NationStates Jolt Archive

John Kerry Flip-Flops... But as an abbreviation!

Found out he was lied to;
Let Bush go to war because he was lied to;
Is being attacked for being a victim of Bush's lies;
Pleaded with Bush to actually make war a LAST resource, not a first;
-
Focused on the "how will we buy the equipment" issue;
Lives with fake accusations about his ideology;
Obviously has an actual decent plan for Iraq;
Played it Clean when Bush falsely accused him for a long while;
Started to react recently against dirty campaigning.

Now read the first letter of the sentences and you'll agree with me: Kerry flip-flops.

HOLY SWEET MERCIFUL FUCKING CRAP don't tell me that Kerry flip-flops! I have never heard that allegation before and I find it both dire and very indicitative that he should not be our president! I absolutely agree that anyone who changes their mind when they find out that the old idea was incorrect is a weak fool with no leadership.

Kindly send me some links explaining how this demonstrates that Kerry is weak and cannot be our Commander In Chief, who must be strong, stalwart, and steadfast more than anything else, obviously.

Hey you were being sarcastic too! What a nice world we live in. But next time don't force the abbrevations so hard, eh?

Ow Now! Kerry is able to change his stance on subjects! The world will end!

I get it....but it's not called an abbreviation.

John Kerry Flip-Flops... But as an abbreviation!

Found out he was lied to;
Let Bush go to war because he was lied to;
Is being attacked for being a victim of Bush's lies;
Pleaded with Bush to actually make war a LAST resource, not a first;
-
Focused on the "how will we buy the equipment" issue;
Lives with fake accusations about his ideology;
Obviously has an actual decent plan for Iraq;
Played it Clean when Bush falsely accused him for a long while;
Started to react recently against dirty campaigning.

Now read the first letter of the sentences and you'll agree with me: Kerry flip-flops.


Interesting spin. The Democrats may have a spot for you someday. I would include the Republicans in that as well, except the Republicans generally suck at politics and their spin-meisters aren't nearly as good.

Was Kerry not the one that voted for the war (and he knew full well what Bush would do, Kerry is no idiot) but voted against funding it? Isn't that backwards?


"He is currently against the war, and wouldn't have gone to war, but he used to be for the war before he was against the war he voted for before he was against it."

This is real flip flops. Not realizing your miskate and correcting it.


Bush's Flip Flops (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263)

Was Kerry not the one that voted for the war (and he knew full well what Bush would do, Kerry is no idiot) but voted against funding it? Isn't that backwards?


"He is currently against the war, and wouldn't have gone to war, but he used to be for the war before he was against the war he voted for before he was against it."

Actually no one knew what Bush would do, and many of us still don't know what Bush is going to do about Iraq. Kerry did vote for the war, but he didn't agree on how it was being carried out. Its like me and a friend of mine agree to run a business, but we have diffrent ideas on how to run it. As for the funding of our troops. There were actually TWO verison of that bills. One of them Kerry didn't like because it wasn't going to be funded properly, and the other one he did like. At least Kerry has a plan for Iraq, Bush, ehhh I dunno. More of the Same?

I get it....but it's not called an abbreviation.
Yeah, it's an acrostic. Took me forever to click on the damn thread--I've gotten so tired of this crap. Glad I didn't just jump up and start screaming. :D

Let me make it easier for NS's...intellectually less fortunate :) (j/k)

John Kerry Flip-Flops... But as an abbreviation!

Found out he was lied to;
Let Bush go to war because he was lied to;
Is being attacked for being a victim of Bush's lies;
Pleaded with Bush to actually make war a LAST resource, not a first;
-
Focused on the "how will we buy the equipment" issue;
Lives with fake accusations about his ideology;
Obviously has an actual decent plan for Iraq;
Played it Clean when Bush falsely accused him for a long while;
Started to react recently against dirty campaigning.

Now read the first letter of the sentences and you'll agree with me: Kerry flip-flops.

For the past 20 years Kerry has been weak on defense.

1) voted against every major weapon system we use today

2) voted for a nuclear freeze during the cold war

3) was a anti-war protestor in Vietnam, while he received medals he also confessed on a Late Night talk show that he razed villages and committed war crimes. They showed the clip on the news, once i find it i'll send the link.

4) He voted for the authorization of force for leverage as a empty threat, supposedly. Supposedly the authorization for the use of force "didnt actually mean" to go to war.....im hope he's not that stupid. You dont vote for something so complicated and dangerous for political leverage, thats flat out stupid and irresponsible. If you had no intention of going to war, you do not vote for the authorization of force.

5) He is a anti-war president, he's been anti-war all his life, so what qualifies him to be a good war president and bring us to victory in a war he doesnt want to participate in? How will he bring us to victory in a war he has no interest of participating in? He wouldnt even fund the war. How will he bring in more allies when "these allies" constantly hear him talk about how badly its going over there, how the war is "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time", how will he bring more allies to a "grand diversion", he's telling the world with those remarks that we have no merit, his stand is making it all the harder for our troops, the allies we have now hear his words and second themselves for helping us.....how is he going to bring more allies when the allies we already have are second guessing themselves? Its not going to happen. He cant bring more allies to a war he discredits himself.

For the past 20 years Kerry has been weak on defense.

1) voted against every major weapon system we use today

2) voted for a nuclear freeze during the cold war

3) was a anti-war protestor in Vietnam, while he received medals he also confessed on a Late Night talk show that he razed villages and committed war crimes. They showed the clip on the news, once i find it i'll send the link.

4) He voted for the authorization of force for leverage as a empty threat, supposedly. Supposedly the authorization for the use of force "didnt actually mean" to go to war.....im hope he's not that stupid. You dont vote for something so complicated and dangerous for political leverage, thats flat out stupid and irresponsible. If you had no intention of going to war, you do not vote for the authorization of force.

5) He is a anti-war president, he's been anti-war all his life, so what qualifies him to be a good war president and bring us to victory in a war he doesnt want to participate in? How will he bring us to victory in a war he has no interest of participating in? He wouldnt even fund the war. How will he bring in more allies when "these allies" constantly hear him talk about how badly its going over there, how the war is "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time", how will he bring more allies to a "grand diversion", he's telling the world with those remarks that we have no merit, his stand is making it all the harder for our troops, the allies we have now hear his words and second themselves for helping us.....how is he going to bring more allies when the allies we already have are second guessing themselves? Its not going to happen. He cant bring more allies to a war he discredits himself.


You really need to stop using Rush Limbaugh and Whitehouse.gov as your only news source. I'm too tired to argue right now, I'll play with you in the morning.

kerry's "flip flopping" is one of the BEST qualities he has over bush.
he, unlike bush, is able to change his mind when new information is presented. he immediately reasesses the situation with every bit od new info.
when something new comes up and it proves his old decision wasnt the best, he is able to switch to the truly best choice.

bush on the other hand, chooses things, and then no matter how mush new evidence there is against his decision, no matter how bad things start to look, he will shut his ears and keep on pushing, no matter how bad it hurts the world. bush need to get with the program and sto plying and stop helping hes buddies and do whats right for this country and the global community. if we had even one president that could do that everything wouldd change forever.

Some of that is true though. Thats one of the problems with Kerry (that some, like me, tried to point out in the primary) namely that he's been in so long, through such a changing political climate in America, that his Senate record is not one that lends itself well to scrutiny.

I honestly think Kerry won the nomination because enough people in Iowa played "eeny meeny miny moe" and hit on his name, to which the rest of the Dem faithful simply responded with an "ok, we'll vote for him too".

kerry's "flip flopping" is one of the BEST qualities he has over bush.
he, unlike bush, is able to change his mind when new information is presented. he immediately reasesses the situation with every bit od new info.
when something new comes up and it proves his old decision wasnt the best, he is able to switch to the truly best choice.

bush on the other hand, chooses things, and then no matter how mush new evidence there is against his decision, no matter how bad things start to look, he will shut his ears and keep on pushing, no matter how bad it hurts the world. bush need to get with the program and sto plying and stop helping hes buddies and do whats right for this country and the global community. if we had even one president that could do that everything wouldd change forever.


Thats also some interesting spin. Its bullshit of course, but interesting nonetheless.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/dewknight/FLAMEWAR.jpg

it is true that kerry doesnt have a great history, and there are a few things wrong with his history, but what we have to do here is look for the lesser of two evils. and that, in my opinon, is kerry.

PS. nader is a crackpot

it is true that kerry doesnt have a great history, and there are a few things wrong with his history, but what we have to do here is look for the lesser of two evils. and that, in my opinon, is kerry.

PS. nader is a crackpot


Its sad that you can't find something about the candidate to support except that he's not the other guy.

Bush is one of those people that'll stay in a fight no matter how big the guy is and no matter how badly he is getting beaten up.

Kerry is a guy that realizes that the guy is too big, too strong, and he doesn't stand a chance and backs down. He may be viewd as a coward but he is alive.

Bush is one of those people that'll stay in a fight no matter how big the guy is and no matter how badly he is getting beaten up.

Kerry is a guy that realizes that the guy is too big, too strong, and he doesn't stand a chance and backs down. He may be viewd as a coward but he is alive.


And which of his actions do you pull that concept from?

I'm not pulling it from anything. I'm just trying to show how sometimes being "steadfast" and "staying the course" can be a really bad thing.

I'm not pulling it from anything. I'm just trying to show how sometimes being "steadfast" and "staying the course" can be a really bad thing.


Then by all means, show us.

Well Bush did make quite a mess of Iraq... Look the point is, that sometimes when one thing don't work, and its been proven that its not working. You need to CHANGE IT! Bush refuse to change any of his decision on ANYTHING! All in the name of "Staying the course" and being "steadfest". He still has the same policy for Iraq that he had when th War started. Kerry on the other hand will change if he knows something doesn't work. He will try something else and keep on trying diffrent things until soimething works.

cough iraq cough

i want to hear the argument that bush won the debate. in fact, id love to hear it. anyone?

Then by all means, show us.


I saw something very interesting on the History Channel about the Visigoth invasion of the Roman Empire.

"The Roman Empire was feeling increasing pressure from the German tribes on its border. The German tribes were themselves suffering at the hands of the Huns. The Romans agreed to allow the Visigoths to move through Roman territory to escape the marauding Huns. Relations soon soured, however, and the Visigoths began raiding the villages in their path. Valens, the Eastern Emperor, led his army to fight the Visigoths and sent a request for help to the Western Emperor. When Valens reached Adrianople he decided to attack alone rather than waiting for the Western Army. It was a fatal mistake.

The Romans found that the Visigoths had retired behind the protection of a wagon laager. What the Romans didn't know was that the Goth cavalry was out foraging for food. A messenger was sent to bring them to the rescue. The Romans began their assault on the laager. As they were battling the barbarians they were suddenly attacked on the flank by the returning cavalry. The attack turned into a rout, and most of the army was destroyed. Emperor Valens was killed. The Battle of Adrianople was a disaster for the Romans. Aside from the tremendous loss of life it showed the barbarians that the Romans were vulnerable. Although the Eastern Empire would endure for many centuries the Western Empire was doomed. The long, slow slide into oblivion accelerated, and the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD. "

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/adrianople/adrianople.html

Classic story of shotty intel, staying the course regardless of how screwed you are, and going it alone.

Well Bush did make quite a mess of Iraq... Look the point is, that sometimes when one thing don't work, and its been proven that its not working. You need to CHANGE IT! Bush refuse to change any of his decision on ANYTHING! All in the name of "Staying the course" and being "steadfest". He still has the same policy for Iraq that he had when th War started. Kerry on the other hand will change if he knows something doesn't work. He will try something else and keep on trying diffrent things until soimething works.


And once again what do you base that on? And how do you come to the conclusion that Iraq is a mess necessarily? Everyone in the administration stated violence will increase as the election comes closer, and as the election draws closer violence has increased. What has Kerry provided as an alternative besides bringing other nations into a conflict that he decries every day?

I love Kerry's plan to bring other countries in btw. The war is a mistake and a "grand diversion" and should never have been fought, but please won't you join us?

at 230 AM i have not the brainpower to decipher your complex metaphor about current events... if that even is a metaphor, and not just a random insertion into the conversation

I saw something very interesting on the History Channel about the Visigoth invasion of the Roman Empire.

"The Roman Empire was feeling increasing pressure from the German tribes on its border. The German tribes were themselves suffering at the hands of the Huns. The Romans agreed to allow the Visigoths to move through Roman territory to escape the marauding Huns. Relations soon soured, however, and the Visigoths began raiding the villages in their path. Valens, the Eastern Emperor, led his army to fight the Visigoths and sent a request for help to the Western Emperor. When Valens reached Adrianople he decided to attack alone rather than waiting for the Western Army. It was a fatal mistake.

The Romans found that the Visigoths had retired behind the protection of a wagon laager. What the Romans didn't know was that the Goth cavalry was out foraging for food. A messenger was sent to bring them to the rescue. The Romans began their assault on the laager. As they were battling the barbarians they were suddenly attacked on the flank by the returning cavalry. The attack turned into a rout, and most of the army was destroyed. Emperor Valens was killed. The Battle of Adrianople was a disaster for the Romans. Aside from the tremendous loss of life it showed the barbarians that the Romans were vulnerable. Although the Eastern Empire would endure for many centuries the Western Empire was doomed. The long, slow slide into oblivion accelerated, and the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD. "

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/adrianople/adrianople.html

Classic story of shotty intel, staying the course regardless of how screwed you are, and going it alone.


Not exactly a case of "staying the course." Valens refused to wait for reinforcements and decided to attack. If this is proving your point its a huge stretch at the least.

ps, there is nothing presidential about Bush's continual come back of "i dont know, but it doesnt matter youre a flip-flopper".

is this not the political equivalent of "i am rubber, you are glue." ?

I never heard Kerry say it was a miskate, or Grand Diverison. That was Bush. Kerry did vote for the War but the way it was carried out he didn't like. I actually like the bringing our allies back to the table. Right now, we are seen as an occupier in Iraq. We are a nation occupying another nation. That is what hurting us in the global community. If we bring other countries to the table, and they move into Iraq. It will seem like a global force, a global effort instead of one nation occupying another. Also, people like to think we can do anything and everything on our own. I know that, I'm like that sometimes. Countries can be like that too. But you know what, doing stuff on your own rarely works out. Having support of friends, family etc will benefit you greatly. Having other countries help us out with Iraq, will benefit us greatly.

I never heard Kerry say it was a miskate, or Grand Diverison. That was Bush. Kerry did vote for the War but the way it was carried out he didn't like. I actually like the bringing our allies back to the table. Right now, we are seen as an occupier in Iraq. We are a nation occupying another nation. That is what hurting us in the global community. If we bring other countries to the table, and they move into Iraq. It will seem like a global force, a global effort instead of one nation occupying another. Also, people like to think we can do anything and everything on our own. I know that, I'm like that sometimes. Countries can be like that too. But you know what, doing stuff on your own rarely works out. Having support of friends, family etc will benefit you greatly. Having other countries help us out with Iraq, will benefit us greatly.


You've never heard Kerry say that! Wow ok... its been a mainstay of his campaign since Clinton yelled at him. But anyway...

good, all my comments are being ignored. thank you greatly. good night.

Not exactly a case of "staying the course." Valens refused to wait for reinforcements and decided to attack. If this is proving your point its a huge stretch at the least.

Valens saw the Visigoth cavalry cut through his ranks, but instead of falling back he decided to duke it out anyways. 2/3 of the Roman army in the east was destroyed because of it.

Of course with better intel they would have known that there were alot of Visigoths in the area, and if Valens wasn't so intent on hogging the glory and would have waited, he would have won.

This exact scenario can be applied to the current situation in Iraq. Shotty intel, underestimation of the enemy's forces, going it alone, wanting all the glory, etc.

Also goes in tune with the old saying "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it".

Valens saw the Visigoth cavalry cut through his ranks, but instead of falling back he decided to duke it out anyways. 2/3 of the Roman army in the east was destroyed because of it.

Of course with better intel they would have known that there were alot of Visigoths in the area, and if Valens wasn't so intent on hogging the glory and would have waited, he would have won.

This exact scenario can be applied to the current situation in Iraq. Shotty intel, underestimation of the enemy's forces, going it alone, wanting all the glory, etc.

Also goes in tune with the old saying "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it".


Ummm... so the Iraqi cavalry is out foraging right now or...?

i want to hear the argument that bush won the debate. in fact, id love to hear it. anyone?

Ahh you would usually get something like

Hes common folk. (Insert Southern accent)

Which to be honest I don't want any "common folk" to run this country.

Plus I heard some old ladies saying he looks good in a suit. Yea so does a Chimp.

Its sad that you can't find something about the candidate to support except that he's not the other guy.

im sorry but i dont need to relay everything i like better about kerry than i do of bush, but i dont think this is what this thread is about, so i wont go into that. if you really want to see why hes better go to one of the hundreds upon hundreds of websites devoted to kerry.

also, im not "for kerry". im entirely and completely "against bush". i only want kerry to win nov 2nd because he ISNT bush. bush is a horrible security threat to this nation and the best thing he can to in the interest of "homeland security" is kick himself the hell out.

p.s. this is my other nation. i usually post w/this one, and not grogton.

Ahh you would usually get something like

Hes common folk. (Insert Southern accent)

Which to be honest I don't want any "common folk" to run this country.

Plus I heard some old ladies saying he looks good in a suit. Yea so does a Chimp.

And Bush kinda looks like a Chimp....

Curious George and the Weapons of Mass Destruction

im sorry but i dont need to relay everything i like better about kerry than i do of bush, but i dont think this is what this thread is about, so i wont go into that. if you really want to see why hes better go to one of the hundreds upon hundreds of websites devoted to kerry.

also, im not "for kerry". im entirely and completely "against bush". i only want kerry to win nov 2nd because he ISNT bush. bush is a horrible security threat to this nation and the best thing he can to in the interest of "homeland security" is kick himself the hell out.

p.s. this is my other nation. i usually post w/this one, and not grogton.


Yeah see thats exactly my point

And Bush kinda looks like a Chimp....

Curious George and the Weapons of Mass Destruction

So THAT what Chaney reads to Bush when its story time.

Ummm... so the Iraqi cavalry is out foraging right now or...?


:sigh:

Can't draw the connections, eh?

Put the past scenario into modern circumstances. Instead of cavalry think terrorists or other insurgents form other nations. Jeez man, think a little.

:sigh:

Can't draw the connections, eh?

Put the past scenario into modern circumstances. Instead of cavalry think terrorists or other insurgents form other nations. Jeez man, think a little.

Speaking of thinking, did anyone catch tonight's 10/2/01 Saturday Night Live Skit of the debate? LOL!

Who cares if he flip flops trip hops dip dops clip clops - hes gotta be better than bush.

Who cares if he flip flops trip hops dip dops clip clops - hes gotta be better than bush.

EXACTLY

:sigh:

Can't draw the connections, eh?

Put the past scenario into modern circumstances. Instead of cavalry think terrorists or other insurgents form other nations. Jeez man, think a little.

LOL see thats my point that you've missed entirely. It doesn't fit.

LOL see thats my point that you've missed entirely. It doesn't fit.

just because they arent REALLY cavalry doesnt mean that you cant use the analogy. use your head.

just because they arent REALLY cavalry doesnt mean that you cant use the analogy. use your head.

God I really don't want to get into all the reasons why the battle of Adrianople doesn't fit with the situation in Iraq. It just doesn't, and its really not an example on how staying the course is disasterous. Just because you came up with a historical situation that if you stretch and distort sorta fits does not make it a good analogy.

Watch less history channel, ready more Bury.

LOL see thats my point that you've missed entirely. It doesn't fit.

:facepalm:

It fits perfectly, you're just not using your head.

The US goes into Iraq by itself with shotty intel. Mass insurgencies take place, and more terrorists pour in from across the borders, and then we realize that there is more of a problem than we originally thought. The US doesn't have nearly enough troops to secure Iraq especially without waiting for more support, and eventually it's going to get to the point where we are going to be overwhelmed if civil war breaks out. But regardless we stay the course regardless of how hopeless the situation is. And what happens from there? Who knows. The whole middle east may become one giant warzone.

Now, doesn't that sound almost exactly like what happened in 360-370's? Well, maybe not to you, but to those of us who have critical thinking skills it does.

Watch less history channel, ready more Bury.


LOL, I forgot, they just make shit up. :rolleyes:

:facepalm:

It fits perfectly, you're just not using your head.

The US goes into Iraq by itself with shotty intel. Mass insurgencies take place, and more terrorists pour in from across the borders, and then we realize that there is more of a problem than we originally thought. The US doesn't have nearly enough troops to secure Iraq especially without waiting for more support, and eventually it's going to get to the point where we are going to be overwhelmed if civil war breaks out. But regardless we stay the course regardless of how hopeless the situation is. And what happens from there? Who knows. The whole middle east may become one giant warzone.

Now, doesn't that sound almost exactly like what happened in 350-360's? Well, maybe not to you, but to those of us who have critical thinking skills it does.

And how does that sound like Adrianople, where:

Valens had more than enough troops to overwhelm the enemy forces, and as such decided not to wait for reinforcements and take the glory for himself. Unbeknownst to him, the enemy cavalry had left to gather supplies. Valens gathered his forces, attacked the enemy ranks, and started to scatter them and generally win a victory. The cavalry returned as the forces were mopping up and flanked the Roman forces and scattered them as they were in dissaray generally kicking ass. The Romans, caught completely by surprise, began a panicked retreat in which Valens himself was killed.

Now as far as Iraq goes, the situation is far more complex than what you have put forth and I really have no desire to get into it here, and anyway this is a stupid subject, analyzing how Adrianople can be fitted to Iraq.

And Bush kinda looks like a Chimp....

Curious George and the Weapons of Mass Destruction

Don't be insulting Curious George! ;)

And how does that sound like Adrianople, where:

Valens had more than enough troops to overwhelm the enemy forces, and as such decided not to wait for reinforcements and take the glory for himself. Unbeknownst to him, the enemy cavalry had left to gather supplies. Valens gathered his forces, attacked the enemy ranks, and started to scatter them and generally win a victory. The cavalry returned as the forces were mopping up and flanked the Roman forces and scattered them as they were in dissaray generally kicking ass. The Romans, caught completely by surprise, began a panicked retreat in which Valens himself was killed.

Now as far as Iraq goes, the situation is far more complex than what you have put forth and I really have no desire to get into it here, and anyway this is a stupid subject, analyzing how Adrianople can be fitted to Iraq.

The US had more than enough troops to overwhelm Saddam's forces, and as such decided not to wait for the UN or other allies and take the glory for themselves. Unbeknownst to the US, insurgents and terrorists had gathered supplies. The US gathered it's forces, attacked Saddam's ranks, and started to scatter them and generally win a victory. The insurgents and terrorists returned as the US was moping up and began attacking them daily as they were in dissary and generally kicking ass.

Well, you see where this is going.

The US had more than enough troops to overwhelm Saddam's forces, and as such decided not to wait for the UN or other allies and take the glory for themselves. Unbeknownst to the US, insurgents and terrorists had gathered supplies. The US gathered it's forces, attacked Saddam's ranks, and started to scatter them and generally win a victory. The insurgents and terrorists returned as the US was moping up and began attacking them daily as they were in dissary and generally kicking ass.

Well, you see where this is going.

Since you insist on using this stupid Adrianople analogy:


Except the insurgents aren't all attacking the US. The Iraqi population is splintered amoung local tribal and familial groups, and much of the fighting is between these groups ending old grudges and struggling for power. Various civil wars have already broken out within the country, the first between Al Kut and Nassiriyah. As the Bathists were removed from power, in fact even before Baghdad was captured, Iran attempted to step into the vaccuum left behind and began funneling agents across the border attempting to create another Shia led theocracy.

In the end, what you have are multiple battles going on between multiple groups with varying aims and goals, not all of whom emerged after fighting was over. As far as recent violence, obviously as the election draws closer these groups have a chance to grab a greater portion of the legitimate government, but plan on doing so through the use of intimidation and violence.

So, in the end, to say this is a replay of Adrianople is just plain wrong. But anyway, continue to use the analogy and throw chilidish insults at me if you must. You should feel rpoud of yourself though for remembering such a historic battle, though its probably just something you saw on TV. In the future though, try to make tighter analogies, not just try to sound smart because you know something from history.

I'm not saying it played out moment for moment, I'm saying that there are lessons that can be learned from the past and applied to today's events. Situations like this have happened before in the past, maybe not note for note, but history does have a tendancy to repeat itself in certain fashions. Mighty empires have been crushed by 'inferior' hoards before, it's only a matter of time before it happens again. I just happen to think that Bush has done something very wrong and nobody knows exactly what is going to happen.

Lessons learned my friend, lessons learned.

And how does that sound like Adrianople, where:

Valens had more than enough troops to overwhelm the enemy forces, and as such decided not to wait for reinforcements and take the glory for himself. Unbeknownst to him, the enemy cavalry had left to gather supplies. Valens gathered his forces, attacked the enemy ranks, and started to scatter them and generally win a victory. The cavalry returned as the forces were mopping up and flanked the Roman forces and scattered them as they were in dissaray generally kicking ass. The Romans, caught completely by surprise, began a panicked retreat in which Valens himself was killed.

Now as far as Iraq goes, the situation is far more complex than what you have put forth and I really have no desire to get into it here, and anyway this is a stupid subject, analyzing how Adrianople can be fitted to Iraq.

Don't you realize that it fits even more the way your put it, fellah?

We had more than enough military to take out Iraq's government, so we decided to attack for ourselves (almost certainly because, in part, Bush wanted acclaim/revenge/glory). We won the early war. Unbeknownst to the Administration, however, our troops were not welcomed with flowers, and instead we find that many violent Arabs who had not been able to attack us before coming in from all over and killing troops.

The main difference is that, instead of being rapidly destroyed, we're only slowly losing ground. But we sure as hell aren't gaining it.

How is the situation different? We win at first, then get overwhelmed by reinforcements we had not expected. Same damn thing. And it's not like I agree with AMF on something every day ;)

John Kerry Flip-Flops... But as an abbreviation!

Found out he was lied to;
Let Bush go to war because he was lied to;
Is being attacked for being a victim of Bush's lies;
Pleaded with Bush to actually make war a LAST resource, not a first;
-
Focused on the "how will we buy the equipment" issue;
Lives with fake accusations about his ideology;
Obviously has an actual decent plan for Iraq;
Played it Clean when Bush falsely accused him for a long while;
Started to react recently against dirty campaigning.

Now read the first letter of the sentences and you'll agree with me: Kerry flip-flops.

Kerry flip flops because he changes his stance based on public opinion. Is this really a bad thing? Is it bad shaping your views based on what the public wants?

And it's not like I agree with AMF on something every day ;)


Oh God!

:faints:

George (I will get Osama by way of Iraq) Bush is the King of Flip Flops.

I try, I really really try to not assume that Bush supporters are comprised primarily of idiots, but sometimes my jaw drops and I just have to assume that "Bushies" are missing a chromosome somewhere.

Watch less History Channel? What better way to be a knoledgable person about politicas and human nature than to study what human nature has done with events time and time again since time immemorial? Fox News? No, since studies have shown that those who watch Fox News are generally less accurate about current events than those who do not. I don't know if it's the fact that Fox News disseminates disinformation, or that those who are misinformed generally find themselves drawn to Fox News, but something fishy is happening.

Oh and here's a lovely Fox gem for all you hard core Bush fans out there.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10947382^13762,00.html