For Those Of You That Contradicted And Critized Me

[USAir757]

So quit complaining and work with what we have.

That's what they've been doing since they lost Clinton... nobody was all that happy about Al Gore, but they had no other choice. This time it's Kerry. When the left gets a good guy every so often, that's when you can win an election.
And the Michael Moore thing, as articulate as he is <_< doesn't really change anything. But he is right about one thing, the polls are insignificant, especially in a race this close. Only November 2 really matters.

 

[KCFlyer]

for all you die hard dems out there
what can i say ?

[post="182611"][/post]​

Actually, I've read a few books by Jim Hightower and Arianna Huffington. And they, like Michael Moore, are disillusioned with the democratic party. Why? Because they are too much like the Republicans as far as cozying up to big business. And...they for whatever reason, won't call a spade a spade and press Bush on the issues of today (not 1969). All they would have to do is bring what Bush said versus what he has done to the front burner. The Bush team paints Kerry as a flip-flopper...but just by pointing out what the "liberal media" has been ignoring (see my earlier post of Bush "flip flops"),k they could put Bush on his heels.

They are disillusioned because they are not going on the offensive (issues wise), but instead, reacting to half truth's and lies from the Bush camp. They need to let Cheney say that a vote for the other side is a vote for another terrorist attack...then press them on just how much safer is this country from terrorist attack when the vast majority of the ports have next to nothing in the way of security? Ask them which is more important, stopping a boatload of marijuana in LA or stopping a dirty nuke in Norfolk...then ask why more money is spent stopping that marijuana.

Is Kerry a great candidate? I'll be the first to tell you no, he isn't. But he's a damn sight better than Bush. They just need to get some cajones, roll up their sleeves, and go on the offensive. We've got a couple of months to see if they can do that.

 

[USAir757]

We've got a couple of months to see if they can do that.

Try 41 days.

And they've tried dozens of different tactics and strategies to make Kerry more appealing and a more sensible choice to use your vote. So far, it hasn't gotten them where they wanted, and that's why the big-swinging Clinton bats have gotten involved. The dems officially have their hand on the proverbial panic button.

 

[KCFlyer]

Try 41 days.

And they've tried dozens of different tactics and strategies to make Kerry more appealing and a more sensible choice to use your vote. So far, it hasn't gotten them where they wanted, and that's why the big-swinging Clinton bats have gotten involved. The dems officially have their hand on the proverbial panic button.

[post="182655"][/post]​

And the rest of America should have their collective hands on the proverbial panic button if Bush gets 4 more years. Here's hoping the debates can give Bush that "My pet goat" look - of course that depends if the "liberal media" panel is willing to toss some hardballs his way.

 

[USAir757]

And the rest of America should have their collective hands on the proverbial panic button if Bush gets 4 more years. Here's hoping the debates can give Bush that "My pet goat" look - of course that depends if the "liberal media" panel is willing to toss some hardballs his way.

Well you know that's not what is going to happen, either way it's going to be roughly 50 percent of the country up in arms about the election results.

As far as the debates go, if Kerry performs anything like Al Gore did, you guys are in some trouble. But get Dan Rather on that panel, and Kerry probably won't even need to say a damn thing.

 

[AgMedallion]

FWIW, while we may have more countries standing beside us now than in WW II, during WWII we had minor little countries like France, Germany, and Russia (remember them...used to be a "superpower" just like us).

[post="182443"][/post]​

I never realized that Germany was one of our allies in WWII. What college taught you that? Re the French, they were "allies" during the time it took the Germans to beat them, roughly several weeks. As much as their military juggernaut might contribute to our efforts in Iraq, I think Bush should pass on any contributions they might make. Patton said he'd rather have two German Divisions in front of him than one French Division behind him. I doubt much has changed in the 60 years since. Personally, I think the only contribution tthe French would be interested in making is a search and destroy mission to eliminate the paper trail documenting their aid to Hussein and his bribes to French and U.N. politicians/diplomats as part of the oil for food program (more accurately described as an oil for weapons and palace construction program). Just think, the wonderful French would be our new best buddies if Kerry were elected. Not an appealing prospect. :down:

 

[NWA/AMT]

Personally, I think the only contribution tthe French would be interested in making is a search and destroy mission to eliminate the paper trail documenting their aid to Hussein and his bribes to French and U.N. politicians/diplomats as part of the oil for food program (more accurately described as an oil for weapons and palace construction program).

[post="183033"][/post]​

You think Bush would support it if the French agreed to destroy all the records of Halliburton's dealings with Saddam under the guise of what you call the 'oil for weapons and palace construction program'? Or is that OK because Dick Cheney was at the helm at the time and 'that's different'?

Halliburton in Iraq pre-9/11

Since Halliburton has admitted it's dealings with Saddam, both under the oil-for-food program and through overseas subsidiaries to circumvent US laws, I have to ask if you are upset with the French because they dealt with Iraq or because they got more than our guys?

 

[FredF]

Did you even bother to read what you posted a link to?

In part of what it says

"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq. "

They are talking about oil equipment and the French were providing WEAPONS.

Do you not at the very least see a diference here?

Halliburton was conducting their business in the OPEN while France was doing it COVERTLY.

Weapons under the table from skimmed profits designed for humanitarian supplies vs. Oil equipment done under open contracts, in fact the very same Oil for Food program setup by the UN.


Countries were allowed to deal with IRAQ, they were just limited as to what those dealings were allowed to be. Halliburton stayed within those parameters while the French meanwhile did not.

 

[KCFlyer]

I never realized that Germany was one of our allies in WWII. What college taught you that? Re the French, they were "allies" during the time it took the Germans to beat them, roughly several weeks. As much as their military juggernaut might contribute to our efforts in Iraq, I think Bush should pass on any contributions they might make. Patton said he'd rather have two German Divisions in front of him than one French Division behind him. I doubt much has changed in the 60 years since. Personally, I think the only contribution tthe French would be interested in making is a search and destroy mission to eliminate the paper trail documenting their aid to Hussein and his bribes to French and U.N. politicians/diplomats as part of the oil for food program (more accurately described as an oil for weapons and palace construction program). Just think, the wonderful French would be our new best buddies if Kerry were elected. Not an appealing prospect. :down:

[post="183033"][/post]​

Sorry AgMedallion...no college taught me that. Fast fingers and a pressing appointment caused me to make an error by including Germany. I admit -I made a mistake. Too bad that GWB can't look at the situation in Iraq and tell the USA citizens - you know, I might have made a few mistakes there. If you don't think Bush made any mistakes, then you have a nice set of blinders on.

You know, what's great about the Bush Supporters is that they are quick to cite the "French Connection" to Saddam Hussein, but somehow "forget" about the "Rumsfeld-Hussein" connection and the "Cheney Hussein" connection, and the USA-Hussein connection...you know, the one where we sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used against his own people. We want the rest of the world to
follow our lead", yet when they do, they are "aiding and abetting the enemy".

I think Kerry would have a much better chance of accomplishing what Bush tried the other day at the UN...enlisting support to help Iraq. Yeah, yeah...we've got 40 countries with us, but I believe that there were 190 countries that Bush was speaking to. The US needs UN support. The US has asked for UN support (finally). But just like Iraq, in order to accomplish any change, we will need to have a "regime change" here at home. Bush won't get the support he wants.

 

[USAir757]

The US needs UN support. The US has asked for UN support (finally). But just like Iraq, in order to accomplish any change, we will need to have a "regime change" here at home. Bush won't get the support he wants.

The US could certainly use support from other nations, but we don't require it. We were willing to go it alone from the beginning, and we continue to. Luckily, we have had support from many nations along the way. But the UN is basically the laughing stock of the world at this point, they hold virtually no power and have very little respect due to their inability to act, especially with regard to Iraq. Saddam played Go Fish the UN for more than a decade, and still was able to stir up enough pity votes to not be invaded. We just didn't fall for it like so many others did.

But you may be right, Kerry with all his charisma and debating skills would probably have been far more successful at the UN.

 

[KCFlyer]

Sorry, but I think it would be easy to win a "global war on terror" by having some assistance from the rest of the globe. You DO realize that if we have to "go it alone", it will certainly result in the draft being reinstituted, as the reserves do not have the manpower to handle Iraq and Iran and North Korea and....

 

[USAir757]

Sorry, but I think it would be easy to win a "global war on terror" by having some assistance from the rest of the globe.

EasiER, that is. But as terror continues, they can either go the way of the U.S. and fight against it, or Spain, and just let it happen and sink your head down like a turtle. We will get more support as this war goes on, but I doubt it will have anything to do with the UN.

 

[KCFlyer]

We will get more support as this war goes on, but I doubt it will have anything to do with the UN.

[post="183113"][/post]​

We will?

The war is still on? I though that it was "mission accomplished" a year and a half ago.

 

[USAir757]

We will?

Sure, let France have their own mini-meltdown for example... 9/11 en francais. Picture the Eiffel tower dropping to the ground atop thousands, or the Louvre burning to the ground. It's just that kind of thing that will get other countries involved. Unfortunate that they have to get their asses handed to them first, before they could have stopped it. But they'll either go one way or the other with it. And I hope they'll stand up against it rather than lie down. That's all I was saying.

 

[KCFlyer]

Sure, let France have their own mini-meltdown for example... 9/11 en francais. Picture the Eiffel tower dropping to the ground atop thousands, or the Louvre burning to the ground. It's just that kind of thing that will get other countries involved. Unfortunate that they have to get their asses handed to them first, before they could have stopped it. But they'll either go one way or the other with it. And I hope they'll stand up against it rather than lie down. That's all I was saying.

[post="183127"][/post]​

You know...The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 and according to y'all, the "do nothing Clinton administration" just gave a wrist slap, and lo and behold, 8 years later, two jets fly into the WTC. "See...if Clinton had only acted then, this would never have happened". But....it's only been 3 years since the WTC was hit...shouldn't we give them 5 more years before we can say that the Bush doctrine was just the tonic to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil? I mean with nobody doing anything (according to the neocons), it took the 8 more years to carry out the WTC attack. Who is to say if the Eiffel Tower or the Sears Tower falls next? What if it IS the Sears tower that is targeted next? Does that then mean that maybe France had the right idea after all? If it IS the Sears Tower and not the Eiffel Tower, would we accept any help from France should it be offered, or would we rather have "two German Units in front of me rather than one French Unit behind me?.