*DAMN R6 Forum

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

After watching this....ask yourself....what is Kerry gonna do if he doesnt know what hes gonna do?

Hmm...

Kerry = self pwn't?




Can't we all just vote "None of the Above?"

hahahaha, I told you guys they are both fucktards.

Rebel, I think you messed up on that link. Only someone who is stupid and only reads what is written (rather than listen to what Kerry says) would see a flip-flop there. Those video clips show Kerry has a consistent position, though maybe it is too nuanced for you to handle Rebel. This ignoring the cheap editing tricks they used (Chris Matthews has jumped on them for the January 2004 Hardball appearance where they take Kerry saying yes he is the anti-war candidate when in reality he says yes he is anti-war IF that means against how THIS war was handled.

There have been investigative journalism reports that looked back on Kerry's statements all through this process and they have found that Kerry has been consistent. But if you want to buy into this Republican spin bullshit, go ahead.

So would you go so far as to calling it the Michael Moore of republican commercials?

I am just trying to field your ability to be bi partisan

Constant position? He went from saying "we need to send troops to Iraq" to "i dont think we should be there"

Wow Rebel, your powerful arguments have convinced me.

PS: This is funny http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index_np.html)

Rebel - No, he went from saying "we need to be tough on Saddam Hussein, and go to war if diplomacy fails" to saying "we shouldn't have gone to war without exhausting all our options."

He did emphasize the need for diplomacy, though he wasn't optimistic about it.  His later criticism of the war centered on the fact that the president went to war before exhausting other recourses, which might have, for example, made clear that Saddam Hussein did not in fact have WMDs.

FahQ - I think this commercial is somewhat more misleading than Michael Moore's work, and here's why:

I would characterize Moore's videos as suggesting improprieties that may be the case.  For example, in Fahrenheit 9/11 he documents the Bush family's connections to the Saudi royals.  That is fact.  But though he suggests that it may be wrong, and therein lies his bias, he only presented the information about the connections.  It's up to the viewer to determine what was appropriate.

This commercial, however, perpetuates proven falsehoods.  It is highly misleading because the connections it suggests are non-existent or untrue.  The greatest example of this is the absurd notion that Hussein had any connection to 9/11.  That has been repeatedly suggested by the GOP and Fox News (you've seen the statistics, I'm sure, on Fox news viewer's beliefs?), yet it is entirely false.  In this video, there is at least one clip of John Kerry talking about the dangers of terrorism, how it should be hunted, how we should make war against it - then the video cuts to a later part of the clip and he is talking about Saddam Hussein.  This sort of out-of-context manipulation is what has convinced people like Rebel to vote for George W. Bush.  No outright lies - just the power of suggestion.

So - would you prefer the suggestion that something that actually happened is improper, or the suggestion that something that is completely false is true?

Hmmm, what's that Mr. Pres?(http://www.electoral-vote2.com/images/bulge.jpg)

wow and all that intelligent talk i thought came from him..

Allright, i just got done at school with Government class. Today was the War in Iraq debate. Now, i can deal with u Liberals but when it comes to extreme liberals, i cant. Now, after the two teams got done debating, the rest of the class got to ask questions. Now i pose this question to you guys because when i asked it in class, i never got an answer. Im not trying to flame and id just like ur honest answer rather then comments directed at me and what i believe. Here is what my question was.

Now, we all know that before we went to Iraq, we went to the UN and made our statements. They decided to send in UN Weapons Inspectors to search for what we thought were WMD's. They went into Iraq and were permitted to look into some areas but not others. Its these "other" places that the Iraqui regime would not let us see. This led us to believe that possed something they didnt want us to see. Now, if you believe war was not the answer, what could we have done? Send more inspectors in and have them turned away?"

Now, id like to please keep this on track and avoid flaming when it comes to BUSH IS GAY KERRY IS GAY kinda stuff.

Heh... damn, Reb. You sure are in the wrong place if that's your expectation for this crowd.

Snipe, comments like that don't help.

Rebel - I'm not sure what Senator Kerry's position on the issue of what should have done was.  When he voted to authorize force if necessary, his support (as he stated at the time) was contingent on completion of the diplomatic process and availability of no other alternatives.

My personal feeling is that there were several options, though I don't know what Kerry's assessment of them would have been.  Here's my take:

Today's CIA report essentially confirmed that Hussein was boasting of weapons in order to maintain his own profile and appear to have more bargaining power.  In hindsight, we know that he really was not a threat, as many people believed him to be in 2002.

Yet if we look at Iraq and assume that they actually had weapons, my feeling is that YES, we could have sent in continued inspectors - only reacted differently if they were not allowed to inspect certain areas.  If that were the case, perhaps we could have retaliated with targeted military strikes rather than a full-scale invasion.  That sort of response worked well over the previous 11 years, as we now see, in preventing Hussein from further agressions and developing weapons.  The truth is that he was contained, and the continued international sanctions and enforcement, while they could have been made more effective, were sufficient to prevent him from legitimately threatening world peace.

Before we got to that point, however, there were still many more diplomatic overtures we could have made.  Especially with the support of the entire rest of the world - including Arab countries who might have had influence if more attempts were made to bring them to the table - the United States could have stymied any threat Hussein posed by negotiation that would have intensified the restrictions against his regime if he did not fully co-operate.  Diplomacy is a long process, and whatever threat may have existed (and of course we now know there was none) was not so imminent as to prevent the continuation of policies that were working.

Saddam Hussein, whether he had had WMD or not, was not attacking any nation.  The idea of preemptively stopping him from doing so with war - when he was already stopped was foolish.  

Finally, I ask you this - if Saddam Hussein was thought to have weapons of mass destruction at his immediate disposal, why was it in our best interest to attack him, thereby giving him the provocation and opportunity to use them?  That is the reason we never attacked Russia "preemptively," we will not attack North Korea, and we will not attack Iran.  It is dangerous and irrational to attack a nation that has nuclear weapons at its disposal.

If Iraq were only developing weapons, and did not have them ready to go (as was thought), there was still plenty of time for diplomacy.  I believe that is what John Kerry communicated when he authorized force as a last resort.

What does the first gulfwar have to do with the current iraq war?

As far as I know theire two different conflicts in the same country, two different reasons to go to war, Kuwait and WMD's. Should kerry be fround upon if he has different oppinions on different matters?

USA sent troops to germany in ww2, if we assume that someone from the ww2 era regime was still in some sort of administrative position, and voted "no" today on a invasion on germany would that make him a flip-flopper?

Just thought it was stupid to bring up what he voted in the first one as if it had anything to do with.. never mind

random rambling over.

I don't get the Whole Flipflopping thing... I mean if your goverment tells you "iraq and saddamn have huge stockpiles of WMDs and we're fucked if we don't do somthing" then is it surprising he agreed before and said, "yes we better do somthing"

Of course now we know that they all lied about it, id have changed my opinion.

Rebel, it is like this, you compare your findings from on the ground expectations, compare it to Saddam's bragging about weapons...realize that he doesn't have the weapons (something Hans Blix knew/suspected long before the war started) and call Saddam's bluff and use non-war means.

However, if Bush had actually come out and said we feel the need to prosecute Saddam for genocide, that this was grounds for regime change, that he got the international community or the regional community on board, and that his plan actually was to keep the peace and not the oil. I could support a War in Iraq. I think the problem is that Bush had all the wrong reasons to invade Iraq, not that there was no reason.

Now watch this:

http://victoryfund.njdc.org/bubbie/ (http://victoryfund.njdc.org/bubbie/)

For the last time, stop replying and talking like im Pro Bush cause im NOT. Im just anti Kerry. Being anti kerry does not mean im pro bush, cause i think both have no reason to be in office. I myself think Cheney should be pres and bush vice. All im asking is to stop replying like im a bush lover for i am not, im just against Kerry.

Rebel, as far as I can tell, I'm the only person who has answered your last post in this thread, and I didn't address my post as though you were pro-Bush.  I didn't mention Bush at all, rather I addressed Kerry's reactions and my own feelings to/on the question you raised.  So ignoring the 4 off-topic posts afterward, what is your reaction to my post, in which I invested a considerable amount of thought?

Are you still anti-Kerry?  Do you care to discuss?

 

(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20031028/cartoon20031028.gif)

Loud, i was adressing Bondo. After reading his post i got the vibe that he thinks im pro bush. If you really wanna know why im anti kerry sure id speak my mind. First off, i dont like how he just says "i have a plan" and when asked about his plan he says "go to my website". That bugs me because that tells me that he must no be very sure what his plan is and he doesnt care enough to know it by heart. I also dont like how he brags about his military record although it wasnt a good one. Sure id agree if Patton ran around saying he was the greatest cause he was. Third, he just trashes our current president. During the past 2 debates during his alotted time all he did was say what bush was doing wrong rather then what he would do to fix it. I fear for our future because it rides in the hands of a man who cant speak and knows too little and a man who speaks to much and knows too little.

"I have a plan."
Quick response -- at least Kerry has a plan. Bush has no plan. Longer response -- Could you describe a plan to win a war in two minutes or less?  Kerry has detailed his plan in four points: bring in allies, speed up the moblization of the Iraqi forces, do serious reconstruction not the "Haliburtonisation" or Iraq, and get the Iraqis' voting so they can run their own government. He points you to his website so you can get details on just how.

"He brags about his military record although it wasnt a good one."
Quick response -- I think the NAVY would disagree with you. Three purple hearts, bronze star, and silver star -- a record any man would be proud of. Longer response -- he doesn't brag about his service. He talks about it. It's a defining part of his life. It exposed him to people he'd never have met otherwise, taught him responsiblity, and showed his courage and compasion for his fellow soldiers.

"Third, he just trashes our current president. During the past 2 debates during his alotted time all he did was say what bush was doing wrong rather then what he would do to fix it."
Quick response -- you're wrong. He spent a lot of time talking about what he'd do. Longer response -- this is classic suppression thought: you want a candidate who doesn't question the President. That's ridiculous and undemocratic. Do you want to live in communist china where people can't question their leaders? He has to point out what this President has done wrong because otherwise he can't compare it to what he's going to do right.

"I fear for our future because it rides in the hands of a man who cant speak and knows too little and a man who speaks to much and knows too little"
Quick response -- whatever. Longer response -- I think 20 years in the Senate and a lifetime of public service is the sort of experience you find in John Kerry. Kerry demostraighted in two victorious debates just how much he does know, and it was invigorating. But you're right, Bush knows far too little.

You can spew opinionated BS all over these forums, but when it comes time to walk the walk, what have you done to make a difference? It's our generation's future not theirs, don't forget that.