slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Kerry's approach, I believe, would have been to not abandon these successful methods of containment for a risky, unjustified, destabilizing war of unprovoked aggression. Pathetic. You don't even know your own candidate. What do you think Kerry's position is? He clearly wanted to use war as a last resort. In his speech before the vote to give Bush authority to use force (thus making our threats more credible), he called for the use of diplomacy first. He said he wouldn't have invaded Iraq when Bush did, but wanted to let weapons inspectors keep doing their thing. Here's a decent summary of Kerry's opinion on the Iraq invasion: http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106946& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Sure would, but this isn't kindergarden. We got some seriously fucked up people that hate any thing and everything. You can either take care of this shit or you can wait until you have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 What do you think Kerry's position is? He clearly wanted to use war as a last resort. -His first position was the he wanted to go to war with Iraq -His second was that he wanted to threaten Saddam with force -His third position was that he would have done "everything differently" from Bush. I have the quote if you want it, but I have posted it before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 ...and that is what we really need. SOmeone who will start shit and then leave it by the way-side when it becomes unpopular for his base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Or better yet, someone who kind find ways to avoid starting shit . I'd say "needing to start shit" but it wouldn't have been a "need" until Saddam was actually a real threat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Or better yet, someone who kind find ways to avoid starting shit . I'd say "needing to start shit" but it wouldn't have been a "need" until Saddam was actually a real threat Hell with that man. The gauntlet was thrown and as far as I am concerned, Saddam wanted a war with the U.S. If you want shit to stop getting started, maybe you should start with the peopl who are cutting off the heads of civilians with a 4 inch blade while they are still alive and seding copies aroudn the internet. We could be more like Italy and bow down to the likes of terorists. Is that what you all want? To be a bitch of some 3rd world fanatacist?!? I pity you if you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I am still waiting to know what you would have done. You have not given me a response. You can mock Bush all you want but until you have a better idea, you are the retarded kid making fun of the kid with ADD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Dammit, we better go and invade Russia because we forgot to during the Cold War. That'll whip them Commies into shape! We better start some shit now because Putin's kinda funny-lookin' and he doesn't send troops to Iraq. (Hey Scott, how about that Soviet Union? Why wouldn't you have invaded it, considering we have always been the bestest country with the biggest guns in the whole wide world?) You've got some interesting impressions of Kerry, Scott. You seem very attached to the flip-flopper talking point. Kerry hasn't changed his position as much as you think: http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html . Flip-flopping is part of politics. For example: why did Bush give in to pressure from his base (Americans) and establish the 9/11 Commission? That's how politics works. That's the job: get things done for people (Americans) after listening to their concerns and balancing them with everyone else's. I don't care that he changed his position on the 9/11 Commission. I care that he obstructed it in the first place and refused to allow his and Cheney's testimony to be recorded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I prefer my own fact checking... 2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration?s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02) 2002: Kerry Wrote Saddam Inviting Enforcement If He Does Not Comply With International Community. "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02) 2002: Kerry Voted For Iraq War Resolution. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea) 2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn?t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It?s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN?s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01) He asked Kerry whether "there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry said: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see." The Soviet regime was a failing one. It was clear. Especially the last 25-30 years it was merely going through the motions. I think prior to that we utilized them on both fronts of the War, so I think your position on this is quite ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 My big idea on Iraq, subject to change: sanctions, no-fly zone, weapons inspectors, diplomatic pressure. Oppose those who wanted to end sanctions: UN, far left wing in the US. Encourage and oversee humanitarian aid to Iraq. Bomb terrorist camps in northern Iraq when we find them, to show Saddam that we will fight terrorist threats against us if they originate from his country. We could have gotten closer to Islamic nations by playing on Saddam's corruption of religion (he clearly was using it purely as a political tool). Assure Iran that we will continue to contain its former enemy (Iraq) so that it doesn't have to get uppity with nukes. Assure Islamic nations that we will help solve the Israel-Palestine problem. Etc., etc. I doubt that what I think is the best way. I'm not as well-informed as anyone in the State Dept. and I don't do this for a living. Since I'm not a policy-maker, I will do what I can: vote for the guy who is willing to change his position in response to reality. The guy who is interested in the world around him and understands the issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Bomb terrorist camps in northern Iraq when we find them, to show Saddam that we will fight terrorist threats against us if they originate from his country. You can't do this without declaring war on a nation. Think about it. You are bombing on their soil. Soon enough the republican army would be shooting at our planes (even more than they already did) and all out war would have happened anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I will do what I can: vote for the guy who is willing to change his position in response to reality. Yes but the fact remains that fi he were president 4 years ago it is likely we would still be at war with Iraq; unless all he sid was mere lip service to gain moderate voters in this upcomming election. He only changed his story after the rise of the insurgency. How do you explain that. He was for the war and there is no escaping that. He is now against the war and is an "anti-war candidate." How do you rectify this discrepancy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Well, I can't convince you if you're already convinced. I don't read Kerry's statements the same way. Not once did he say "we must invade Iraq." Agreeing with "the goal of regime change in Iraq" is like agreeing that the Soviet Union would be better off as a democracy--there is no mention of the means or the timeline. I don't know what you're talking about re: the Soviet Union. Even assuming that everyone knew it was a failing state (their propaganda said the same of us) for 30 years, your argument dictates that we should have just waited for Iraq to crumble under the weight of its own corruption. Which is exactly what I think should have happened, with our strong encouragement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Bomb terrorist camps in northern Iraq when we find them, to show Saddam that we will fight terrorist threats against us if they originate from his country. You can't do this without declaring war on a nation. Think about it. You are bombing on their soil. Soon enough the republican army would be shooting at our planes (even more than they already did) and all out war would have happened anyways. Haven't we already run bombing missions on their soil in the past when we weren't officially at war? Wasn't that 1/2 the purpose of the no-fly zone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Bomb terrorist camps in northern Iraq when we find them, to show Saddam that we will fight terrorist threats against us if they originate from his country. You can't do this without declaring war on a nation. Think about it. You are bombing on their soil. Soon enough the republican army would be shooting at our planes (even more than they already did) and all out war would have happened anyways. You can and we did. Clinton bombed or cruise-missled or whatevered Iraq a couple of times. Bush inserted airborne troops in Northern Iraq a month before the invasion. "All out war"? What was Saddam gonna do about it? Attack our forces in Kuwait? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Yes but the fact remains that fi he were president 4 years ago it is likely we would still be at war with Iraq; unless all he sid was mere lip service to gain moderate voters in this upcomming election. He only changed his story after the rise of the insurgency. How do you explain that. He was for the war and there is no escaping that. He is now against the war and is an "anti-war candidate." How do you rectify this discrepancy? No, he was not for the war. Read everything he said, again. He voted to give the president authority to go to war. He's not against the war now. He wants to end the war, just like Bush does: successfully. (What else is there to do?) He's against going to war when we don't have to. We're fighting a war in Iraq, like it or not, so that qualifies as "have to". You're trying to skew everything Kerry says into black-and-white categories, which doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 You need to read up on Soviet history there chappy. Khrushchev and Brezhnev's attempts to create a new socialism (based on the apparent failure of theold system) was followed by Glasnost and Perestroika as more flailing attempts by Gorbachev to fix the falling star. This is not propaganda. Why do you think that a couple million people holding hands in the Baltic we able to acheive freedom without a single shot being fired? The star was dying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Yes but the fact remains that fi he were president 4 years ago it is likely we would still be at war with Iraq; unless all he sid was mere lip service to gain moderate voters in this upcomming election. He only changed his story after the rise of the insurgency. How do you explain that. He was for the war and there is no escaping that. He is now against the war and is an "anti-war candidate." How do you rectify this discrepancy? No, he was not for the war. Read everything he said, again. He voted to give the president authority to go to war. He's not against the war now. He wants to end the war, just like Bush does: successfully. (What else is there to do?) He's against going to war when we don't have to. We're fighting a war in Iraq, like it or not, so that qualifies as "have to". You're trying to skew everything Kerry says into black-and-white categories, which doesn't make sense. So you tell me what Kerry thought would happen if he gave Bush poser to invade Iraq. Give me a fucking break. Of course he was going to go in there. How do you think there was going to be a regime change? Do you think he was just gonna ask Saddam to leave? Get real man. What do you think he was thinking if he didn't think we were going to war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Yeah, that's great! And we had even more visibility into Iraq's woes (weapons inspectors, no-fly zone) and arguably even more international pressure for regime change. Iraq's army was a piece of shit compared to the USSR's and I don't think the Iraqi secret police would measure up to the KGB, etc. So why not ride it out and watch Saddam get usurped by his own people. That would have been awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Yeah, that's great! And we had even more visibility into Iraq's woes (weapons inspectors, no-fly zone) and arguably even more international pressure for regime change. Iraq's army was a piece of shit compared to the USSR's and I don't think the Iraqi secret police would measure up to the KGB, etc. So why not ride it out and watch Saddam get usurped by his own people. That would have been awesome! Do you seriosuly think that Iraq would go the western capitolist way that Russia went? Give me a break. The next step for Iraq was for Uday and Qusay to run a joint reign of terror that made Saddam's reign look like a re-run of the teletubbies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Scott, Are you saying that Kerry was just too slow to call the President a liar? If so, I would agree with you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 No need to get all aggro, man. "Bush poser" would have invaded Iraq anyway. Kerry was playing it safe. I don't like that he voted to give Bush authority to use force, but I think he's come a long way in the course of the campaign in terms of more clearly defining his positions and taking a stronger leadership role. Bush can lead, but he refuses to listen or ask for help and is leading in the wrong direction. I'm not following that man over the cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 ChucK, I am saying that Kerry supported the War. That is all there is. If you can say that voting for a war, demanding a regime change, and calling Saddam a terrorist oh and saying that he had WMD and not be in support of this war, he is either the biggest doulbe-speaker in the world or just a liar... tke your pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I think he's come a long way in the course of the campaign in terms of more clearly defining his positions and taking a stronger leadership role. I think he has changed his view in order to more align himself with his base. Why does it take 4 years to clarify your position?!? He voted for the war and then he said that there was absolutely no reason why we should have ever gone to war with Iraq. Figure that one out ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 brb... switching classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.