I have a legitimate question that I would like an intelligent John Kerry supporter to answer.

John Kerry accuses The Bush Administration of acting unilaterally in going into Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein. Ok, doesn't matter if we agree with that assertion or not, because that is not the issue here that I want to discuss. But Kerry says that if he were President he would have handled it differently. Says that Bush should have built an international coalition and gotten UN approval to do so. Kerry says that because Bush did not seek world and UN approval, He ( Kerry ) is against how it was handled and if it would have been handled in the Manner Kerry says, then he would have supported the President 100%. OK. When Bush Sr. was President, and his administration wnated to stop Saddam from what he was doing, Bush Sr. went to the UN, got approval, went to other countries and got approval, formed a world coalition and got approval, acted in a mutilateral way because he had gotten approval from all the countries and orgnizations involved in the UN. Bush Sr. did it exactly the way that John Kerry claims Bush Jr. should have done it. Ok then, this is my question: If John Kerry claims that he would have backed the current President had the current President done it in a mutilateral way, then why then did the same John Kerry Vote AGAINST Bush Sr.'s plan of war against Sadaam when Sr. did it exactly the way that John Kerry claims this war should have been handled?


Don Cardi

Wrong war, wrong time!

Silly Don Cardi, using logic.

Pssht.

It is not the same situation. The Gulf War was fought because an one of our allies, Kuwait, was attacked and overrun. As for why Kerry did or did not vote against it, I can't say. I would disagree with him in that instance. I would also agree that granting the power to the president to act is appropriate. The assumption is that the president is going to responsibly act and not commit troops into a violent situation without absolute proof of impending danger. He did not do that. The "proof" was unverified and now over a thousand troops are dead and thousands more are maimed and injured.

Am I the only one that thinks Iraq is like Vietnam all over again? I honestly don't believe Bush when he says there'll be no draft. The British declined to give us 650 more troops on top of our 130,000 in Iraq. I honestly see a draft. If I'm ever drafted, I'll fight in Afgahnistan, but they have a better chance of seeing God if they want me in Iraq. -Pat

Pat,
Do you honestly believe you will have a choice. I doubt it. You'll go where they tell you to go.

Pat,
Do you honestly believe you will have a choice. I doubt it. You'll go where they tell you to go. [/b][/quote]The longest prison sentence I'd get would be 33 months. I could always head up north too.

Don C.

Is one man - Saddam - worth $100 Billion, more than 1,000 dead Americans and 24,000 wounded?

As DJ says, you are comparing another war and another time. Your use of the term "approval", which is what Republicans say, is misleading. Only a subservient entity seeks "approval". And, I don't think you or anyone else believes the US is subservient to the UN.

Bush Sr (former UN Ambassador and CIA Director) was a global leader. He didn't seek "approval" from the UN. He was able to lead the world. The US beared little of the cost in terms of money and american lives in 1991. (Saudis paid for a lot).

Reagan was a global leader who defeated the Soviet Union without a war. That's leadership and power when you can defeat your enemies with minimal costs to yourself.

So the issue here is, did Bush need to do what he did? There is plenty of evidence that Bush really wanted to start a war with Iraq from day 1, before 9/11. This has been written by Bush's own people (O'Neal and others). See this:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm



Jan 26, 1998

Exerpts of OPEN LETTER To BILL CLINTON:

"We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power."

Rumsfeld, Woflowitz, Armitrage and others

I watched a documentary on TV today about the Bush regime and its motives. Apparently some guys around Bush thought that the WTC attacks was the best thing that could happen to the USA - it gave them the motive they needed to start attacking middle east nations. One of the theories that was shown was the fact that the neoconservatives and fundamental christians believes in the surviving of Israel as the only way to go to heaven. Some guy said "To be able to understand the whole situation in the middle east and the motives of the US, we have to consider Israel as a 51st state of the USA".

Two of the most disturbing facts I learned was that 1) The Bin Ladin family was allowed to leave the USA on the 12th and 2) As people jumped out of the WTC and died some advisor called the white house and said "blame Iraq".

Then I thought, "fucking hell, I hope that the Americans gets rid of this regime on the 2nd november."

Because it is really sickening.

The longest prison sentence I'd get would be 33 months. I could always head up north too. [/QB][/QUOTE]

33 months is a long time when you are at
Ft. Leavenworth playing with someone named Bubba doing HARD time. Just don't drop the soap j/k.
Would you really want that on your record?

33 months is a long time when you are at
Ft. Leavenworth playing with someone named Bubba doing HARD time. Just don't drop the soap j/k.
Would you really want that on your record? [/QB][/quote]

The longest prison sentence I'd get would be 33 months. I could always head up north too. [/QB][/quote]33 months is a long time when you are at
Ft. Leavenworth playing with someone named Bubba doing HARD time. Just don't drop the soap j/k.
Would you really want that on your record? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Protesting a war and refusing to fight in it because it has no cause is something I would want on my record. You support Bush and this war so much? You go over to Iraq. I'd be happy to go to Afghanistan if there was a draft, but Iraq? No way. I'm not getting my arm blown off for no cause. I find it very offensive that you and DJ think this war is some kind of big joke. Iraq is not a winnable war and we're over there for nothing. -Pat

Since everything we watch on TV must be completely factual and unbiased, eh Gustav?

Since everything we watch on TV must be completely factual and unbiased, eh Gustav? [/b][/quote]I guess that means Stolen Honors isn't completely factual and unbiased then too, right? -Pat

Let's not get started on peoples opinions or actions being offensive. I find your theiving of Bush-Cheney signs offensive, and particularly deviant and immature.

But I don't say anything. :p

Let's not get started on peoples opinions or actions being offensive. I find your theiving of Bush-Cheney signs offensive, and particularly deviant and immature.

But I don't say anything. :p [/b][/quote]You laughed when I told you last week or so. They got new signs if it makes you feel better.

Since everything we watch on TV must be completely factual and unbiased, eh Gustav? [/b][/quote]I guess that means Stolen Honors isn't completely factual and unbiased then too, right? -Pat [/b][/quote]Since I ever said that...? :rolleyes:

It's probably still a bit Moore factual and unbiased than Fahrenheit.

Since everything we watch on TV must be completely factual and unbiased, eh Gustav? [/b][/quote]You are putting my quote in the wrong perspective and you know it. I find that very insulting. What I said was sickening was the 2 facts that I line up in the end - that members of the Bin Ladin family left USA on the 12th and the fact that some guys thought that the attack was positive since they could use it. The first of those is proven and it is no value that a biased documentary film expresses - it is, again, a fact.

LBG--Bin Laden didn't leave the US. It was 113 members of his family and it wasn't on September 12th. It was the 13th. Bush didn't feel they should be questioned. :rolleyes: -Pat

Then you can't say it's "facts" and then tell me the second one isn't proven. Actually, I never heard the Bin Laden family, if any, was allowed to leave the US, or was in the US at all.

Here's another fact though - Bill Clinton refused Osama Bin Laden's head three times. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it.

113 members of his family, DJ. They were sent back to Saudi Arabia on September 13th without being questioned by any authority. -Pat

Of course, I didnt mean that the guy himself left the USA, but it looked like that in my second post. Ill edit straight away.

113 members of his family, DJ. They were sent back to Saudi Arabia on September 13th without being questioned by any authority. -Pat [/b][/quote]That's the fucking disturbing thing - why the fuck didnt they question those guys? To me it seems like the regime prioritized their own personal business relations with the Bin Ladin family before the security of the USA.

Not the question at all. Forget the veiws and opinions on this war and so forth.

The question here was why did Kerry Vote against that war when that President did exactly what Kerry said this President should have done.
He voted against it and that's fact.


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

It's Amazing. I've read through all of the replys to my original post, and not ONE of the Kerry Supporters answered the ACTUAL question that I asked! It's just unbeleivable! Every opinion on the current war has been given, opinions form people who don;t even live or vote in our country have been given, but not ONE Kerry supporter has answered the ACTUAL QUESTION that I asked!!!!


Don Cardi

In response to a post by LBJ:

You 2 should get along just fine then, but I think he does know what he's talking about.

I found nothing wrong with that and what he said was true. Bush told his top officials, including Rumsfeld and Powell, that they were to tell their men to find any connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Oh, give me a break. They exploited the lives of thousands in the media for months and months after 9/11. They showed people jumping out of the buildings on the news for crying out loud. Now someone on a message board posts about the people jumping out and you fight now?

That'd be 2 things both of you would have in common, but once again, I feel he knows what he's talking about.

"-Pat "

Bottom Line, you STILL HAVE NOT answered the ORIGINAL question that I posted! Typical!


Don Cardi

Omg. Don Marco answered your question on the 3rd post of this thread! Just because he didn't give you the answer you wanted doesn't mean we all need to answer you. This is 2004. That was in the early 90's. We had reason to enter Iraq then and Kerry should've voted for it. Why didn't he? I'm going to say the same thing Don Marco said: "I don't know." I'm not John Kerry. Go ask him if you want to know. Geez. Nice job of ignoring my post, BTW. -Pat

The question was NOT answered by Don Marco. I am not looking for the answer that I want to hear, I am looking for a LEGITIMATE answer to the EXACT question! Not what that war was about, or what this war is about, or it being a different time. Those are opinions and veiws about the actual wars. The Question to be answered is WHY John Kerry bashes THIS President for NOT seeking out UN support and world support, but when the Sr. Bush did seek out UN support and World Support, John Kerry Voted agaist that President too! Kerry claims that he would have given Bush Jr. 100% support had Bush got World Approval for this war, but yet Bush SR. DID get World Support for that war and Kerry did NOT support him! Bush Sr. did what Kerry claims this President should have done, or what He, Kerry, would have done if he were President, but yet he did NOT support BUSH SR. for doing exactly what Kerry said that he would have done! Why can't any of you answer that question Directly????


Oh, and I did not ignore the other responses that you gave. I just thought that it was past your bedtime and that you would not be able to read my reply. But I guess you had to wake up for your diaper change and bottle!


Don Cardi