EyeInTheSky
Veteran
FredF said:
Where the heck did that come from? Is this some right-wing nut job conspiracy theory of yours?
The Presidential Debate
- Thread starter phasersonstun2
- Start date
Where the heck did that come from? Is this some right-wing nut job conspiracy theory of yours?
It came in response to your sudden conspiracy theory about using an ear peace during the election.
If people can spout off about that, why then I have the same amount of proof aout what I am asserting.
Or do you only believe conspiracy theories other than Vast Right Wing Ones?
If people can spout off about that, why then I have the same amount of proof aout what I am asserting.
Or do you only believe conspiracy theories other than Vast Right Wing Ones?
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
FredF said:
What is the matter? You cannot take a taste of your own medicine? I did not see your outrage at the suggestion on the Drudge Report that John F. Kerry cheated by pulling a pen out of his pocket.
What is good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
For what it is worth, here is what another friend had to say:
My goodness, let it go. You're just spreading more of the junk that the party wants you to... either one of these campaigns would play you like a fiddle right now because they need every last vote. Yet, I don't recall reading any posts on this forum regarding Kerry's alleged cheat sheet/pen accusation... so it doesn't surprise me that you'd bring the "earpiece story" to the table.
I agree with Eyeinthesky. This is jib-jab, and in a tight race like this, it's best if we don't embrace any of it unless it is actual news and not spin commentary.
Was I the only one on this board to notice that in the debate Kerry seems to want it both ways?
He accused the President of not building a coalition against iraq even though he has. He also accused him of rushing to war and not allowing diplomatic efforts to work even though they failed for 12 years.
Yet when it came to North Korea, those very same issues he complained about not happening in IRAQ are EXACTLY what the President is doing and has done about North Korea and he was not happy about that either. He wants to go have talks with North Korea and forgoe any coalition that has been build to deal with that issue.
The President is doing, with Norht Korea, all those things Kerry is saying were not done in Iraq and he is not happy with that either.
I wish that the senator would decide what method he prefers to use to deal with these situations.
He accused the President of not building a coalition against iraq even though he has. He also accused him of rushing to war and not allowing diplomatic efforts to work even though they failed for 12 years.
Yet when it came to North Korea, those very same issues he complained about not happening in IRAQ are EXACTLY what the President is doing and has done about North Korea and he was not happy about that either. He wants to go have talks with North Korea and forgoe any coalition that has been build to deal with that issue.
The President is doing, with Norht Korea, all those things Kerry is saying were not done in Iraq and he is not happy with that either.
I wish that the senator would decide what method he prefers to use to deal with these situations.
FredF said:
A group of nations seeking to curry favor is not a coalition, as a comparison of the differences in the coalition from the first Gulf War with the 'coalition of the willing for a buck' from the Iraq war clearly shows. Even Poland, 'don't forget Poland', is abandoning him.
The fact that Bush had decided to go to war in Iraq, a fact clearly shown by his movement of troops into the area months before the event, and that he disregarded the wishes of the same UN whose resolutions he used to justify his war, coupled with the fact that no thought was apparently given to the aftermath of our certain victory over Iraq, certainly qualify as 'rushing to war.
The difference being that North Korea HAS WMDs. He speaks very clearly about North Korea here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/asia.html
The concept of using multilateral negotiations as opposed to bilateral negotiations is not that hard to understand. The other nations in Asia, particularly China and Japan, have a more immediate stake in the resolution of this issue and excluding them from the discussions has allowed North Korea to bog down negotiations over issues of process. Where's the coalition there? Kerry speaks clearly on this issue here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0601b.pdf
The situations are far from identical, as you seem to imply, and the Senator clearly stated MONTHS ago which method he prefers. The only ones confused about that are those who want the American people to be confused about it.
Kerry proved in last weeks debate that he has a serious, well-reasoned grasp of National Security issues and America listened.
See, now when you repeat pure propoganda such as 'coalition of the willing for a buck' you immediatly get discounted. That is clearly not the case. There are almost 40 nations standing with us in Iraq, in fact one of them took Kerry to task over his dismissal of their contribution.
You don't decide to go to war and initiate military action and then move troops into the region. You put them there first. Anyone can put of a sign that says "Nevermind the dog, beware of the owner" but when someone is on their porch cleaning a shotgut, that sign has just a bit more meaning.
China and Japan are exactly the countries that President Bush is trying to get to help control the situation in North Korea so I have no idea where you get that they are being excluded. (or do I?)
You are correct in that Kerry proved in the debate that there are those in his camp that have a clear grasp of the issues facing national security. He also showed that he is more interested in being accepted by other nations than he is in taking the safety and security of this nation seriously.
What is this Global Test he proposes before he decided it is ok to protect and defend the citizens of this country?
I was sitting there and it him me. Maybe just me, but nonetheless it hit me. President Bush gets it. He is concerned with the safety and security of this nation and is doing what he believes is the correct things in order to ensure that safety. He took an oat to protect and defend us from all enemies and that is what he is trying to do. He is not out there trying to preserve some sort of legacy. He is not out there to avenge anything or anybody. He is trying to, to the best of his ability ensure the safety and security of this country.
Kerry seems more concerned with appearances. How would he stack up in history as a president. What does the UN think of america and all that crap. In too many ways, he reminds me of Clinton. Say what you think that the people you are talking to want to hear, and decide on your actions based on what is popular at the time.
He says he has these grand plans to get other nations to share in the burden in Iraq. Except, nobody seems to have told him that France and Germany have both said they will not get involved. His plan for the future of Iraq seems to be exactly what the current plan is except his calls for "more, better, faster" whatever that means and yet he complains that keeping Bush in office offers more of the same. He made this great pledge that he will not keep forces in Iraq as an occupier, except again nobody seems to have told him that the president has said that if and when the new government of Iraq asked American troops to leave they would.
He has nothing new to offer except that he, John F.(because people will associate it with Kennedy) Kerry has the answer. More, Better, Faster
More of the Same(yet complains about Bush)
Better because it is him
Faster how? not even he can answer that one.
You don't decide to go to war and initiate military action and then move troops into the region. You put them there first. Anyone can put of a sign that says "Nevermind the dog, beware of the owner" but when someone is on their porch cleaning a shotgut, that sign has just a bit more meaning.
China and Japan are exactly the countries that President Bush is trying to get to help control the situation in North Korea so I have no idea where you get that they are being excluded. (or do I?)
You are correct in that Kerry proved in the debate that there are those in his camp that have a clear grasp of the issues facing national security. He also showed that he is more interested in being accepted by other nations than he is in taking the safety and security of this nation seriously.
What is this Global Test he proposes before he decided it is ok to protect and defend the citizens of this country?
I was sitting there and it him me. Maybe just me, but nonetheless it hit me. President Bush gets it. He is concerned with the safety and security of this nation and is doing what he believes is the correct things in order to ensure that safety. He took an oat to protect and defend us from all enemies and that is what he is trying to do. He is not out there trying to preserve some sort of legacy. He is not out there to avenge anything or anybody. He is trying to, to the best of his ability ensure the safety and security of this country.
Kerry seems more concerned with appearances. How would he stack up in history as a president. What does the UN think of america and all that crap. In too many ways, he reminds me of Clinton. Say what you think that the people you are talking to want to hear, and decide on your actions based on what is popular at the time.
He says he has these grand plans to get other nations to share in the burden in Iraq. Except, nobody seems to have told him that France and Germany have both said they will not get involved. His plan for the future of Iraq seems to be exactly what the current plan is except his calls for "more, better, faster" whatever that means and yet he complains that keeping Bush in office offers more of the same. He made this great pledge that he will not keep forces in Iraq as an occupier, except again nobody seems to have told him that the president has said that if and when the new government of Iraq asked American troops to leave they would.
He has nothing new to offer except that he, John F.(because people will associate it with Kennedy) Kerry has the answer. More, Better, Faster
More of the Same(yet complains about Bush)
Better because it is him
Faster how? not even he can answer that one.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
Okay Fred...I'll save you the trouble - here's a list of the "coaltion of the willing" along with the number of troops they had joining with us as of March 2004:
USA – 130,000
United Kingdom - 9,000
Italy – 3,000
Poland – 2,460
Ukraine – 1,600
Netherlands – 1,100
Australia – 800
Romania – 700
Bulgaria – 480
Thailand – 440
Denmark – 420
El Salvador – 361
Dominican Republic – 302
Hungary – 300
Japan – 240
Norway – 179
Mongolia – 160
Azerbaijan – 150
Portugal – 128
Latvia – 120
Lithuania – 118
Slovakia – 102
Czech Republic – 80
Philippines – 80
Albania – 70
Georgia – 70
New Zealand – 61
Moldova – 50
Macedonia – 37
Estonia – 31
Canada – 31
Kazakhstan – 25
Review that list and tell me how many countries who just might have some reason other than not pissing off the United States that are participating. And the US has 130,000 men and women over there. The remaining nations have a combined total of 22,695 troops with us. For so many countries "siding" with us, it sure seems like only a handful of help has been offered.
The problem is, you don't decide to go to war before you get the approval of Congress to do so, and when you do get the authority granted to you, you don't disregard the stipultions that Congress specified and proceed directly to the "last resort" plan.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Kerry recognizes (as Bush seems to fail to recognize) that the countries who OPPOSED this war need to be brought in to help. Your damn right that I want someone as president who will try to restore the standing of the US in the world view. But what the heck...Bush doesn't need the help of "insignificant" countries like France, Germany or Russia, when he's got the backing of such powerhouse nations as Latvia, Moldova, and the Dominican Republic.
You know, I don't think this war in Iraq is defending the citizens of this country. IMHO, it's spilling a lot of precious American blood in a country that had little, if any, impact of terrorism on US shores. But it HAS (also IMO) made us a much more desirable target for future terrorist attacks.
Bush can also believe that 2+2=5. He can argue that until he is blue in the face. He might believe that unilaterally attacking a country with very questionable ties to terrorist attacks on US soil is doing the right thing...but in the long run, I beleive he has done the polar opposite...the wrong thing. It's great to be principled. But it's tragic to be principled and wrong.
You think Bush doesn't say what people want to hear? Heck...he does it every time he talks about how things are going along swimmingly in Iraq, when 99.9% of other sources - some within his own cabinet - say otherwise. You know, I know y'all hate Move)n.org...but there was an animated ad a couple of years ago that pinpointed Bush's strategy for this election...overlook the bad and sum up with "9/11 9/11 9/11, Terrorist terrorist terrorist".
If someone gave you the stiff middle finger, would you be willing to jump into their camp, especially after the concerns you held are proving to be eerily true? Kerry can get in there and treat France and Germany with something Bush seems to lack - respect. And THAT can get us some of the help that we need to solvie this problem.
You're sort of right there. I think that Bush fired the first shots in what will result in World War III. Guess I'd rather have some of the more powerful nations on our side than our 34 countries who make up only 15% of the troops fighting on the first front of that war.
Wow, I have to tell you that really cracked me up.
Comics could not write better material than this.
I can see it clearly in the future when someone really makes people laugh, the complement will be:
You are so Bush!
I love America.
FredF said:
Fred,
You are beating a dead horse. The same one that GW used to count with.
You know, the one Bush uses to count how many Iraqis' have been trained.
Every time the horse stomps once Bush counts four times for the horses 4 feet.
The horse stomped 10 times and Bush used his math skills to get the answer of 100,000 troops.
FredF said:
It's not 'propaganda', Fred, it's fact. The second largest armed force on the ground in Iraq, larger than Great Britain, Poland, or the nascent Iraqi armed forces, is US private security contractors like DynCorp. Do you think they're there for free? You might 'discount' it, but I bet we don't get a 'discount' from them.
Do you understand the term 'token force'? Excluding the UK and Italy there are not enough 'coalition' forces to make a combat Brigade (or Regiment). While I'm sure that the Albanian contingent, for instance, are some serious bad-asses, just how effective do you think these forces are, Fred. They're not there for military purposes, but for public relations, and according to eyewitness reports rarely venture out from their secured compounds. Starting to sound a lot like Vietnam there, Fred.
After 26 years in the Marines, Fred, I'm willing to bet I understand quite a bit more about 'force projection' than you'd think, maybe it comes from being 'projected' pretty often. You don't move troops into the area months before you need them, particluarly when their war stocks are prepositioned, unless you're attempting to preclude any diplomatic resolution. Of course, if you don't WANT diplomatic resolution then that's just what you do.
Do you honestly think that there was any doubt in any Iraqi's minds just how lethal this particular 'owner' was? I'm not talking about the posturing of the Saddam regime but the actual Iraqis, do you think they'd forgotten so quickly? Just how close do you think our 'porch' needed to be?
From the fact that the Bush administration has made it clear to all parties that only they will determine the resolution to the North Korea issue perhaps? Or from the fact that Bush thinks it's appropriate to hold direct US-NK talks without even observers from the other nations present?
That may have been your impression Fred, but to the rest of us he showed clearly that he puts the security of this nation first and, in fact, said so directly several times during the debate. I don't know how you could be confused. (Or do I?)
I think he states his opinions very clearly here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/
and here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_s.../democracy.html
Perhaps because he realizes that there's more to being a world leader than picking a direction and demanding that the world follow.
Practice safe computing, wear a helmet.
By invading a country that had no actual real ability to attack us while diverting troops from the war against our real enemies? No thanks. The word is "focus" and Bush doesn't have it, or at least not the one he would have us think he has.
Or more interested in actually accomplishing things than in looking 'resolute'. Herbert Hoover was 'resolute' too. Bush has decided he wants to be remembered as a "war president", even if he has to start them himself.
Either that or it's because that's his actual name, but don't let that fact stop a perfectly good conspiracy theory.
Judging by the links I've given you, Fred, Kerry has a lot 'new' to offer. The only one with nothing new to offer but more of the same is Bush, and America can't afford that.
Why do you two insist in ignoring the fact that diplomatic efforts in Iraq did nothing for 12 years? In fact in those 12 years, Sadam was able to buy new weapon systems(missles from france and russia).
He supported terrorist organizations like al-queida with intellegence, places to train and hide, and financing he was able to obtain from the UN sponsored Oil for Food program that was soo currupt Sadam was able to scam Billions of dollars from it to support and purchase those items the very same UN said he couldn't have.
Kerry would have you believe that this situation only started last year when in fact there have been dimplomatic efforts to get Iraq under control for years and years and years.
Congress authorized the use of force, the UN resolutions called for the use of force, and yet when the President does what he has been authorized to do and nations were almost required to do by UN resolutions it is called "Rushing to war"
You choose, yse choose to ignore the mountains of evidence linking Iraq and terrorist activity, actions and support.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports...E20041004a.html
Read that and then try to say that iraq could not attack american citizens. Yes they could not directly attack the US as in open conflict, but they were sure as heck able to support others that did.
He had no problem giving aid and support to organizations that wanted to attack america here at home. Keep ignoring that if it makes you sleep beter at night.
One more little item here and then I am probably done anyway, that 90% figure that Kerry is so quick to throw out and you are so quick to repeat, only works if you don't count those brave iraqies that are trying to regain control of thier country and are now standing with us as well. They are dieing for their country as well and using that figure like Kerry is doing is demeaning their contribution to this fight against terror just like he tried ignore the contribution of all those other countries as well.
Ask the President of Polland how much he is looking forward to working with Kerry after the contribution of his country was dismissed out of hand.
He supported terrorist organizations like al-queida with intellegence, places to train and hide, and financing he was able to obtain from the UN sponsored Oil for Food program that was soo currupt Sadam was able to scam Billions of dollars from it to support and purchase those items the very same UN said he couldn't have.
Kerry would have you believe that this situation only started last year when in fact there have been dimplomatic efforts to get Iraq under control for years and years and years.
Congress authorized the use of force, the UN resolutions called for the use of force, and yet when the President does what he has been authorized to do and nations were almost required to do by UN resolutions it is called "Rushing to war"
You choose, yse choose to ignore the mountains of evidence linking Iraq and terrorist activity, actions and support.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports...E20041004a.html
Read that and then try to say that iraq could not attack american citizens. Yes they could not directly attack the US as in open conflict, but they were sure as heck able to support others that did.
He had no problem giving aid and support to organizations that wanted to attack america here at home. Keep ignoring that if it makes you sleep beter at night.
One more little item here and then I am probably done anyway, that 90% figure that Kerry is so quick to throw out and you are so quick to repeat, only works if you don't count those brave iraqies that are trying to regain control of thier country and are now standing with us as well. They are dieing for their country as well and using that figure like Kerry is doing is demeaning their contribution to this fight against terror just like he tried ignore the contribution of all those other countries as well.
Ask the President of Polland how much he is looking forward to working with Kerry after the contribution of his country was dismissed out of hand.
