|
Post by genesda on Mar 19, 2004 6:27:09 GMT -5
That shortly after the 1st Gulf War that it was recognized that we shouldn't get bogged down in what is essentially an Iraqi problem. You forget quickly. The first Gulf war was a U.N. sanctioned event. The directive was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. No more. 9/11 changed all of that. You shouldn't try to make comparrisons between the '91 war and the present day events. One has nothing to do with the other. If the U.N were allowed to run things now, we'd still be pkmtyolping resolutions that mean nothing instead of taking actions. The U.N. has no teeth unless the USA gives them teeth, and is irrevelent in solving world matters. The U.N. has no backbone and this is who Kerry wants us to subject to. Some of the things in your '91 speech were things that were SUPPOSED to happen and didn't. The U.N inspectors were a joke. It is a known fact that inspections were after advance notice and as the inspectors were going in the front door, trucks were leaving from the back door with materials Saddam didn't want them to find. Is this ineptness what you want protecting you? Kerry is a disaster waiting to happen. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 19, 2004 6:42:24 GMT -5
Voters Rights for Blacks, Medicare/Medicaid, Peace Corp...all "vile and destructive". Medicare is about to go bankrupt from mismanagement, corruption and fraud. All people should be able to vote IF they are aware of what they're voting for. Unfortunately, many vote in blocks because they don't know lies from reality. [/color] Sad that you know nothing of what a libertarian stands for.... I'm aware of a few such as legalized drug use, no taxes whatsoever. At least, this is what I've heard them speaking of. It's a strange view. [/color] Actually, I'm considered an expert in my field. I also have considerable knowledge on National Defense. Then you should bw aware that Kerry would be a disaster, and considered as an expert by who? [/color] As with most bullies, it may turn out to be alot of bluff and blunder on Saddam's part. The if we were wrong, we have to blame those, such as Kerry, for weakening our intelligence gathering capabilites. [/color] One would assume that you would detest all liars, not just liberal ones! Yes, especially those who are given the trust of the american people. [/color] Than you have more information than the President does since even they admit they do not have a direct link to 9/11 and Saddam. What is the airliner doing at Salmen Pak? are they training stewardesses there? A defector told us that terrorists were training there for hijacking airliners. Remember 9/11? [/color] If Kerry wins, it proves the democratic process works. No, it would prove the majority of people in america don't have a clue as to what the truth is and all they accept is the lies told to them by liberals. Whether you like Bush or not, he's the only one who is willing to stop terrorism at this point in time. I wish only those who think terrorists can be bargined with would be the ones to suffer from their acts. Maybe liberals would have an eye opener and get on with reality instead of the foolish notions they now harbor. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 19, 2004 7:01:09 GMT -5
You would prefer that the right of voting be limited to a certain intellectual level? And how would you determine that? There used to be testing. I believe the USA should go back to testing the knowledge of how government works according to the U.S.Constitution before one can vote. I also don't believe those who pay no taxes should be able to vote in matters of taxation. [/color][/quote] Testing? So only those with a certain IQ level would be allowed to vote? And of course with that IQ level, they would have a level of understanding that would qualify them to vote. And of course with this understanding, they would never support such liberal causes as say Civil Rights. Is this how you view it?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 19, 2004 7:06:52 GMT -5
Testing? So only those with a certain IQ level would be allowed to vote? And of course with that IQ level, they would have a level of understanding that would qualify them to vote. And of course with this understanding, they would never support such liberal causes as say Civil Rights. Is this how you view it? Let me ask you this question which should answer your question. Should we empty the mental institutions on voting day and bring them to the voting booth so they can vote? After all, shouldn't this be their right too? The facts are that if one doesn't have a clue as to what they're voting for, the country would be better off if they just stayed home. Unfortunately, many millions of people don't have a clue and only vote for the one recomended to them by their local political leaders, so are the individuals voting, or is it the local political leaders are casting many votes? Are you going to deny this? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 19, 2004 7:16:39 GMT -5
[/color][/quote] Yes, but if George Sr. saw the folly and danger of going into Iraq to take out Saddam. [/color][/quote] Then why were plans to invade Iraq being made as early as February 2001. The Bush cabinet didn't even discuss Al Queda unti 9/4/01. [/color][/quote] Actually the reasons for Saddams actions in '91 was cited as the impetus for the pre-emptive strike. [/color][/quote] Yes, Mr Bush has made it quite clear that he believes the UN is irrelevant. As far as Mr Kerry's position for the US to be subjucated to the UN, show me where he has stated this. [/color][/quote] So you would prefer that the US be the "world police man"? [/color][/quote] Perhaps, but as the US soldier body count rises, as a Christian, I would hope that there is a better way.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 19, 2004 7:37:40 GMT -5
[/color] Then why were plans to invade Iraq being made as early as February 2001. The Bush cabinet didn't even discuss Al Queda unti 9/4/01. contingency plans are always on the drawing board. This is called "preparation" in the event of a need for quick action. Saddam was a threat long before 9/11, so it is viligent to be prepared. If you don't understand this, I have to doubt your self proclaimed "expertise". [/color] Actually the reasons for Saddams actions in '91 was cited as the impetus for the pre-emptive strike. Yes, since he ignored resolution after resolution pkmtyolped by Kerry's U.N. hero's. Remember #1441. There was a cease fire in Iraq, not an end in'91. What I do know is that 9/11 changed everything. [/color] Yes, Mr Bush has made it quite clear that he believes the UN is irrelevant. As far as Mr Kerry's position for the US to be subjucated to the UN, show me where he has stated this. Yes, he made that truth quite clear. Kerry constandly speaks of, I can't recall the word, but it means doing nothing until there is a world consensus. He has said this many times and still says this. [/color] So you would prefer that the US be the "world police man"? Just when it comes to protecting America. Americans have always been the ones ready to sacrifice for our freedom. Freedom isn't free. Sometimes blood is necessary to preserve it. What I do wish is that it would always be the other guy's blood and not our brave young men who shed it. [/color] Perhaps, but as the US soldier body count rises, as a Christian, I would hope that there is a better way. As do I, but unfortunately, there isn't at this time. Do you understand that these criminals in the middle east want to kill you just because you're an american? Should the world convert to their religious beliefs so they will not harm us? What is your anwer? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 19, 2004 7:40:01 GMT -5
Medicare is about to go bankrupt from mismanagement, corruption and fraud. All people should be able to vote IF they are aware of what they're voting for. Unfortunately, many vote in blocks because they don't know lies from reality. [/color][/quote] But let's look at where the corruption of Medicare is coming from...large drug companies, health insurers ans so on. I cringed at your response for voters. The reasons you used were the same one's from the 50's and 60's to not allow blacks to vote. Is that how you feel? BTW, the state I live in did away with the "party-line" lever years ago. [/color][/quote] So you really don't know. To simplyify it for you, I won't infringe on your right to an opinion as long as you don't infringe on my right to an opinion. And we all follow the SAME rule of law. [/color][/quote] Not necessarily. I heard the same thing during the Clinton administration. There was actually an increase in spending for the defense industry during that period. As far as expert, I'll leave it with DoD. [/color][/quote] That's actually a myth. Our intelligence weakness is more in how our goverment employee system workss. We do not have enough analyst on the payroll. And when they do become qualified, it is more lucrative to go to the private sector. [/color][/quote] So you admit that liars come from both the conservative and liberal and the middle? [/color][/quote] I have a personal connection to the events of 9/11, it is unlikely I'll ever forget it. Since the majority of terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, I would like to know why the Bush administartion provide a plane to fly Saudi nationals back to Saudi Arabia 2 days after 9/11. [/color][/quote] As you've already stated, liars are not only liberal. [/color][/quote] Liking is immaterial in politics. It comes down to honesty and trust.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 19, 2004 8:01:22 GMT -5
[/color][/quote] Why couldn't George Jr. [/color][/quote] Where are the plans to invade N. Korea? Or how about Saudi Arabia? This had nothing to do with contigency. As far as you doubting my expertise, that is your perogative. Why should you believe me? You haven't in the past, so why start now. [/color][/quote] Ceasefire? Someone better tel Norman Schwartzkof(sp?). He's the one that accepted the terms of surrender.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 19, 2004 8:46:56 GMT -5
Why couldn't George Jr. Where are the plans to invade N. Korea? Or how about Saudi Arabia? This had nothing to do with contigency. As far as you doubting my expertise, that is your perogative. Why should you believe me? You haven't in the past, so why start now. Ceasefire? Someone better tel Norman Schwartzkof(sp?). He's the one that accepted the terms of surrender. Yes, there was a surrender of Kuwait, but not an end of the war. There was a cease fire agreement. We agreed tyo stop killing them if they observed certain terms.
The topic here is Kerry. Let's look at some of your hero's statements:
John Kerry, Bush's Advisor On Iraq by David Freddoso Posted Mar 16, 2004 Sen. John Kerry (D.-pkmtyolm.) has been all over the map on the topic of the Iraq War. In October 2002, he voted for the Iraq war resolution. Later, assaulted from his left on the campaign trail, he changed his mind, declaring that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, even stating that Bush "rushed to war against our warnings."
When confronted with his vote in favor of the war, Kerry has flip-flopped back, retreating to this position, which he gave this month to a reporter from Time: "I might have gone to war but not the way the President did."
Is that so? It sounds reasonable enough. But in fact we don’t have to rely on any such guesswork: we have a way of knowing exactly what Kerry would have done, had he been president.
On September 6, 2002, Kerry laid out a very specific plan for dealing with Iraq in an op-ed in the New York Times. And looking back now at that op-ed, it almost appears that Bush took his advice, step by step, through the entire process.
It is not unfair to hold Kerry to what he said, especially considering his comments to Time Magazine this month: “I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced. It was clear. It was precise. It was, in fact, prescient. It was ahead of the curve about what the difficulties were. And that is precisely what a President is supposed to be. I think I was right, 100% correct, about how you should have done Iraq.”
So what did Kerry suggest? On September 6, 2002, he wrote: "For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case."
This the administration did, and it received the support of Kerry and most others in Congress.
"Then," Kerry continued, "in concert with our allies, [the administration] must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council."
Again, exactly what Bush did in November 2002 by bringing resolution 1441 to the Security Council, giving Iraq a full four months to disarm completely and give inspectors proof thereof. The resolution pkmtyolped unanimously.
Kerry's advice continued: "We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating."
This ultimatum was given, and at first Saddam appeared to blink. UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team returned to Iraq.
But they did not receive cooperation "without negotiation or compromise." To the contrary, as The New York Times reported on January 31, 2003: "Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday."
Even Blix, no fan of the war, knew at that point that the inspection process had failed, in spite of Hussein's public destruction of a few missiles he supposedly never had to begin with. In the following weeks, Hussein even made new demands of the UN--in other words, "negotiation and compromise," anathema to the Kerry plan.
But Kerry had foreseen this possiblity as well: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
And wouldn't you know it, that's exactly how things unfolded. Before any vote had been taken, unilateralist John Kerry had already endorsed everything Bush ended up doing, from start to finish.
Nor can Kerry claim he was fooled by sexed-up intelligence from the Bush administration about WMD. He is on the record talking about Iraq's WMD threat in 1998, when he said, simply, "Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of pkmtyolm destruction." As early as 1990, he stated in the Senate that "Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program."
One might believe that the Iraq War was a bad idea. Still, John Kerry is definitely in no position to criticize anyone for anything--he could practically be the author and architect of the Bush plan.
His constantly shifting position since then, though enigmatic to some, is easily explained in three words: transparent political opportunism. David Freddoso is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS. Register now to receive insider reports, news updates and special offers.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by donkeydude on Mar 19, 2004 16:36:14 GMT -5
You would prefer that the right of voting be limited to a certain intellectual level? And how would you determine that? There used to be testing. I believe the USA should go back to testing the knowledge of how government works according to the U.S.Constitution before one can vote. I also don't believe those who pay no taxes should be able to vote in matters of taxation. [/color][/quote] Wow, you really are looney! The laws you are refering to (Jim Crow Laws) are meant to to keep African Americans from voting. I used to think you were just brain washed and set in your ways, but wow...you're just CRAZY!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Mar 19, 2004 23:37:21 GMT -5
Yes, there was a surrender of Kuwait, but not an end of the war. There was a cease fire agreement. We agreed tyo stop killing them if they observed certain terms.
The topic here is Kerry. Let's look at some of your hero's statements:
John Kerry, Bush's Advisor On Iraq by David Freddoso Posted Mar 16, 2004 [/color][/quote] I guess we can trade stories from different political hacks, but that would be counter-productive.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 23, 2004 5:58:26 GMT -5
Wow, you really are looney! The laws you are refering to (Jim Crow Laws) are meant to to keep African Americans from voting. I used to think you were just brain washed and set in your ways, but wow...you're just CRAZY! Jim Crow? Testing went out in the '60's. It's attitudes like yours that is bringing this country down. What I call for is a voting public that really knows what they're voting for. If that's crazy, I'm o.k. with that. Why don't you address the question about bring the mental patients out to vote? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 23, 2004 6:02:41 GMT -5
Wow, you really are looney! The laws you are refering to (Jim Crow Laws) are meant to to keep African Americans from voting. I used to think you were just brain washed and set in your ways, but wow...you're just CRAZY! From some of your past posts, it's easy to see why you'd think stopping people who pay no taxes from being allowed to vote on matters of taxation would be bad. That is precisely why we have the unfair income tax system of today. Greedy people who wouldn't have to pay the income tax were allowed to vote the income tax on those who would have to pay it. That is immoral, in case you can'r realize it. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 23, 2004 6:04:02 GMT -5
I guess we can trade stories from different political hacks, but that would be counter-productive. Sure, and you can deny facts with replies such as the above too. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 23, 2004 8:59:57 GMT -5
Wow, you really are looney! The laws you are refering to (Jim Crow Laws) are meant to to keep African Americans from voting. I used to think you were just brain washed and set in your ways, but wow...you're just CRAZY! Bullitin!!!! John Kerry buys jockstrap!!!!
This from a man who never shops for himself, (unless the camera's are rolling).
[/color]
|
|