John Kerry's Iraq speech: Your reaction

[amadeus]

I highly doubt that. And just because the poeple support him doesn't mean the goverments will. I doubt France and Germany will just drop their postions and Come running to the aid to America in Iraq as soon as John Kerry is elected.

Right.

Chirac faced opposition from both the left-wing and the hyper-hypernationalists. Taking any pro-U.S. stance would mean the end of his presidency. de Gaulle did it, Mitterand did it, and now Chirac is doing it.

Schroder made anti-U.S. ranting his campaign for Chancellor, so if he turns his back on that, like he has on so many of his domestic policy statements, he's even more dead.

 

[MarineCorps]

Kerry has some nice things on Education along with sciences.


Offer 3.5 Million After-School Opportunities Through "School's Open 'Til Six"
John Kerry and John Edwards are strong supporters of after-school programs. They give students extra help, keep them out of trouble, and offer peace of mind to working parents. The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children.

Thats gonna cost a pretty penny.

 

[knowltok2]

Kerry has some nice things on Education along with sciences.

Whoopitie doo. They all wax poetically about what they will do about education. Doesn't mean they will do anything about it.

including fast, fair ways to make sure that teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there.

Like to see him get anything resembling this beyond the teacher's unions.

 

[Azadre]

Thats gonna cost a pretty penny.

Will it? We had it before Bush jr. These existed pre-2001.

 

[Strider]

Will it? We had it before Bush jr. These existed pre-2001.

They were state funded I believe.

 

[Azadre]

They were state funded I believe.

However, the tax burden was placed upon the State government due to George Bush's policies.

 

[yoshi74]

1) If everyone knew it, then why did everyone still agree?

Tell me, you're the one following a proven liar. To give him more chances for more lies?

Of course Bush lied, I never said he didn't. He did exactly what he had to do, same thing with Nixon/Johnson with the Vietnam war. They lied, because they had to.

IIRC the vietnam war wasn't the proudest part of your history, nor did the US gain much from it. Not much excepts thousend of dead soldiers.
Its funny that you mention Nixon/Johnson in the context of Bush.
Just tell me and everyone here where the interest of the US was at this time in vietnam, and what they really achived with this bloody war? .

What makes Bush so great? He sticks up for American interests, he's iron-willed, and he's willing to fight terrorism no matter the cost.

Yes, no matter of the cost.
No matter how many americans die in this war.
No matter how much money is spend for this war.
No matter how much international relations were damaged for this war.
No matter how much new terrorism is created.
No matter of the costs, even when the costs are higher than the original damage.
No matter at long as there is some ass kicking which makes your nation feel good and proud.
No matter...

It is much better to know there were not any WMD's, than to find out after Isreal had been nuked.

There are some other ways to find WMDs. Having people from the UN search them. The fact that they didn't find any could be a proof that there are no. Going gun blazing in after claiming to know THAT there are some and to know WHERE they are and then finding nothing is more then stupid.
How would you react when the police storms your house and shoots your family, because they thought you had some drugs? There is a good reason why the police has strict rules and you some civil rights against police harassment. Shouldn't the world policy stick to the same rules. Doesn't have other states the same rights you have and defend (i think the right to have arms in america is also to prevent such things).
Think about it. And don't turn the rights always in your favor.

 

[Strider]

Tell me, you're the one following a proven liar. To give him more chances for more lies?

IIRC the vietnam war wasn't the proudest part of your history, nor did the US gain much from it. Not much excepts thousend of dead soldiers.
Its funny that you mention Nixon/Johnson in the context of Bush.
Just tell me and everyone here where the interest of the US was at this time in vietnam, and what they really achived with this bloody war? .

Yes, no matter of the cost.
No matter how many americans die in this war.
No matter how much money is spend for this war.
No matter how much international relations were damaged for this war, afterall how can we expect them to understand?
No matter how much new terrorism is created.
No matter of the costs, even when the costs are higher than the original damage.
No matter at long as there is some ass kicking which makes your nation feel good and proud.
No matter...

There are some other ways to find WMDs. Having people from the UN search them. The fact that they didn't find any could be a proof that there are no. Going gun blazing in after claiming to know THAT there are some and to know WHERE they are and then finding nothing is more then stupid.
How would you react when the police storms your house and shoots your family, because they thought you had some drugs? There is a good reason why the police has strict rules and you some civil rights against police harassment. Shouldn't the world policy stick to the same rules. Doesn't have other states the same rights you have and defend (i think the right to have arms in america is also to prevent such things).
Think about it. And don't turn the rights always in your favor.

Proven liar? May I point out that Kerry is also a proven liar?

What did they really achieve? Nothing. They hoped to achieve something, but failed.

Yes, no matter of the cost.
No matter how many americans die heros in this war.
No matter how much money is spend for this war.
No matter how much international relations were damaged for this war, after all how can we expect them to understand?
No matter how much new terrorism is destroyed.
No matter how many people die, for each of there deaths that save hundreds.
No matter as long as we get our revenge.
No matter...

 

[zeon252]

Final conclusion: I'd rather have a flip flopper than a liar.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, no matter of the cost.

Are you prepared to pay the cost of FAILURE ?

"I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."
- General Joseph Hoar - former head of the Marine Corps

 

[luiz]

Why did he vote FOR the war, then?

And no, a US Senator cannot say that he was "mislead by faulty information". A man in his position has the duty to analise carefuly all information presented, and take the consequence for his actions. What Kerry is doing is pathetic.

Now Dean, he opposed the war from the start. He should have beign the Democratic nominee, not two-faced Kerry.

 

[amadeus]

Why did he vote FOR the war, then?

So he'd have something to vote against a few months later.

 

[yoshi74]

What did they really achieve? Nothing. They hoped to achieve something, but failed.

So it is o.k. to start a war and waste thousends of lives(millions when you count the vietnamese victims, but then i doubt those count for you) just for the hope to achive something. Every war hopes to achive something. And most wars fail in it. Its NOT a sign of political and strategical judgement to start a war with some hopes. Every fool can do it.

No matter how many americans die heros in this war.

I hope the mothers, wifes and childs of this american heroes look at this in the same way. But somehow i doubt it.

No matter how much money is spend for this war.

Well, its your money. Not that you pay much taxes, but even when. Its your money. Not that it couldn't spend for many other better things. But hey, i wont tell you how to spend you're money. As long as you don't insist that i spend my money to join your lost cause.

No matter how much international relations were damaged for this war.

Well, not surprisigly. American supremacy at its best. Anyway, i said enough on this topic...

No matter how much new terrorism is destroyed.

Not when the terrorist you kill are created by this crusade against the terrorism. It sounds like the warrior who fights the hydra. No matter how many new heads i chop off, he says. But for every head he chops off two new grow. But no matter, as long as there is some chopping.

No matter how many people die, for each of there deaths that save hundreds.

A bold word, yet to be proven. The fires you created in iraq costs much more lifes than saddam could kill at his used pace till the end of life. Your statement is idealistic, but as far from reality as it could be.

No matter as long as we get our revenge.

At least we come to the point. Revenge. Too bad that you hit the wrong people. Osama and his bunch are still around. But why not take revenge on Saddam, he's a bad guy anyway. Thousends of killed iraqi people. But hey, they are all terrorists, why else would they fight against us, the arm of peace with build-in righteous. At least we have over revenge.
Too bad that thousends of people in the muslim world thing exacly the same way. They wan't revenge for your revenge. But hey, where is the problem. That way you can get even more revenge for the revenge of the revenge. Ah well... revenge, so sweet, so satisfationed, so stupid.

Btw. you missed to answer the last part of my post. I will not be nit-picking, but i'am quite curios for your answer, so i repeat myself:

There are some other ways to find WMDs. Having people from the UN search them. The fact that they didn't find any could be a proof that there are no. Going gun blazing in after claiming to know THAT there are some and to know WHERE they are and then finding nothing is more then stupid.
How would you react when the police storms your house and shoots your family, because they thought you had some drugs? There is a good reason why the police has strict rules and you some civil rights against police harassment. Shouldn't the world policy stick to the same rules. Doesn't have other states the same rights you have and defend (i think the right to have arms in america is also to prevent such things).
Think about it. And don't turn the rights always in your favor.

I know its not the fine way to quote myself. But somehow i get the feeling you just don't want to answer

 

[MarineCorps]

However, the tax burden was placed upon the State government due to George Bush's policies.

So Kerry wants to make the Federal Goverment pay fot it again

@yoshi74: The US intrests in the vietnam war was that America belived in the domino effect. One country in south east aisia fell to commies, all of southeast Asia would fall to the commies.

 

[yoshi74]

And no, a US Senator cannot say that he was "mislead by faulty information". A man in his position has the duty to analise carefuly all information presented, and take the consequence for his actions. What Kerry is doing is pathetic.

Correct me when i'am wrong, but hasn't Bush and his administration said they were incorrect informed by the CIA. Is it wrong that the former CIA-chief had to go because he was made responsible for this surprising wrong informations.
Isn't Bush in his position as president of the united states responsible to check his sources, and when they are wrong to accept the consequece for his action. At least Kerry hasn't started a war and killed thousends.

Duck, it backfires!

 

[MarineCorps]

The fires you created in iraq costs much more lifes than saddam could kill at his used pace till the end of life. Your statement is idealistic, but as far from reality as it could be.

I somehow very highly doubt that. Saddam killed Millions.

 

[yoshi74]

The US intrests in the vietnam war was that America belived in the domino effect. One country in south east aisia fell to commies, all of southeast Asia would fall to the commies.

Thats a great reason to start a war. IIRC it hasn't prevented that vietnam turned commie. It was a lost war, and iraq does not looks much better. It just doesn't turns out as a commie, but possible as a muslim state.

I somehow very highly doubt that. Saddam killed Millions.

I don't have the current body count of victims since the beginning of the iraq war, and no one knows which fights will take the place in the future.

 

[downtown]

Why did he vote FOR the war, then?

And no, a US Senator cannot say that he was "mislead by faulty information". A man in his position has the duty to analise carefuly all information presented, and take the consequence for his actions. What Kerry is doing is pathetic.

Now Dean, he opposed the war from the start. He should have beign the Democratic nominee, not two-faced Kerry.

I concur. in retrospect, Dean would have been better

 

[knowltok2]

Correct me when i'am wrong, but hasn't Bush and his administration said they were incorrect informed by the CIA. Is it wrong that the former CIA-chief had to go because he was made responsible for this surprising wrong informations.
Isn't Bush in his position as president of the united states responsible to check his sources, and when they are wrong to accept the consequece for his action. At least Kerry hasn't started a war and killed thousends.

Duck, it backfires!

Check his sources? This isn't a term paper. If POTUS can't make a decision without doublechecking the information he is given, he has no chance of ever making any progress on anything. At some point you have to trust your people. Now in this case that didn't work out so well, but what would you have, GWB looking at grainy satellite photos and reading raw data from the field?

 

[luiz]

Correct me when i'am wrong, but hasn't Bush and his administration said they were incorrect informed by the CIA. Is it wrong that the former CIA-chief had to go because he was made responsible for this surprising wrong informations.
Isn't Bush in his position as president of the united states responsible to check his sources, and when they are wrong to accept the consequece for his action. At least Kerry hasn't started a war and killed thousends.

Duck, it backfires!

Naturally Bush has to check his sources too.

But it's pathetic of Kerry to accuse Bush of not checking when in reality he didn't check his own sources.

And, at least technically, the Congress and the President share equal responsability on the war.