Answers to your question:

That's the third insult tonight, Don Cardi. It's getting a tad bit annoying. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Grazie. -Pat

Ok Patrick, I will not insult you anymore. I'll call a truce with the insults, agreed?

But we will continue our discussions, but without the insults. Agreed?

As for my original question, yes, you replied why don't I go ask Kerry himself. Well that is exactly my point. Even is own supporters don't know the answers to why he does some of these things! Many here say that they support Kerry for many different reasons. Some legitmate reasons, some not so legitimate. But all I am trying to point out to those supporters with my question is that here is a case where he is shows how inconsistant he is in what he says and does.

No more insults, that goes for both of us.


Don Cardi

I support Kerry not because I think he is the best canidate around, but because I feel he will do a better job than Bush. Bush has had 4 years. That's enough. I support Kerry on abortion, gay marriage, and who should and shouldn't have taxes more then I agree with Bush. I agree we needed to get rid of Saddam, but, like Kerry, I agree we should've given inspectors more time. -Pat

I'm done with these threads, nobody is going to change anyone's mind so it should just stop. Quit wasting your energy.



BTW FUCK John Kerry! You didnt think I was going away without a parting shot did you? :p

Pat, baby... If there's a draft (which I doubt), it'll be because of your beloved Democrats.


If you're about to argue, read up on H.R. 163 and Rep. Charles Rangel or Rep. Jack Murtha or Rep. Pete Stark. If you still want to argue, read up on President Bush's and the right's stance on a draft.

DC, sorry this had nothing to do with your original post.

Pat, baby... If there's a draft (which I doubt), it'll be because of your beloved Democrats.
[/b][/quote]Ha. Hahahaha.

Don Marco was the only one who was honest enought to say that he did not know the answer to my original question. Thanks for your honesty Don Marco! But out of all the other replies, not one DIRECTLY answered the exact question. It is obvious that no Kerry Supporter could answer the question because his actions and words about this issue is contradictory to what he has said and done in the past. This is exactly why Kerry is accused of Flip Flopping on many issues. The guy cannot make up his mind! He will make claims that the current President did not act as he would have acted if he were President, but yet when you look back on his record, you find that a past President did EXACTLY what Kerry says that he would or will do as President, and would support, but then you find that Kerry voted against that President. Yet no one CAN defend him or explain his actions on this issue, as evident in this thread!


Don Cardi

Ha. Hahahaha. [/quote]Good, I'm glad you liked that one!

You're comparing apples to oranges. The answer to your original question is that the actions & war plan Bush 41 and Bush 43 used were different. Bush 41 had enough brains to realize that he couldn't go directly into Baghdad b/c the resistence was too strong. A coaltion was used in the '91 war because Iraq invaded the sovereign state/nation of Kuwait. The U.N. and its members felt that this was wrong and would be a threat to the Middle East.

Kerry not supporting the decision to invade in 1991 had nothing to do with the having a coalition. It was based on Bush 41's methods of conducting the war. And I would argue that both Bush 41 and Kerry were wrong. Bush 41 failed by not getting rid of Saddam. Worse, he failed the country of Iraq by decimating it and leaving their country with little, if any, infrastructure. Kerry was wrong in not supporting the effort back then.

The major difference now is that Bush 43 went in without the support his father had. He told other nations that if they didn't help in the war effort, they wouldn't be helping in the reconstruction effort. That turned many allies off. Do you think Tony Blair isn't sweating every day until his election comes? The majority of Brits were opposed to their country's involvement.

Bush's mistake, while he'll never admit it, is exactly what Kerry said in the debates: we won the war but had no plan to win the peace. What is happening now is exactly what Dick Cheney said in 1992:

"The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?... And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques....

Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.... Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there."

The conservatives like to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper. Yet the statement above by Cheney is a complete contradiction to how he and his imbicile running mate are handling Iraq today. Bush did a 180 on the creation of a Homeland Security Dept after he oversaw the disaster of 9/11 and he lied about trying to investigage 9/11 by blocking the 9/11 Commission for over 1 year.

If I got drafted, there is no way that I would go to Iraq. But my Dad never had the political strings to get me out of combat. The reason that Iraq in such chaos is completely because of Bush's lack of an exit strategy and his inability to understand the situation. I'm not dying for a country that doesn't want a democracy. Bush & most of his administration proved that they weren't willing to serve in Vietnam. Cheney "had a million other things to do." Don't all of us?All of you Bush supporters like to talk tough while Bush plays cowboy and says "bring 'em on." Go fight over in Iraq if you believe in Bush so strongly - that way we don't have to even worry about a draft. Place your lives and your blind faith in Bush and see where it gets you. If you do, then I'll thank you for your service.

Goombah,

Finally someone answers the question that I asked! If I agree with your answer or not is irrelivent, as I was looking to see if someone could at least answer the question directly and in an intelligent way. You did that wihtout avoiding the original question and attacking or bringing up another issue. Thank you!

Now as far as you saying that Bush 41 did not finish the job, well not his fault. By getting the UN to sanction and back the invasion, his hands were tied because the UN would not allow the US to execute Saddam Hussein. That was part of the agreement when the UN council agreed to back the invasion. Part of the UN charter states something to the effect that if the UN approves an invasion, etc. of another country, it will not allow the execution or assasination of the leader of that country. So that is why BUSH41 could not finish the job
and take out Saddam. If you haven;t done so already, read Norman Shwartzkoff's book which talks exactly about this. As a general Noraman was pissed off that his troops could not finish the job, but explains that BUSH41 was not allowed to do so because he had the backing and approval of the UN. Now my personal feeling is that BUSH43 really did not care about getting the UN to approve our going into Iraq, because he saw and learned what happened the first time his father got UN approval, so BUSH43 figured after 12 years and seventeen resolutions against Saddam, if the UN would not approve our going into Iraq, so be it because without UN approval we could now finish the job, not be held accountable by the UN and we would be able to remove Saddam from power and if he wasn't caught, we would be able to kill him if neccesary. This is my personal feeling. But I;ll point another thing out to you; if you ever have a chance to study a map of that whole middle eastern region, look very closely and study it with dilligence. If you do you will clearly see that Iraq is a major strategic area for the middle east, and when Iraq finally has it's democracy, it will speak volumes to that whole region of the world. There is no doubt that part of the reason we went into Iraq was for strategic reasons. When thier government is put into power, we will have a strong relationship with a country that is strategically located smack in the middle of the Arab world. Not a question here if you agree with our going into
Iraq or not, but just trying to point out an observation as to one of the reasons for the importance of that part of the middle east becoming a democracy.

As for the statemnet that you made regarding Bush43 pissing off other nations because he told them that if they would not be a part of the war itself, then they could not be a part of the rebuilding effort, I personally admire him for doing that! Why should we send our troops into Iraq and have our soldiers killed while other nations stand idley waiting for the opportunity to go in, rebuild and make money. All without thier having to scarifice one life or without thier having to send one soldier to assist in the effort. They should definatley NOT reap the financial harvest by getting rebuilding contracts without plowing the fields first. I think that Bush made the right decision in telling those countrys what he did, and if it pissed thm off, well too bad. But again, that is my personal opinion and I know that you and some others may feel differently.

Again, I respect that you answered my original question and appreciate your responding in a respectful and informative manner.


Don Cardi

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about! What documentary did you watch, The Michael Moore version? As for the people jumping out of the Towers, HOW DARE YOU desicrate the memory of those people and politicize thier horrible deaths! You have absolutley no idea what it was to watch them jump, one after another. But you have the damn nerve to make reference to that horror to bash MY country's government! Worry about your own elections, not ours! I'd like to see if your country was attacked in the horrible way that ours was on September 11th 2001, HOW FAST PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF WOULD CRY OUT to my goverment to help you out! Your opinion about our elections in this country are meaningless. What a nerve you have making reference, for your political veiws, to those people who had to jump to thier deaths so that they wouldn't burn! What the hell do you know what went on in our governemnt or our country that very day. You have absolutley no idea whatsoever!!!!!

{Then I thought I hope that people such as yourself never come to live in my country, because that would be really "sickening!"}

But getting back to my original question in my original post, it still was not answered!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Take it fucking easy, you obviously got me very wrong there. I reacted on the same thing as you did, that people politicized the deaths, and I mean the people in the Bush administration. They used it.

Problem is, we can't "force" democracy on a population. Democracy comes from the people, not from above. A democratic Iraq wont work if the people doesnt want democracy and if they are not ready for it. I think that USA is out on a mission impossible there.

BTW I think that it is strange that you Bush sympathizisers (spell check) doesnt react more on the fact that they FUCKING LIED about the WMD and Iraq being a threat. They made up a story (or guessed) and when it was revealed they changed and claimed that "we got rid of saddam". The sympathizers just tolerated this, it seems like. I think you guys need to look a bit more critical on those guys, it is very important to be open to all political solutions and not blindly support one side. I think that if you don't try to look at both sides democracy will get hurt.

BTW, a comment on FOX news, according to a FOX-critical documentary, over 60% of the channel's viewers believe that Iraq had WMDs, while 14% of the American population does the same. It was a research on some university about the FOX News. That is really scary, and it is a shame that this channel might be able to decide who wins the election.

Can you PLEASE stop cursing in your posts? There are ladies here who read them! Thank you!

Yeah, maybe I should listen to some guy from Sweden about who I should vote for !


Don Cardi

You know how old this crap is about there is no WMD. :rolleyes:

There must be a full Moon out there.

OH, Please! get this election over with and let us get back to a normal life.

Okey, if you don't have anything more useful to say or just ignore what I say I don't know why I should waste my time on you.


Interesting, do you really think that Saddam had WMD now when USA attacked? Please tell me more, do you have any evidence or anything?

Don Cardi

I'm not going to waste another post arguing about our positions. Your viewpoint is different from mine - I respect that. I'm not going to change your vote and vice versa.

There was an article in the Washington Post today about how so many people on both sides are stressed out about this election. I can't tell you how much that article hit home for me. Not to worry - the end is near . This is a free site, but you do have to register to view the article.

I cannot wait for this election to be over. I'm sick of posting here & on other sites and I'm sick of all the polls and prognostications. I'm convinced we won't know the winner for some time past November 3rd, but that's just a reflection of how deeply divided we are.

Anyway, take care.