received a "D."

Despite Kerry's attempt to pose as a champion of the middle class, he has repeatedly supported regressive taxes that target the middle class. For example, he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which lowered the income tax rates for the lowest income brackets."

Okay, so he has been in favor of higher taxes... actions speak louder than words

MSNBC: But in reality Kerry is not so far from Bush in his views on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts senator claims he not only stands by his vote for the legislation, but that he authored most of the law’s money-laundering provisions and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing).

Doesn't sound like 'getting rid of the patriot act' at all...

That's just income taxes. The rest of the taxes fall proportionally more heavily on the poor.

And ... let's see, last I heard, the richest 5% own 95% of the country or thereabouts. Proportionally, they aren't really being taxed more, in spite of the graduated system, and when you factor in the nature of the tax structure as a whole, they are treated downright preferentially.
Actually you are quite wrong. I know the real statistics, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Suffice to say that your information is more flawed than a CBS fact checker.

Boston Globe: Over the last several weeks, as the debate over whether to amend the state Constitution has unfolded, Kerry has refused to offer a detailed position. He had said generally that he opposes gay marriage as well as the ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court that cleared the way for gay marriages

Gets ride of that reason... so what else will he do

"Kerry has a long and consistent record of voting against tax cuts and in favor of tax increases--no matter what the income level of the taxpayers in question.

In the 12 years since the National Taxpayers Union began grading the voting records of members of Congress on tax-and-spending issues, Kerry has received the grade of "F" eleven times. In 1996, the one year Kerry did not receive an "F," he received a "D."

Despite Kerry's attempt to pose as a champion of the middle class, he has repeatedly supported regressive taxes that target the middle class. For example, he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which lowered the income tax rates for the lowest income brackets."

Okay, so he has been in favor of higher taxes... actions speak louder than words

MSNBC: But in reality Kerry is not so far from Bush in his views on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts senator claims he not only stands by his vote for the legislation, but that he authored most of the law’s money-laundering provisions and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing).

Doesn't sound like 'getting rid of the patriot act' at all...

Kerry will raise our taxes through the roof and his wife would have us all running around naked if it was up to her. ;)

what happened to MKULTRA?

Actually you are quite wrong. I know the real statistics, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Suffice to say that your information is more flawed than a CBS fact checker.

Suffice it to say that I doubt your knowledge of the real statistics, and the fact you don't want to provide them speaks highly to that. If you are interested in providing any substantive information contradicting the vast disparity of personal wealth I've always seen, I'm interested in hearing it.

As far as the distribution of taxes - the graduated income tax has fallen more broadly, not less, over the years, spreading down into the lower incomes. It also makes up a relatively small chunk of total governmental income, including tariffs, sales taxes, property taxes, and of course the rather large (for folks who don't have a lot of money) social security tax.

Actually you are quite wrong. I know the real statistics, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Suffice to say that your information is more flawed than a CBS fact checker.
That was the least convincing attempt at dismissal I've ever heard.

Well, given recent events, perhaps the Tiffney network is catching up, but they still have a long way to go to beat Fox for reporting utter bullshit and lies. I believe Fox is still winning that contest!

By a landslide.

I would look forward to him ending the doctrine of pre-emptive war. (wars of choice)
Not likely. He wants US domination of the world just as much as the Neo Cons.

Not likely. He wants US domination of the world just as much as the Neo Cons.

Not really. Kerry wants UN domination of the world.

I voted for lowering taxes, cutting government spending, and abolishing the Patriot Act. Shame I can only expect him to actually do one of those, but it's what I'd like to see.

Not really. Kerry wants UN domination of the world.

No, just UN domination of the US.

...and his wife would have us all running around naked if it was up to her. ;)

You say that like it is a bad thing.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Do you really want to see his wife naked? ewwwwww

I would look forward to him ending the doctrine of pre-emptive war. (wars of choice)

Amen, Steph!

You're title says what kerry would do and inside it says what kerry should do. Those are two very different things when we speak of any person on this earth. What one would do is not usualy what one should do, hardly ever in politics.

Not really. Kerry wants UN domination of the world.
that was technically the idea for its creation...

Looking at that list, he seems to have stated he would do all of them at one time or another.

Flip
Flop
Flip
Flop

Haha. Typical Republican rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Kerry has never flip-flopped on ANY issue. He has a stance on each issue, and he sticks to it.

Not really. Kerry wants UN domination of the world.

Uh, no he's not. The Neo Cons are about world domination, not Kerry.

That is the Presidents policy, but actual doctrine is approved by the Senate. That has not been done to my knowledge. Is there a link to that?


One Senators comments do not make a doctrine either. Face it, there is no OFFICIAL doctrine of the sort.


Hmmmmmmm...

Umm, the CBC is a VERY credible Canadian news source. Oh btw, self defense you say, remind me again what Iraq did to the United States? Oh right, I forgot, NOTHING! :rolleyes:

Here it is - straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The National Security Strategy document outlines what is commonly referred to as the 'Bush-doctrine' or the 'preemptive strike-doctrine'.

Haha. Typical Republican rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Kerry has never flip-flopped on ANY issue. He has a stance on each issue, and he sticks to it.


Unfortunately, many Bush supporters have difficulty comprehending anything more than a 5 second sound bite.

For example, they can't tell the difference between a vote for authorization, or a vote for war. Especially since whitehouse.gov clearly shows that Bush promised to use the threat of force to keep the peace in his plea for authorization.

So, Kerry's position is easy to see, as long as someone is interested in reading or listening to more than a sentence at a time.

Here it is - straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The National Security Strategy document outlines what is commonly referred to as the 'Bush-doctrine' or the 'preemptive strike-doctrine'.

Yes....the "Bush" doctrine. It goes away when he leaves office to be replaced with the "Next Guys" doctrine. :rolleyes:

Haha. Typical Republican rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Kerry has never flip-flopped on ANY issue. He has a stance on each issue, and he sticks to it.


Eh...it seems to me that he was very outspoken against the war in Vietnam upon returning from his service in that war...and now it seems he seeks to capitalize on his military duty, even through use of military rhetorics - "reporting for duty". He was against the Vietnam war, and now he's proud of having served in it? Sounds a bit odd...
Perhaps someone would care to comment on this?

Anyway...I came across this nice little site with a Flash movie named 'This Land'. It sums up the 2004 US Presidential election campaigns rather nicely :)

http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

Eh...it seems to me that he was very outspoken against the war in Vietnam upon returning from his service in that war...and now it seems he seeks to capitalize on his military duty, even through use of military rhetorics - "reporting for duty". He was against the Vietnam war, and now he's proud of having served in it? Sounds a bit odd...
Perhaps someone would care to comment on this?


Easy. To make a modern day parrallel, I consider the men and women in Iraq to be brave and heroic. I support them 100%. I also consider the war itself to be one of the stupidest, most dangerous things ever done by the government. I think the sloppiness of the crafters of the war, and the ineptness of the foreign policy that lead to it has made America less safe. I support it not at all.

In other words, I love the warriors, but hate the war.

Easy, when you stop to think...

I don't know what the first thing he would do is because well, he's changed his mind so many times. And its not republic rhetoric I could link mountains and mountains of quotes over his public service years but, I think the one that shows it the best is:

I voted for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it...

No quotation marks because I think there was an actually between I and voted but, I'm not sure....

Seriously though, if he wants to win he better come out and answer some of these supposed "mean attacks." 35 days without one press conference or question and answer session with the press is hurting him bad. Probably why Bush is up on almost every poll.

What cracks me up is the left insulted and attacked Bush for 3 years and after six months of people going after their guy they are calling the right "mean and underhanded." Its called politics. Presidential campaigns always get nasty. And Kerry opened up the whole can of Vietnam worms when he decided that him being a war hero was the correct platform to stand on. I could have told you that was stupid to do because he pissed alot of his so called "bretheren" off pretty bad when he came back and started calling them baby killers. And the Swiftboat Veterans haven't been debunked on the medals because Kerry won't release his complete military records, even though it was required of Bush to do so.

Anyway...I came across this nice little site with a Flash movie named 'This Land'. It sums up the 2004 US Presidential election campaigns rather nicely :)

http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

3 months ago I prophesized that within a week we'd stop seeing people that think they were the first person to see this flash. I was wrong.

I was on CNN for Christ sake...

I don't know what the first thing he would do is because well, he's changed his mind so many times. And its not republic rhetoric I could link mountains and mountains of quotes over his public service years but, I think the one that shows it the best is:

I voted for the 87 billion dollars, before I voted against it...

No quotation marks because I think there was an actually between I and voted but, I'm not sure....


Actually, this is a clear example of Republican propaganda. The reason is because Kerry had very good reasons to support the first version of the bill over the second!

By making people think Kerry flip flopped on this issue, Republicans are yet again lying to the American people.

Oh, and how come no one is angry at the Republican Senators for voting against the 87 billion dollars before they voted for it?

Still waiting for a reply to my last question.

Yes....the "Bush" doctrine. It goes away when he leaves office to be replaced with the "Next Guys" doctrine. :rolleyes:

Being the reasonable person I believe you are, I want you to go back and re-read this thread. You flip flopped.. (it seems like a popular thing to say these days) You started out with there was no doctrine, to it's not a real doctrine, to it's Bush's doctrine, to well the next guy can throw it out. Now, please give me a break! This all got started by me saying I can't wait for the next guy to throw out the doctrine. You've just come full circle.. ;)

Being the reasonable person I believe you are, I want you to go back and re-read this thread. You flip flopped.. (it seems like a popular thing to say these days) You started out with there was no doctrine, to it's not a real doctrine, to it's Bush's doctrine, to well the next guy can throw it out. Now, please give me a break! This all got started by me saying I can't wait for the next guy to throw out the doctrine. You've just come full circle.. ;)

Why do I get the sudden mental image of an electronic device short-circuiting?

resign ?

LOL

Being the reasonable person I believe you are, I want you to go back and re-read this thread. You flip flopped.. (it seems like a popular thing to say these days) You started out with there was no doctrine, to it's not a real doctrine, to it's Bush's doctrine, to well the next guy can throw it out. Now, please give me a break! This all got started by me saying I can't wait for the next guy to throw out the doctrine. You've just come full circle.. ;)

No, it is still not a national doctrine. It is Bush's policy. Policies change and he may even change it in his second term. Personally I like the policy because for the first time we will not wait until AFTER we have been attacked. FDR could have used such a policy, but we really did not have much of a military then.

The Pre-Emptive strike Doctrine does exist. Woodrow Wilson and Congress declared war on Germany after recieving the Zimmerman Note, which asked Mexico to help Germany by invading the U.S (a laughable effort, seeing as Mexico was recovering from revolution). It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

[QUOTE=Koshou] Clinton had a pre-emptive in Kosovo, a country that was doing nothing to the United States, yet everyone was behind that... I don't see how it is different. Except that maybe Hussien had threated the US, Hussien had said he would make WMD and attack the US, Hussien killed his own people and Milosivich just killed his own people.[/QUOTE=Koshou]

I think you'll find that the US dragged its feet over Kosovo, and did not want to invade or even commit its AH-64 fleet. It was left to the European nations, lead by the UK to force the issue.

Anyway, I don't care what Kerry does, he cant do worse than Bush (removing 70,000 blacks from the florida electoral roll)

Get rid of that disgusting Patriot Act. Did I ever mention how much I hate Ashcroft? I feel so sorry for you poor bloody yanks living under that sort of crap (although, Howard's mob here in Aus did propose something similar in 2002 :( )

Most of them are good options, Iraq is a mess so I wouldn't advocate getting troops out of there: maintain numbers basically (perhaps a gradual cycling of troops stationed in there, especially those poor bastards in the national guard: if someone did that over here with reserves, we'd have a fit)

Personally, I would like him to allow gay marriage simply out of spite. But that's just me ;).

(for Biff's benefit: I really can't be bothered worrying over symantics, it misses the point) The Bush 'policy' of pre-emptive warfare, to quote David Kay, is a "genuinely crazy" way to carry out foreign policy. For Iraq alone Bush should be removed (by a vote of course, I'm no Marxist!). Don't give me crap about "WMDs" or UN sanctions- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle have wanted Iraq for years- don't beleive me take a look at my favorite website: www.newamericancentury.org. These 'Neo-cons' practically admit they want world domination (sorry "global American leadership......wtf :confused:). This is the sort of irrational global hegemony that got the US (and for that matter, Aus, thank you Holt, you fellatio-dispensing prick) into Vietnam for god's sake. Why piss away the lives, learn the lessons of history and don't make the same mistakes twice.

Btw, kudos to Stephistan, Gymoor, Goed and a few others, keep fighting the good fights (as a member of the silent majority that reads these boards but rarely posts)

Ah, I finally get recognition. LOL. Thanks!

3 months ago I prophesized that within a week we'd stop seeing people that think they were the first person to see this flash. I was wrong.

I was on CNN for Christ sake...

Well, forgive me for not having chosen CNN as my primary news source...

Uh, no he's not. The Neo Cons are about world domination, not Kerry.


The Democrats have their own scheme for world domination. Be it through different means.



* World leadership.
Democrats believe energetic U.S. leadership is integral to shaping a world congenial to our interests and values. World order doesn't emerge spontaneously; it must be organized through collective action by the leading powers, in particular the leading democracies. The main responsibility for global leadership falls on America as first among equals. But our country cannot lead if our leaders will not listen. The surest way to isolate America -- and call into being anti-American coalitions -- is to succumb to the imperial temptation and attempt to impose our will on others. We believe, instead, in renewing our democratic alliances to meet new threats, in progressively enlarging the zone of market democracies by including countries that want to join, and in strengthening and reforming international institutions -- the United Nations, the international financial institutions, the World Trade Organization -- which, for all their obvious flaws, still embody humanity's highest hopes for collective security and cooperative problem-solving.

PPI: Progressive Internationalism: A Demoncratic Global Domination Strategy (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?cp=2&knlgAreaID=450004&subsecid=900020&contentid=252144)

Anyway, I don't care what Kerry does, he cant do worse than Bush (removing 70,000 blacks from the florida electoral roll)

People keep saying this as if it was true. Not ONE person has come forward saying they were denied the right to vote. Not ONE!! Even when hearings were held and those so affected were asked to testify....noone showed up. It did not happen and no amount of blustering about it will make it so....

Well, forgive me for not having chosen CNN as my primary news source...

Seriously, though, it was on every major news outlet for like 2 weeks. And then the story hung around for months afterwards when the Woody Guthrie estate tried to sue them over use of the song.

The Pre-Emptive strike Doctrine does exist. Woodrow Wilson and Congress declared war on Germany after recieving the Zimmerman Note, which asked Mexico to help Germany by invading the U.S (a laughable effort, seeing as Mexico was recovering from revolution). It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

You call the US's getting into WWI a "pre-emptive" strike? I guess you forgot the Lusitania sinking that actually pushed the US into that "European" squabble didn't you? The Zimmerman Note was an attempt to keep the US busy fighting here and out of the conflict in Europe, nothing else.

It is asinine to post here and try to say that Kerry hasn't changed positions on things (flip-flop'd in campaign terms). Every major politician who's been in office for any length of time has to change a few to keep up with the times and keep up with debate.

The problem is that Kerry does FAR above the average amount and has done it on just about everything. To compound that issue, he refuses to cite any core beliefs that he has steadfastly defended over his career. What does he stand for other than "he's not Bush" - Which it's now obvious is NOT enough to get him elected.

You want to show he doesn't flip-flop? Then give me a list of a half dozen core beliefs that he's held without wavering throughout his career. Tell me what he REALLY believes in.

It is asinine to post here and try to say that Kerry hasn't changed positions on things (flip-flop'd in campaign terms). Every major politician who's been in office for any length of time has to change a few to keep up with the times and keep up with debate.

The problem is that Kerry does FAR above the average amount and has done it on just about everything. To compound that issue, he refuses to cite any core beliefs that he has steadfastly defended over his career. What does he stand for other than "he's not Bush" - Which it's now obvious is NOT enough to get him elected.

You want to show he doesn't flip-flop? Then give me a list of a half dozen core beliefs that he's held without wavering throughout his career. Tell me what he REALLY believes in.

You're wasting your breath. He has none. He cannot even decide if it is he or his family that owns an SUV. :rolleyes:

Easy. To make a modern day parrallel, I consider the men and women in Iraq to be brave and heroic. I support them 100%. I also consider the war itself to be one of the stupidest, most dangerous things ever done by the government. I think the sloppiness of the crafters of the war, and the ineptness of the foreign policy that lead to it has made America less safe. I support it not at all.

In other words, I love the warriors, but hate the war.

Easy, when you stop to think...


I was just thinking about the Vietnam war. The war antagonists certainly didn't love the 'warriors'/veterans back then (or at least that is my impression). Incidents such as the massacre at My Lai may have contributed to this, but still...was Kerry proud of his service even when, or is this stance possibly adopted for political reasons?

I don't understand this ambigous "hate the war, love the warriors thing" though...is it somehow related to 9/11?

Seriously, though, it was on every major news outlet for like 2 weeks. And then the story hung around for months afterwards when the Woody Guthrie estate tried to sue them over use of the song.

What 'major news outlets' would that be?

What 'major news outlets' would that be?

Well, CNN was mentioned. I saw it on FOX News, ABC World News, Yahoo News, some of the Sunday morning talking heads shows... I think I even saw it on Fark.com

It was out there....

Oh, and Woody Guthrie was the composer - You asked but apparently edited that out for some reason...

I was just thinking about the Vietnam war. The war antagonists certainly didn't love the 'warriors'/veterans back then (or at least that is my impression). Incidents such as the massacre at My Lai may have contributed to this, but still...was Kerry proud of his service even when, or is this stance possibly adopted for political reasons?

I don't understand this ambigous "hate the war, love the warriors thing" though...is it somehow related to 9/11?

Well, lets look at the past shall we? Kerry returned from Vietnam and immediately engaged in anti-war activities that did real harm to men still in Vietnam. He equated the US military to the Golden Horde of the Mongols AND he threw his medals (or ribbons depending on which version he uses at the time) over the White House fence. Is THAT something that a person who is proud of his service would do? I think not.

Now he is using his Vietnam service as some sort of badge as proof that he is qualified to be president. So of course it is all for political purposes. Afterall, he has a 19-20 year Senate record that is all but empty and he cannot run on that.

Of course there will be those who think Kerry will be some magic pill that will get the rest of the world to all of a sudden like us. As if freaking "care bears" are going to fly out of his ass and sing "Kum-By-Freaking-Ya" around the world.

It is asinine to post here and try to say that Kerry hasn't changed positions on things (flip-flop'd in campaign terms). Every major politician who's been in office for any length of time has to change a few to keep up with the times and keep up with debate.

The problem is that Kerry does FAR above the average amount and has done it on just about everything. To compound that issue, he refuses to cite any core beliefs that he has steadfastly defended over his career. What does he stand for other than "he's not Bush" - Which it's now obvious is NOT enough to get him elected.

You want to show he doesn't flip-flop? Then give me a list of a half dozen core beliefs that he's held without wavering throughout his career. Tell me what he REALLY believes in.
start quoting flip flops

start quoting flip flops

Lets see.... I threw my medals over the fence became ribbons.

He owned an SUV or two became his family owning them.

He voted against the death penalty for terrorists now supports it.

He voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes now says he will cut them.

He wanted to cut the intelligence budget heavily and now says we need to spend more on it.

I can find more I am sure, but these are sufficient for now.

Umm, the CBC is a VERY credible Canadian news source. Oh btw, self defense you say, remind me again what Iraq did to the United States? Oh right, I forgot, NOTHING! :rolleyes:

Okay, Jerkwad, I know you're a completely ignorant twit...
but did you ever stop to think that you just *might* have insulted all those people who lost a Friend or Relative when Saddam had one of his Mirage pilots attack the USS Stark with an Exocet (French made, both plane and missile, by the way)? Nineteen US Sailors died in that 'accident'!
{And, of course, we know by now that it was no accident...}

And, of course, invading our allies in Kuwait when we told him not to is another 'nothing' to add to that list...

And, of course, offering $25,000.00 to the Families of any successful Suicide Bomber who killed Israelis doesn't count for anything, right?
Oh, by the way, he was doing that while under UN sanctions, that were supposed to keep him from spending Oil Revenues on anything other than Humanitarian expenditures, such as Food and Medicine...
So, while he was blaming us for the Sanctions that were 'causing Iraqi women and children to starve', he was sponsoring terrorism, in a very direct and open manner! {Not to mention buying 10,000 cases of Imported Scotch a month...
Now, exactly where were Kofi Annan, and the UN, when it came to keeping an eye on what expenditures they made?}

Of course, Dubya can't mention any of this stuff, because it all happened on his Daddy's watch...

Lets see.... I threw my medals over the fence became ribbons.
He owned an SUV or two became his family owning them.
He voted against the death penalty for terrorists now supports it.
He voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes now says he will cut them.
He wanted to cut the intelligence budget heavily and now says we need to spend more on it.
I can find more I am sure, but these are sufficient for now.

True enough...
Now, does anyone care to start quoting Flip Flops comitted by Dubya?
{Such as, "I will support the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban"?}
Let's face it...
In a contest between Bush and Kerry, the real loser is the American People!

True enough...
Now, does anyone care to start quoting Flip Flops comitted by Dubya?
{Such as, "I will support the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban"?}
Let's face it...
In a contest between Bush and Kerry, the real loser is the American People!

Now before we go all crazy over the weapons ban.....why did not ONE Senator or Representative bring it up? ANY of them could have but it was obviously not a big deal to them. Isn't Kerry still a Senator? I believe he is, but he really has not shown up for work has he? He COULD have taken a leadership position there but he really is no leader is he?

Okay, Jerkwad, I know you're a completely ignorant twit...
but did you ever stop to think that you just *might* have insulted all those people who lost a Friend or Relative when Saddam had one of his Mirage pilots attack the with an Exocet (French made, both plane and missile, by the way)? Nineteen US Sailors died in that 'accident'!
{And, of course, we know by now that it was no accident...}

And, of course, invading our allies in Kuwait when we told him not to is another 'nothing' to add to that list...

And, of course, offering $25,000.00 to the Families of any successful Suicide Bomber who killed Israelis doesn't count for anything, right?
Oh, by the way, he was doing that while under UN sanctions, that were supposed to keep him from spending Oil Revenues on anything other than Humanitarian expenditures, such as Food and Medicine...
So, while he was blaming us for the Sanctions that were 'causing Iraqi women and children to starve', he was sponsoring terrorism, in a very direct and open manner! {Not to mention buying 10,000 cases of Imported Scotch a month...
Now, exactly where were Kofi Annan, and the UN, when it came to keeping an eye on what expenditures they made?}

Of course, Dubya can't mention any of this stuff, because it all happened on his Daddy's watch...


Oohhhhhhhhhhh - calling a Mod "Jerkwad".... sure to make friends everywhere are we?

However, if we are discussing "accidents" in that part of the world - shall we bring up US naval forces that can;t distinguish between military aircraft and civilian airliners to blow out of the sky?

And, for the record, the US did NOT tell Saddam not to invade Iraq. They told him that they had no offiicial position on his border dispute.

And no, financing the families of Hamas suicide bombers does NOT count as doing anything to the US. IT was reprehensible, but last time I checked Israel was not an American colony.

And why don't they mention the Oil for food program issues? It is not Bush SR, it is Dick Cheney's ongoing trade with him during that period that is the sticking point.

Indeed, perhaps you should have noted Dick's position on sanctions to such countries throughout the 90s as he fought tooth and nail to have sanctions removed against Lybia, Iran, Iraq etc. so he could profit from them more easily.

Thanks for playing though. Perhaps someday you will even educate yourself enough to make a meaningful post with some salient facts and yet without resorting to purile insults..

-Z-

And no, financing the families of Hamas suicide bombers does NOT count as doing anything to the US. IT was reprehensible, but last time I checked Israel was not an American colony.

-Z-

True, but a fair number of Americans have been killed in those Hamas attacks supported by Saddam. Hamas has added the US to it's list of targets now as well.

maybe we should stop supporting israel blindly without question, that might fix THAT problem biff

True, but a fair number of Americans have been killed in those Hamas attacks supported by Saddam. Hamas has added the US to it's list of targets now as well.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the victims and feelings of disgust for various actions on both sides of that struggle, however let's not sidetrack this into an Isreal-Palestine debate. The point I was making being that such attacks were NOT attacks directed against the US and so cannot be deemed such by the person who included them in his list any more than the parents of a Swedish tourist who happened to be at the WTC that day could call 9-11 an attack on Sweden.


The fact that Hamas has since added the US to it's list is also not germaine to the pre-invasion decision process. It is a subsequent event which was not a factor at the time.

maybe we should stop supporting israel blindly without question, that might fix THAT problem biff

No, I think it will cause even more problems than it solves. You never surrender to tyranny, never.

does anyone really know what Kerry will do? Does Kerry know what Kerry will do? I think its up to his wife, she wears the pants in the Family...

I don't understand this ambigous "hate the war, love the warriors thing" though...is it somehow related to 9/11?

Actually, it started in "Operation: Desert Storm", the first time we invaded Iraq...
A lot of people who were opposed to the War really didn't feel comfortable with the idea of calling those of our young men who chose to serve "Butchers", and "Baby Killers", as was done during and after Viet Nam...

They're the people charged with carrying out the Policy, but they are not responsible for choosing what the Policy should be!

There's nothing ambigous about it, really!
Do you have to hate the counter clerk at McDonald's, just because you can't get a McRib all year around? He might even agree with you, but he doesn't set the Policy...

well biff let me try REASON for you

hamas is ANTI-ISRAEL, period, unless you can provide some one else they are attacking that is a constant, unchangeable

america gives unquestioning support to EVERYTHING israel does, EVERYTHING

logic suggests if we support israel like that hamas will be pissed and go after us, and if we STOP that they will ignore us again

and you shouldnt surrender to tyranny? go wave a flag for the palestinians

I have a great deal of sympathy for the victims and feelings of disgust for various actions on both sides of that struggle, however let's not sidetrack this into an Isreal-Palestine debate. The point I was making being that such attacks were NOT attacks directed against the US and so cannot be deemed such by the person who included them in his list any more than the parents of a Swedish tourist who happened to be at the WTC that day could call 9-11 an attack on Sweden.


The fact that Hamas has since added the US to it's list is also not germaine to the pre-invasion decision process. It is a subsequent event which was not a factor at the time.

Thats true, but the support that Saddam gave to Hamas allowed them to carry out those attacks....the attacks have decreased since his support has been taken away have they not?

well biff let me try REASON for you

hamas is ANTI-ISRAEL, period, unless you can provide some one else they are attacking that is a constant, unchangeable

america gives unquestioning support to EVERYTHING israel does, EVERYTHING

logic suggests if we support israel like that hamas will be pissed and go after us, and if we STOP that they will ignore us again

and you shouldnt surrender to tyranny? go wave a flag for the palestinians

Hamas singled the US out for attack when we named them a terrorist organization. Since you are anti-israel and from Alabama....maybe it is more the people of Israel you have a problem with? As for the Palestinians, they had a chance to get what they wanted and they turned it down. What they want is to kill everyone in Israel....everyone. I guess you would probably like to see that happen.

does anyone really know what Kerry will do? Does Kerry know what Kerry will do? I think its up to his wife, she wears the pants in the Family...

She is probably on top all the time too...;)

war in iraq is not war ,but comedy, the only way to stop losses of soldiers lifes is to get out. so someone must stop the bush and his paranoia.

Thats true, but the support that Saddam gave to Hamas allowed them to carry out those attacks....the attacks have decreased since his support has been taken away have they not?

Well, Saddam was far from the only benefactor. Have you heard credible news that the pensions have stopped being paid? I haven't - but perhaps this has changed.

Frankly, though, I would put far more credence to the idea that the new wall is making such attacks far more dificult to stage than anything else.

ok im done wating my time reading biff's replies they are still ignorant of what i said and whats going on

Well, Saddam was far from the only benefactor. Have you heard credible news that the pensions have stopped being paid? I haven't - but perhaps this has changed.

Frankly, though, I would put far more credence to the idea that the new wall is making such attacks far more dificult to stage than anything else.

Well, the new wall is a great idea. Of course the Palestinians bitch about it claiming that they are being fenced in. They are a funny bunch. I think Israel is on the right track there. Fences do make for better neighbors.

Oohhhhhhhhhhh - calling a Mod "Jerkwad".... sure to make friends everywhere are we?
However, if we are discussing "accidents" in that part of the world - shall we bring up US naval forces that can;t distinguish between military aircraft and civilian airliners to blow out of the sky?
And, for the record, the US did NOT tell Saddam not to invade Iraq. They told him that they had no offiicial position on his border dispute.
And no, financing the families of Hamas suicide bombers does NOT count as doing anything to the US. IT was reprehensible, but last time I checked Israel was not an American colony.
And why don't they mention the Oil for food program issues? It is not Bush SR, it is Dick Cheney's ongoing trade with him during that period that is the sticking point.
Indeed, perhaps you should have noted Dick's position on sanctions to such countries throughout the 90s as he fought tooth and nail to have sanctions removed against Lybia, Iran, Iraq etc. so he could profit from them more easily.
Thanks for playing though. Perhaps someday you will even educate yourself enough to make a meaningful post with some salient facts and yet without resorting to purile insults..
-Z-

Thank YOU for playing, Sir, but might I point out that you chose, in the above missive, to COMPLETELY ignore the actual answer to the question?
The fact is, Saddam attacked the USS Stark, while we were still supposed to be Allies! The difference between this, and the attack on Pearl Harbor, was merely one of scale...
Otherwise, what Saddam did to us was substantially WORSE than what the Japanese did on December 7, 1941!
Since you can't dispute that fact, you haul out all this other irrelevant garbage to serve as a smoke screen...
If you think I'm going to tuck my tail in and run away because you make a few points about Bush and Cheney...
Guess again!
I am NOT a supporter of either Bush, or Cheney, and would dearly like to see them gone!
As to that Iraqi airliner...
I am still far from convinced that it *wasn't* rigged out with an F-14 transponder, in an attempt to discredit the US!
Yes, it would be pretty bizarre for us to find that out, and then sweep it under the rug...
but our government has been doing some pretty bizarre things for awhile now!
Even if it wasn't a deliberate enemy action, the Gulf is a very crowded airspace, and the boys on board that ship did NOT have a lot of time to make the decision to launch...
Whereas, in Saddam's case, there was no attack, not even a percieved one, claimed on the part of the Mirage pilot...
He knew exactly what he was doing, and we (under George Herbert Walker Bush) let Saddam get away with it!
{And, yes, telling someone like Saddam that you 'have no position' in a border dispute is, functionally, an invitation to attack...
Like I said, I am not a supporter of either Dubya, or any other member of the Bush family!}
You don't have to be an American 'colony', by the way, in order to have America's interest...
While Israel may be another country, they are an American ally, and there are a LOT of Israeli citizens who still have friends and family in our country...
So, yes, an attack on Israel (remember that SCUD that Saddam had dropped on them?) IS an attack on us!
Again, if you're trying to convince me that Dick Cheney, the Vice President from Haliburton, is not entirely above board and ethical...
that was accomplished long before you wrote!

Finally, I really don't care about who is, and is not, a Moderator...
I'm a Mod, myself, on another forum, on another website...
You can call me a 'jerkwad', there, if you'd like, and if I really HAVE said something tremendously stupid and insulting, I'll apologize...
Can you say the same for the Mod on this Forum that I've (quite deliberately, and appropriately, I might add) insulted?

Pick the ONE think you most look forward to Kerry doing should he be elected:

You missed one. Die! I like Edwards, but Kerry is a piece of shit.

maybe we should stop supporting israel blindly without question, that might fix THAT problem biff

Anyone who thinks that our support of Israel has been either unconditional, or 'blind', has been paying exactly NO attention to the situation!

The Israelis agree to negotiate for peace...
The Islamic Fundamentalist Nutcases, of whatever faction, blow up some Israelis...
The Israelis start to do something about the problem, and the US yanks their chain, and hauls them back to the 'peace' table...
Rinse and repeat.

The Palestineans, sad to say, do not have a country...
They have a loose collection of terrorist organizations (who can agree on nothing other than the desire to destroy Israel), and a lot of frightened civilians who see no other choice...

There isn't anyone there that we CAN negotiate with, so we keep coming back to (pretty grudgingly) supporting Israel!

What would you do?
Would you do what we did to the South Vietnamese, and withdraw all military funding, and support, and refuse even to sell them arms that they can pay for? Perhaps aid the Palestinians in their mad quest to obliterate Israel?

Do you honestly think that would help?
Sorry, these guys (as Osama was happy to point out) hate us because we wear Blue Jeans, listen to Rock Music, and don't require our women to veil themselves before stepping outside!
{And, here, I AM limiting my comments to the nutcases, not all of Islam, or all Palestineans...}

Thank YOU for playing, Sir, but might I point out that you chose, in the above missive, to COMPLETELY ignore the actual answer to the question?
The fact is, Saddam attacked the USS Stark, while we were still supposed to be Allies! The difference between this, and the attack on Pearl Harbor, was merely one of scale...
Otherwise, what Saddam did to us was substantially WORSE than what the Japanese did on December 7, 1941!
Since you can't dispute that fact, you haul out all this other irrelevant garbage to serve as a smoke screen...
If you think I'm going to tuck my tail in and run away because you make a few points about Bush and Cheney...
Guess again!
I am NOT a supporter of either Bush, or Cheney, and would dearly like to see them gone!
As to that Iraqi airliner...
I am still far from convinced that it *wasn't* rigged out with an F-14 transponder, in an attempt to discredit the US!
Yes, it would be pretty bizarre for us to find that out, and then sweep it under the rug...
but our government has been doing some pretty bizarre things for awhile now!
Even if it wasn't a deliberate enemy action, the Gulf is a very crowded airspace, and the boys on board that ship did NOT have a lot of time to make the decision to launch...
Whereas, in Saddam's case, there was no attack, not even a percieved one, claimed on the part of the Mirage pilot...
He knew exactly what he was doing, and we (under George Herbert Walker Bush) let Saddam get away with it!
{And, yes, telling someone like Saddam that you 'have no position' in a border dispute is, functionally, an invitation to attack...
Like I said, I am not a supporter of either Dubya, or any other member of the Bush family!}
You don't have to be an American 'colony', by the way, in order to have America's interest...
While Israel may be another country, they are an American ally, and there are a LOT of Israeli citizens who still have friends and family in our country...
So, yes, an attack on Israel (remember that SCUD that Saddam had dropped on them?) IS an attack on us!
Again, if you're trying to convince me that Dick Cheney, the Vice President from Haliburton, is not entirely above board and ethical...
that was accomplished long before you wrote!

Finally, I really don't care about who is, and is not, a Moderator...
I'm a Mod, myself, on another forum, on another website...
You can call me a 'jerkwad', there, if you'd like, and if I really HAVE said something tremendously stupid and insulting, I'll apologize...
Can you say the same for the Mod on this Forum that I've (quite deliberately, and appropriately, I might add) insulted?



So, your point - made at very great length - is that you admit that you were wrong about your initial assertion about the US telling Saddam not to invade Kuwait and you seem to have dropped the Hamas issue. So you now base your calling somebody here a "jerkwad" regarding the statement that Saddam never attacked the US on an event that happened in a war in 1987 when you were allies and have provided no support beyond bombastic rhetoric to presume that it was deliberate. You further assert that it was simply ignored by President Bush at the time - who, of course, was actually NOT the President at the time given that he did not take office until 1989.


Well, so far you are going for the "incredibly stupid" at a pretty good rate of speed..... or at least "incredibly uninformed".

As for the mod here - my wife - yes she has admitted to errors in the past. She also clearly has something that you lack.

It's called "class"

I have a great deal of sympathy for the victims and feelings of disgust for various actions on both sides of that struggle, however let's not sidetrack this into an Isreal-Palestine debate. The point I was making being that such attacks were NOT attacks directed against the US and so cannot be deemed such by the person who included them in his list any more than the parents of a Swedish tourist who happened to be at the WTC that day could call 9-11 an attack on Sweden.


The fact that Hamas has since added the US to it's list is also not germaine to the pre-invasion decision process. It is a subsequent event which was not a factor at the time.

As a matter of fact, I DO consider the attack on the World Trade Center to be an attack against every nation who had citizens in that building at the time!
And, I think you'll notice that American suggestions that other countries follow this principle have been generally well-recieved...

And the fact that Hamas hadn't specifically targeted American citizens at the time of the invasion really means nothing, one way or the other...
They have opposed our foriegn policy, they have attacked our allies, and they have sworn to destroy us, for blatantly silly reasons, but that is not the point of my mentioning Saddam's support of terrorism...

Even if he had been supporting the Tamil Tigers, he was offering financial and moral support to vile and reprehensible people, at a time when Sanctions were in place to keep him from spending that money on anything other than Humanitarian needs...
He was required to allow UN inspectors full and unfettered access to any site they wished to visit, and not the slightest delay was to be tolerated, and he tried to dealy the Inspectors anyways (It really doesn't matter whether we found any WMD or not, that alone was Causus Belli)...
And, he routinely violated the cease fire agreement by trying to fire on our planes!

Sure, he didn't do so well...
but he DID prove that he was not an acceptable member of Society!
He dared us to attack him, and looked quite shocked when we accomodated him!

Anyone who thinks that our support of Israel has been either unconditional, or 'blind', has been paying exactly NO attention to the situation!

The Israelis agree to negotiate for peace...
The Islamic Fundamentalist Nutcases, of whatever faction, blow up some Israelis...
The Israelis start to do something about the problem, and the US yanks their chain, and hauls them back to the 'peace' table...
Rinse and repeat.

The Palestineans, sad to say, do not have a country...
They have a loose collection of terrorist organizations (who can agree on nothing other than the desire to destroy Israel), and a lot of frightened civilians who see no other choice...

There isn't anyone there that we CAN negotiate with, so we keep coming back to (pretty grudgingly) supporting Israel!

What would you do?
Would you do what we did to the South Vietnamese, and withdraw all military funding, and support, and refuse even to sell them arms that they can pay for? Perhaps aid the Palestinians in their mad quest to obliterate Israel?

Do you honestly think that would help?
Sorry, these guys (as Osama was happy to point out) hate us because we wear Blue Jeans, listen to Rock Music, and don't require our women to veil themselves before stepping outside!
{And, here, I AM limiting my comments to the nutcases, not all of Islam, or all Palestineans...}
do you even know whats going on israel: see bulldozing towns in designated palestinian areas, not stopping israelis from doing whatever they want in designated israeli areas, shooting children, running over children with tanks, hellfiring entire buildings, shooting missiles into large crowds of people to kill a single person

israel is NO better than the people you advocate are the devil in disguise

Well, the new wall is a great idea. Of course the Palestinians bitch about it claiming that they are being fenced in. They are a funny bunch. I think Israel is on the right track there. Fences do make for better neighbors.

I commented on a fence being the best solution ages ago. The main bone of contention, of course is the arguing over where the hell to put the damn fence! Of course there are hopes for land grabs from both sides. It's only natural. The fact that one side gets to make all the decisions of course leads to angry feelings. You expected anything else?


Hey, it's not like India and Pakistan haven't been arguing over a fuzzy line drawn with a thick pen through Kashmir for decades too....

wow... well let's calm down a sec and look at the facts. there is no guarantee about where the economy will go, since the war and the loss of 2.2 million jobs (and, yes, the creation of 1.7... hmmm... -.5 million during his term?) has screwed it up so bad...

george bush is potentially talking about doing away with federal taxes...
and just having a 30% sales tax. but the economists say it would have to be 60% for the next ten years to balance the budget... and this is before we get into the issue of how that affects all of his millionaire friends and supporters... certainly they would be pleased, not having to pay so much property tax and taxes on their investments, while the working man would simply have to pay more and more for things he already can't afford...

but this is speculation. he said he would "explore" the option. just as saying kerry will raise taxes. frankly, i would think he would have to, as there is no way we can continue spending and spending and not pay back...

i'm scared he will spend the next 4 years rebuilding, and no one will really get to see what he is capable of, because he is being responsible.

so there.

it makes me wonder how many of the jobs that were lost went due to outsourcing, you cant really blame the pres for a company being cheap and sending our work overseas. i just wish the companies would be penalized for it

I commented on a fence being the best solution ages ago. The main bone of contention, of course is the arguing over where the hell to put the damn fence! Of course there are hopes for land grabs from both sides. It's only natural. The fact that one side gets to make all the decisions of course leads to angry feelings. You expected anything else?


Hey, it's not like India and Pakistan haven't been arguing over a fuzzy line drawn with a thick pen through Kashmir for decades too....
i just get berlin wall ideas when i hear they are going to build a fence, the fatc they are bulldozing settlements too close to it doesnt make that go away

He was required to allow UN inspectors full and unfettered access to any site they wished to visit, and not the slightest delay was to be tolerated, and he tried to dealy the Inspectors anyways (It really doesn't matter whether we found any WMD or not, that alone was Causus Belli)...


You, of course, completely ignore the fact that disarmament was supposed to be tied to phased sanction withdrawls. That there was a quid pro quo. He allowed the inspections and disarmament for years but stayed under full sanctions. Don't complain about the other side not living up to a deal that you refused to live up to also!

And, he routinely violated the cease fire agreement by trying to fire on our planes!


The no-fly zones were never part of the ceasefire agreement. They were unilaterally imposed afterwards. So, technically speaking you were violating his airspace and repeatedly attacking him with your bombardments.

Hello Pot? Kettle here. You're black!


Sure, he didn't do so well...
but he DID prove that he was not an acceptable member of Society!
He dared us to attack him, and looked quite shocked when we accomodated him!

Basically, he did nothing that the US hasn't done in recent decades, except that he became politically expedient to drop as a friend because of world opinion to his very actions that were always - up until then - sanctioned by Washington.

If he was shocked, it was probably because he though that Washington was smarter than to get themselves into yet another losing war. If any good in the middle east comes out of this it will be despite GWs efforts - not because of the them.

So, your point - made at very great length - is that you admit that you were wrong about your initial assertion about the US telling Saddam not to invade Kuwait and you seem to have dropped the Hamas issue. So you now base your calling somebody here a "jerkwad" regarding the statement that Saddam never attacked the US on an event that happened in a war in 1987 when you were allies and have provided no support beyond bombastic rhetoric to presume that it was deliberate. You further assert that it was simply ignored by President Bush at the time - who, of course, was actually NOT the President at the time given that he did not take office until 1989.


Well, so far you are going for the "incredibly stupid" at a pretty good rate of speed..... or at least "incredibly uninformed".

As for the mod here - my wife - yes she has admitted to errors in the past. She also clearly has something that you lack.

It's called "class"

My point was that Iraq DID do something to the US...
They attacked, without provocation, a US Naval vessel, and Killed our Sailors!
What more cause for war do you want?
The 'signals' we sent to Saddam were, indeed, mixed, and we probably told him several different things about Kuwait...
He heard what he chose to hear...
If you're expecting me to defend either Bush, you're badly mistaken!
The war was neccessary, and the fact that we had an incompetent boob in charge at the time (both times) does not change the fact that it was necessary...
You're right, I don't have any *proof* that the attack on the Stark was deliberate, I only have the actions of those responsible since that point to guide me...
It's enough for my purposes, but perhaps you would rather encourage further such attacks on our Armed Forces by saying, "Oh! It was just an Accident! Well, that makes it all right, then!"
Even if, despite appearances, it WAS an accident...
It was NOT all right! He promised to pay reparations, and failed to do so...
If he could afford to invade Kuwait, he could afford to pay reparations first, even if that would have thrown his timetable off, a bit...
Do you not agree?
As to your wife, if she does apologize for claiming (unintentionally, I'm sure) that the attack on the USS Stark was 'nothing', I'll be happy to apologize for calling her a 'jerkwad'...

do you even know whats going on israel: see bulldozing towns in designated palestinian areas, not stopping israelis from doing whatever they want in designated israeli areas, shooting children, running over children with tanks, hellfiring entire buildings, shooting missiles into large crowds of people to kill a single person

israel is NO better than the people you advocate are the devil in disguise

Yes, I DO know what's going on in the Middle East, thank you very much!
Yup, homes are getting bulldozed...
because Snipers are using them for cover!
Yup, babies are getting killed...
because their parents are using them as body shields, and throwing their bodies in the path of Israeli bullets!
This is just more of the same crud pulled by North Vietnam, back when they'd locate their Military HQs inside Schools and Hospitals, and then cry because their schools an hospitals were being bombed!

Trust me, you would NOT want me in charge of US foriegn policy, right now...
I would make what the Israelis (as restrained by the US) are doing now look like a comparative picnic!
Of course, some of us remember the videos of Palestineans dancing in the streets when they heard of the 9/11 attacks...

The CBC calls it a doctrine? Hardly a surprise there. I am sure the French do as well. ;)

No, it is an act of self defense.
Anyone else smell Republican? ;)

The Iraq war wasn't defensive, it was a longtime goal of the administration, and the PNAC crazies that control it.

Everyone knows that Iraq was just a puny little state without the ability to attack its neighbours, let alone a country halfway across the world. Plus, Iraq never did attack or threaten to attack America. There was nothing defensive about this war.

i just get berlin wall ideas when i hear they are going to build a fence, the fatc they are bulldozing settlements too close to it doesnt make that go away
Uhmm... here's one for you...
The Berlin wall was built to keep East Germans from fleeing into West Germany, to get away fromtheir own Government!
The Fence that the Israelis are building are intended to keep Suicide Bombers, and other Terrorists, from entering Israeli controlled territory!

The Berliners wanted to be free to mind their own business, whilst (some of) the Palestineans want to commit wholesale murder!

Oh, right, if we just let them massacre every single Israeli, they'd be good, kind, decent people, and no trouble to anyone...

I'm not american, what is the patriot act?

My point was that Iraq DID do something to the US...
They attacked, without provocation, a US Naval vessel, and Killed our Sailors!
What more cause for war do you want?
The 'signals' we sent to Saddam were, indeed, mixed, and we probably told him several different things about Kuwait...
He heard what he chose to hear...
If you're expecting me to defend either Bush, you're badly mistaken!
The war was neccessary, and the fact that we had an incompetent boob in charge at the time (both times) does not change the fact that it was necessary...
You're right, I don't have any *proof* that the attack on the Stark was deliberate, I only have the actions of those responsible since that point to guide me...
It's enough for my purposes, but perhaps you would rather encourage further such attacks on our Armed Forces by saying, "Oh! It was just an Accident! Well, that makes it all right, then!"
Even if, despite appearances, it WAS an accident...
It was NOT all right! He promised to pay reparations, and failed to do so...
If he could afford to invade Kuwait, he could afford to pay reparations first, even if that would have thrown his timetable off, a bit...
Do you not agree?
As to your wife, if she does apologize for claiming (unintentionally, I'm sure) that the attack on the USS Stark was 'nothing', I'll be happy to apologize for calling her a 'jerkwad'...

OK, so let's see if I have this straight...

You expect my wife to apologize for the statement that Saddam never attacked the US based on an event that happened 16 years before this war where the USS Stark was hit.

This attack, according to you, was a deliberate action against an ally that killed 19 US sailers but was ignored by President Bush for political reasons.

My wife should apologize because clearly she is ignoring the facts of the situation.

Except of course that you cannot prove deliberation, 37 sailors died (17 was the Cole - which I suppose is where you got the 19 from, so even your wrong facts are wrong), Bush wasn't President in '87, and you were not much of an ally given that you were arming BOTH sides of that war (Iran-Contra anyone?).


Yeah, clearly it is my wife who is having trouble with facts.....

:rolleyes:

Anyone else smell Republican? ;)

The Iraq war wasn't defensive, it was a longtime goal of the administration, and the PNAC crazies that control it.

Everyone knows that Iraq was just a puny little state without the ability to attack its neighbours, let alone a country halfway across the world. Plus, Iraq never did attack or threaten to attack America. There was nothing defensive about this war.

Good try....but no. ;)

Saddam certainly did want to attack the US. We made him look bad in the Arab world and that destroyed his ambition to become the new leader of the Arab world. He had a real hard-on for the US and wanted to attack us. he was unable to at the time but was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted so he could put things in motion again. However, the point is now moot. He is sitting in a jail cell waiting to go on trial. He will be executed in time by his own people who know all too well what kind of person he is.

Well, given recent events, perhaps the Tiffney network is catching up, but they still have a long way to go to beat Fox for reporting utter bullshit and lies. I believe Fox is still winning that contest!

The fact that you need to resort to mudslinging shows that your position is a weak one. I've watched all the news agencies at one time or another and FOX news, although not perfect, is much more objective than the others. As for a pre-emptive strike (war) to prevent attacks from any hostile source,think of it this way. If a bully were getting in your face, raising his fists, and saying he's going to punch you in the mouth, are you going to stand there and let him or are you going to hit first, hit hard, and make sure he can't come back at you? And don't tell me the analogy doesn't work because that's eesentially what Hussien had been doing for years before we finally decided to do something about it.

Will someone tell me what the patriot act is?

Will someone tell me what the patriot act is?


http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Happy reading....

The fact that you need to resort to mudslinging shows that your position is a weak one. I've watched all the news agencies at one time or another and FOX news, although not perfect, is much more objective than the others. As for a pre-emptive strike (war) to prevent attacks from any hostile source,think of it this way. If a bully were getting in your face, raising his fists, and saying he's going to punch you in the mouth, are you going to stand there and let him or are you going to hit first, hit hard, and make sure he can't come back at you? And don't tell me the analogy doesn't work because that's eesentially what Hussien had been doing for years before we finally decided to do something about it.more objective if you are among the republican sympathizers..

more objective if you are among the republican sympathizers..

Geeesh.....and CBS is more objective if you are a Democrat sympathizer? You really need to wake up. FOX news is as good as all the rest. Their interviews are slanted to the right, but news is news.

You know, US politics is interesting and all, and, well, many good debates come from it, like in this thread. Yet, I can't wait until it is over so I don't have to hear that bloody phrase 'flip-flop' again.

Geeesh.....and CBS is more objective if you are a Democrat sympathizer? You really need to wake up. FOX news is as good as all the rest. Their interviews are slanted to the right, but news is news.
no one has asserted cbs is more objective than anyone else, or is fair and balanced or is objective. NO ONE. yet i sit here and read REPEATEDLY people stating fox news is fair and balanced, and the most objective, and not slanted at all, give it up

no one has asserted cbs is more objective than anyone else, or is fair and balanced or is objective. NO ONE. yet i sit here and read REPEATEDLY people stating fox news is fair and balanced, and the most objective, and not slanted at all, give it up

News is news Chess....anyone who tries to slant it can be easily called out.

Dan Rather has admitted that the documents he used in his story are probably fake, but that the information on them is factual. WTF? How is that for spin? He is finished as a newsman.

Well, CNN was mentioned. I saw it on FOX News, ABC World News, Yahoo News, some of the Sunday morning talking heads shows... I think I even saw it on Fark.com

It was out there....

Oh, and Woody Guthrie was the composer - You asked but apparently edited that out for some reason...

Fox News, ABC World News etc. may be major news outlets to you (I take it you're American), but certainly not to most Europeans...

Oh, and I figured out the part about the composer, which is why I removed that question.

I've watched all the news agencies at one time or another and FOX news, although not perfect, is much more objective than the others..

You say this in spite of a PIPA study last year that found (incidentally, amidst the general low rating of Fox News on raw informational content) a positive correlation between attention paid to Fox News and misinformation about the Iraq war? In a word, the more attention Fox News viewers paid to the news, the more likely they were to answer one or more questions about the Iraq war wrong?

I cannot see how Fox News may be considered in any fashion better as a news source than the other major cable networks. In some cases, it is only marginally worse at providing information, this is true; however, this is particularly damning given that none of the major US commercial cable networks are very good at providing accurate informational content to viewers.