John Kerry

[toms]

That aside, however, I think that going into Iran will be incredibly stupid. There is a growing democratic movement there. An invasion will enable the priests facists in charge to lable this freedom movement as traitors and american puppets, and possibly swing public opinion in their disfavor.

 

Sounds familiar. It turns out that saddam was pretty much losing the ability to control his country, but now there are a hell of a lot of people there labling the occupation force and their attempt to install a government as traitors and american puppets, and possibly swing public opinion in their disfavor.

 

But the boss in the CIA presented dubya with intel saying that Iraq wasn't developing WMD. In other words: Dubya knew that Iraq didn't have WMD, because the CIA told him that. I don't know what your sources are, but mine is Politiken, one of the three largest and most respected newspapers in Denmark.

 

Seems clear that most of the pro-weapons evidence was overhyped and uncorroberated and the anti-weapons stuff was downplayed... of course, no civil servants want to annoy their political masters.

 

 

Ah, but it did get out. Reports were abundant that dubya was threatening to cut trade agreements with some of the temporary members of the Security Counsil if they voted against him. And 'all those countries' is a rather rich way of putting it. You had what, ten? With Australia and England (and Japan?) being the only ones worth really mentioning.

 

It is hardly a secret. YOu have to understand how these things work. Basically they got the first resolution by carefully wording it so it didn't say that the consequence of non-compliance would be invasion (cos countries wouldn't have voted for that) and then when it became clear they wouldn't win a second vote they changed their tune and claimed the first one was enough. Its all in the tricky wording and threats.

 

There were some economic sanctions, but there is a multitude of evidence that those sanctions were being violated (by such nations as France and Germany), and therefore had no meaning.

 

True, on one hand. But it wasn't the countries who were breaking the sanctions, it was companies within them who were trying to get around them. Heck, there were US and UK companies that were trying to do the same. THe sanctions created a demand and it was natural that some unscrupulous companies would try to exploit it. However, some countries enforcement of sanctions was pretty slack.

 

The truth is that George W. Bush shouldn't have had to send troops into Iraq because Sadam should have been removed from power by the United Nations YEARS AGO!

 

No, he should have been removed after the first gulf war when there was both a legal justification and the easy option to do so. However it was the US that decided against removing him at that time, and if the US wasn't backing it then the UN was stuck.

 

But because the UN refused to put down the growing threat that was Sadam Hussein, the President decided to put together a coalition to do it for them.

 

This is really the crux of the matter as far as a lot of us are concerned. Saddam was in no way a GROWING THREAT, he was slowly losing his grip on power. He wasn't even getting worse as far as his weapons or his treatment of his own citizens went. SO why did it suddenly become so urgent to remove him?

 

You have never even seen a socialist. Kerry may be on the far right wing of the Social Democratic movement, but socialist? Don't make me laugh.

heh heh. Its like the uk these days... even our left wing parties are on the right.

 

But a fractured UN is a far greater long-term threat than Iraq could ever become.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

This doesn't appear to be very on topic anymore though. However I think that taking a few vague statements about what JK might do if and when he gets elected as the sign that he is the devil incarnate is overdoing it a bit.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

This isn't being reported by the mainstream American press, but the hard-line Islamic press loves it. Why? Because if John Kerry wins the election, America's off their back! And even if that's not his plan, that is definitely the impression he's making in the Middle East.

 

Or conversely: The people in Islamic countries are optomistic for a regime change in the United States because then, perhaps, the imperialist and ethnocentrist nature of the current regime will change. Perhaps America's government will become more tolerant of the Islamic cultures and true progress can be made in stabilizing the region.

 

I don't pretend to speak for citizens and media of Islamic nations, but my explanation is every bit as plausible as your own.

 

 

Originally posted by rccar328

One of the reasons we sent troops into Iraq was [...] According to what David Kay said, the climate of corruption and deception going on with Iraq's WMD programs actually made Iraq more dangerous than was originally thought.

 

We hashed this one out in the other thread, but I suppose it's pertinent here. Iraq was about fullfilling the neo-conservative agenda. I clearly delineated that in the other thread. And that agenda is about control of petroleum resources in the region. Iraq is but the beginning of a long and dangerous series of conflicts in that region if we don't give the neo-conservative powers in the Republican party the boot now. Iraq is not and was not ever about WMD. WMD was the excuse.

 

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Personally, I don't think it would be possible for the US to threaten/blackmail/bribe all of those other nations

 

And yet it appears to have happened. Along with eavesdropping on the offices of Koffi Annan.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

But you're ignoring the fact that Iraq blatently disregarded resolution after resolution, with very little response from the UN.

 

As has the United States and Israel. Should we attack Israel or allow ourselves to be attacked? I'm not defending the past violations of the Iraqi government, only pointing out the non sequitur of the argument.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

You're right, that is a pretty strong interest. And one that the Coast Guard has been handling quite capably without the use of ground troops, thank you very much.

 

We'll see. Still, it's kind of telling on your attitude toward the world if you aren't willing to apply human rights and human interests concerns to nations within our own hemisphere that you so blatantly criticize the Middle East of.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

"a diplomacy that commits America to lead the workd toward liberty and prosperity."

Well, we did free two Middle-Eastern countries from oppressive regimes and trying to set up diplomatic governments there...and that's without a doubt more free and prosperous than tyranny.

 

And to date, they both appear to be dealing with anarchy. The loss of life and the destruction of personal property seems greater than before the U.S. invaded either, particularly Iraq. Iraq is now a playground for the Al-Qaeda terrorists (or those like them) that we should have focused on to begin with. It was a waste of time and a slap in the face to those that lost friends and family in 9/11. The victims of 9/11 have been pissed upon by the Bush admin. by not pursing Al-Qaeda to the fullest extent in favor of getting the oil.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Personally, I would prefer tax cuts to the tax-and-spend policies that Skin pointed out from Kerry's website. He'll have already spent any money he made from tax increases, and when revenues decrease because businesses have decided to leave America to aviod the higher taxes, it'll be California on a grand scale...

 

Yet, how do you explain that Bush seems to have designs on spending FAR more money than Kerry, and less tax-base to pay for it with? The neo-conservatives of the GOP have effectively screwed this country. There's NO WAY a president can promise "no new taxes" in the coming administration and not be a liar.

[rccar328]

The people in Islamic countries are optomistic for a regime change in the United States because then, perhaps, the imperialist and ethnocentrist nature of the current regime will change. Perhaps America's government will become more tolerant of the Islamic cultures and true progress can be made in stabilizing the region.

But we're not being intolerant of Islam as a whole. The Islamic cultures that America has been intolerant of are those that would like nothing more than to see Americans die. The ones who were dancing in the streets, cheering when the World Trade Center towers fell. Of course the hard-line Islamic jihadist regimes want "regime change" in America...it's the best chance they have to continue their oppression and expand their terror network.

 

And that agenda is about control of petroleum resources in the region.

But to say that the only reason for the Iraq war was to secure the Iraqi oil reserves and to break OPEC shows purpousful ignorance - if you believe that oil was the only reason, you're blinding yourself to the multitude of other credible reasons for the war.

 

And yet it appears to have happened. Along with eavesdropping on the offices of Koffi Annan.

Yeah...way to take my comments out of context...What I was saying is that if it did occur on the scale that you say it did, it seems to me that the liberal media would have that plastered all over the place.

 

Still, it's kind of telling on your attitude toward the world if you aren't willing to apply human rights and human interests concerns to nations within our own hemisphere that you so blatantly criticize the Middle East of.

I never said that I was against sending troops to Haiti...I'm for it, as a matter of fact. I was pointing out Kerry's (and other democrat's) hypocracy.

 

As has the United States and Israel. Should we attack Israel or allow ourselves to be attacked?

Well, the United States went against the UN because the UN wasn't willing to enforce their resolutions on Iraq...

As for Israel, that's another debate totally. The UN has a problem with them retaliating against Hamas after their suicide bombers kill and injure innocent civilians...I simply don't understand why the UN condemns Israel instead of Hamas...

 

And to date, they both appear to be dealing with anarchy. The loss of life and the destruction of personal property seems greater than before the U.S. invaded either, particularly Iraq. Iraq is now a playground for the Al-Qaeda terrorists (or those like them) that we should have focused on to begin with.

Yes...because it is in Al-Qaida's best interests to start a civil war in Iraq, make the streets run with blood, and make Americans loose confidence in President Bush. Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason that Al-Qaida is so interested in Iraq? They want Bush out of office because it improves their chances of surviving.

 

Yet, how do you explain that Bush seems to have designs on spending FAR more money than Kerry, and less tax-base to pay for it with?

Well, President Bush's spending is something I disagree with, and I have said so in the past...but tax cuts do stimulate the economy. They worked for John F. Kennedy. They worked for Reagan.

 

That aside, however, I think that going into Iran will be incredibly stupid. There is a growing democratic movement there. An invasion will enable the priests facists in charge to lable this freedom movement as traitors and american puppets, and possibly swing public opinion in their disfavor.

Yes, and that is one reason that no one is talking about invading Iran - another is their nuclear weapons. Personally, I don't think the goal ever was to invade Iran - it was instead to plant democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan in the hopes that if those democracies were successful, the people of Iran would rise up and overthrow the regime. But I don't know the plan...that's just my theory.

 

But like I said, this isn't a Bush-bashing anti-war in Iraq thread...it's about John Kerry. I still haven't heard a convincing argument for him...not here anyway.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

...it's about John Kerry. I still haven't heard a convincing argument for him...not here anyway.

 

hehe... I don't think your partisan blindness would allow you to be convinced. You already see spurious reasons to oppose his candidacy and likely won't see anything that will cause you to even consider let alone convince you.

 

Spurious reason = "flip-flop" politics. All politicians flip-flop. One could argue that their positions change due to constituency, afterall, they are supposed to represent the voters.

 

Spurious reason = gay marriage stance. The gay marriage issue is meant to obfuscate and polarize the candidates. I imagine that the other polarizing issues will arise, such as abortion, gun control, etc., but these serve no purpose other than to drive wedges between voters and candidates. Kerry's position on gay marriage seems clear (though I disagree with him): he's against gay marriage/for civil union, but believes that the federal government should stay out of the issue and leave it up to states to decide.

 

I'll be the first to admit that Kerry has a tendency to dance around questions and give some non-answers, but this is the type of politics that senators and congressmen use in election campaigns be they Republican or Democrat. He'll need to change that habit to run a good race, but at least he doesn't have his opponent's habit of sounding stupid when he talks: giving wrong information, mispronunciations, and inappropriate use of grammer, etc.

[rccar328]

All politicians flip-flop.

Yeah...but Kerry flip-flops more than any politician I've seen.

he's against gay marriage/for civil union, but believes that the federal government should stay out of the issue and leave it up to states to decide.

But this is representative of one of the flip-flops I'm talking about. Go back to that debate I posted earlier. You're right...Kerry did say that he was against gay marriage & for civil unions, and he has said that it should be up to the states...but in that debate, he said that he was against the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves the gay marriage issue up to individual states. So, do you really know what John Kerry believes?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Yeah...but Kerry flip-flops more than any politician I've seen.

 

I challenge you to quantify that.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

but in that debate, he said that he was against the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves the gay marriage issue up to individual states. So, do you really know what John Kerry believes?

 

I think I do. The Defense of Marriage Act has within it some things that would further segregate those that seek rights for same-sex couples.

 

It provides definitions (on a federal level) for the words "spouse" and "marriage." I, personally, think that the bill is fair in that it provides states the option to not recognize the same-sex marriages of another state. But the part of the bill that I have a problem with is that it defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

 

I expect that's why Kerry opposes it, since that definition excludes rights and is as much a step to segragation as defining a black person as "3/5ths human."

 

I'd say that's a non- flip/flop. I'd also say, spend more time looking at original sources than regurgitating neo-conservative rhetoric. I don't believe everything that the Democratic position spouts, in fact I can point out several fallacies of the Democratic arguments coming from McAuliffe, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, etc., but I also see the fallacies of the Republican Party.

 

In the end, the GOP appears to have more fallacies, more significant fallacies, and a track record of befouling the nation.

[ShadowTemplar]

rccar: You still haven't told me what two Middle Eastern countries you're talking about. Even if you call Iraq a success (big if), that's still only one.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Of course the hard-line Islamic jihadist regimes want "regime change" in America...it's the best chance they have to continue their oppression and expand their terror network.

 

I doubt that. dubya is giving them what all totalitarian regimes have needed throughout history: An enemy to identify themselves against.

 

But to say that the only reason for the Iraq war was to secure the Iraqi oil reserves and to break OPEC shows purpousful ignorance - if you believe that oil was the only reason, you're blinding yourself to the multitude of other credible reasons for the war.

 

Yeah, Saudi Arabia was about to chuck your mil. bases out, for one.

 

Yeah...way to take my comments out of context...What I was saying is that if it did occur on the scale that you say it did, it seems to me that the liberal media would have that plastered all over the place.

 

How would you know it hasn't been? Do you ever read 'liberal media'?

 

I never said that I was against sending troops to Haiti...I'm for it, as a matter of fact. I was pointing out Kerry's (and other democrat's) hypocracy.

 

There is a difference between sending troops to quench a rebellion that threatens to instate a junta of war-criminals, and sending troops to occiupy a sovereign country.

 

That said, I do agree that Skin misrepresented your quote. An honest mistake, I think.

 

Well, the United States went against the UN because the UN wasn't willing to enforce their resolutions on Iraq...

 

And you think that dubya knew what the UN wanted better than the UN did. Think again.

 

As for Israel, that's another debate totally. The UN has a problem with them retaliating against Hamas after their suicide bombers kill and injure innocent civilians...I simply don't understand why the UN condemns Israel instead of Hamas...

 

That's a long and complicated story, but it revolves, amongst other things, around the fact that Israel is illegally annexing palestinian land. And the fact that Israel is punishing the palestinians collectively for the actions of individuals. And if you ask me, Israel is using retaliatory actions as a cover for hitting civilians. The other day they tried to kill the Hamas head honcho with a chopper gunship. They missed, and the missiles hit innocent bystanders. Now the spiritual leader of Hamas is blind, and he's sitting in a wheelchair. This raises two interesting questions: 1) Why hit a guy who'll die off by himself within the space of a few years? And 2) How the hell can the world's second most technologically advanced military miss a blind man in a wheelchair? Unless they aren't trying, of course.

 

Yes...because it is in Al-Qaida's best interests to start a civil war in Iraq, make the streets run with blood, and make Americans loose confidence in President Bush. Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason that Al-Qaida is so interested in Iraq? They want Bush out of office because it improves their chances of surviving.

 

Anyone said 'paranoia'?

 

but tax cuts do stimulate the economy. They worked for John F. Kennedy. They worked for Reagan.

 

Tax cuts for the poor stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for the rich is money out of the window.

 

But like I said, this isn't a Bush-bashing anti-war in Iraq thread...it's about John Kerry. I still haven't heard a convincing argument for him...not here anyway.

 

Since dubya's doing such a miserable job, I'd say getting him out of office is reason enough. And Kerry gets good press this side of the pond.

[SkinWalker]

On 2/22/04 Bush's campaign chairman Marc Racicot accused Kerry of “voting against the weapons systems that are winning the War on Terror” and says Kerry was for "canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser." Another Bush campaign spokesman said Kerry has a "32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems" (a clear impossibility since Kerry has been in office less than 20 years.)

 

The truth is that Kerry has voted regularly for military spending bills since 1997. He hasn't voted against the types of conventional weapons noted by Racicot since his campaign 20 years ago. Kerry did, however, vote against strategic nuclear weaponry such as the B-2 bomber and Trident missile system.

 

Bush's own father (1992) committed himself to opposing further production of those very weapons: "we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program."

 

The bottom line is, Kerry hasn't been "anti-military" in his voting and has only voted against WMD type weapons and for broad packages that reduce federal spending in times of serious deficit (such as in 1993).

 

 

Racicot, Marc (2/22/04). Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot’s Letter to Senator John Kerry. George W. Bush Campaign Website. News Releases section.

 

Bush, George H. (1/28/92). PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. C-SPAN.org.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Tax cuts for the poor stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for the rich is money out of the window.

 

Just to piggy-back this, I've included some numbers.

 

 

In looking at the Tax Policy Center's (2003) numbers we have the following:

 

21,433,000 people received an average of $29,767 in tax breaks.

 

42,096,000 people received an average of $1080 in tax breaks.

 

74,523,000 people received an average of $318 in tax breaks.

 

Tax Policy Center (23 May 03). Table T03-0123 - Effect of EGTRRA and Conference Agreement on the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003: Distribution of Income Tax Change by AGI Class,2003. taxpolicycenter.org

[rccar328]

Tax cuts for the poor stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for the rich is money out of the window.

The idea is to give the tax cuts to the people who actually pay taxes. Give the tax cuts to business owners so that they have some capital to expand their businesses and hire additional workers. The thing that [almost] makes me laugh is that after the President's tax cuts went through, the democrats wanted to (and I think did) give child tax credits to people too poor to pay taxes...that's not tax cuts, that's welfare!

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

The idea is to give the tax cuts to the people who actually pay taxes.

 

Except that there are more middle class tax payers than any other tax base. In fact, the rich find numerous ways to avoid paying taxes alltogether if they can help it.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Give the tax cuts to business owners so that they have some capital to expand their businesses and hire additional workers.

 

Except history has shown that what happens is the salaries of CEOs and executives go up and more annual bonuses and incentives for these same executives increase. That's in opposition to the savings going into the business or corporation for operationalizing. You must keep in mind that the goal of an incorporated business is to not show a profit so as to avoid taxation. One way to do this is to pay handsome bonuses to the owners, CEOs and execs.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The thing that [almost] makes me laugh is that after the President's tax cuts went through, the democrats wanted to (and I think did) give child tax credits to people too poor to pay taxes...that's not tax cuts, that's welfare!

 

This is becuase "poor people" are the real stimuli of the economy. If there is any doubt, one need only look at the tobacco industry's model for verification. They target those with the least amount of money in society as a customer base and yet they are among the wealthiest corporations. The government was wise to place a tax on tobacco... perhaps unwise not to maintain a monopoly on the industry as it did US Mail.

[ET Warrior]

Tax cuts for the rich make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[wassup]

Adding on to Skinwalker's post:

 

If anyone recalls, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader artillery system about 2 years ago, in May 2002, after the events of Sept. 11 and after the invasion of Afghanistan, the first step in the "war on terror". According to the article, the cancellation was against the wish of the Army.

The Army fiercely opposed killing Crusader, a 40-ton artillery cannon designed to close what the Army calls a capabilities gap between its heavy artillery and that of China and North Korea.

 

Also, just recently, the Defense Department cancelled the Commanche program.

[toms]

Yeah...way to take my comments out of context...What I was saying is that if it did occur on the scale that you say it did, it seems to me that the liberal media would have that plastered all over the place.

 

Er... they did! at least over here. Mind you, from what i understand, the US media which was already pretty rightwing has now shifted even further to the right, so maybe it didn't get mentioned over there. "Fair and balanced" the US media aint.

 

The UN condemns Hamas and palestinian terrorists on a regular basis... but as the palestinians don't have a country of their own and the UN works on a national government basis there isn't much the UN can do about it. If the USA would let them, which it never would because of the hugely disproportionate ammount of influence and lobyists that pro-israel groups have in the US. (and the fear that any anti israel move will be portrayed as ani-semitic.)

 

It is a hugely complex issue (largely of OUR making) where there are rights and wrongs on both sides, but it is the US government's dogged refusal to be even handed that is one of the reasons they are so disliked.

 

Politicians say what they think will be popular, while trying very hard to avoid saying anything at all that might get them in trouble. I doubt Kerry is any different.... bush sure isn't.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Well, the United States went against the UN because the UN wasn't willing to enforce their resolutions on Iraq...

 

And also disregarded the a 1986 International Court of Justice ruling against the United States and in favor of Nicaragua, the United States has refused to acknowledge the ICJ's authority and the $17 billion in damages it was ordered to pay were never delivered.

 

Flagrant disregard of an international body chartered by the United Nations is but another example of the undermining actions the United States has taken simply because adherence to international law doesn't suit its own agenda. An agenda that has, for all intents and purposes, been one of "state sponsored terrorism." The difference between us and Al-Qaeda on this point is that we have a country with borders and the might to disregard the international community. Then we stand up and announce how ineffective the United Nations is. Well no kidding.

 

Is it any wonder why there are crazy people out there that have it in for our nation?

 

Regime change in the United States is the single best way to protect our citizens. Fire Bush and elect Kerry.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

The idea is to give the tax cuts to the people who actually pay taxes. Give the tax cuts to business owners so that they have some capital to expand their businesses and hire additional workers.

 

I don't know how the American tax system works, but in Denmark we don't tax the money that goes into re-investment (that is, expanding and/or maintaining one's production capacity). What we do tax is the profit, which does little benefit to the economy.

 

give child tax credits to people too poor to pay taxes...that's not tax cuts, that's welfare!

 

Two sides of the same coin.

 

Except that there are more middle class tax payers than any other tax base. In fact, the rich find numerous ways to avoid paying taxes alltogether if they can help it.

 

That still is not the point. The point is that if you give a $3mio tax cut for the richest ten percent, then 75% (this percentage is gripped from thin air, but nicely illustrates the principle) of that is going to an (overseas) bank account, which means that only 25% are going to create demand, which stimulates the economy. Of those 25%, a pretty big part is going to be demand for goods produced in foreign countries, which will cause a trade balance instability (and won't help local economy). Now if you instead give the tax cut to the poorest 10%, almost all of it will go into creating demand (because they can't afford putting money in the bank). And because they need vital goods (food, homes, etc.), which are usually produced locally, more of the demand is for domistically produced goods. So, all together, tax cuts/welfare services for the poor stimulates the economy far more than equivalent services for the rich.

[rccar328]

An Open Letter to Senator John Kerry

from the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran

 

*edit*

I didn't have time to do this earlier, but here are some of the highlights from this letter from Iranian students to John Kerry:

For the past few months we have listened and observed with apprehension and dismay to your statements and views regarding the terrorist theocracy in Iran. Yet, we had remained silent!

 

We have read how you refer to the theocratic regime in Iran as a "democracy;" we have heard how, if elected, as the president of the United States you intend to "engage" this barbaric regime; this very terrorist regime that your own State Department lists as the most active "State Sponsor of Terrorism."

 

Why is it, Senator, in all your statements, you don't, even once, mention the oppressed and suffering masses of Iran? Obviously, as long as there is such preoccupation with appeasing the regime the people of Iran don't even enter your equation!

But, Senator, on February 8, 2004, Tehran Times, Mehr News Agency, as well the newspapers in the United States reported that: "The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an E-mail saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election." And, includes your statement: "... America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others." Adding further: "He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer."

 

Once informed, obviously, we were outraged and disillusioned! Senator, by sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy. You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare "open season" on the freedom fighters in Iran. Sir, by so doing you have assaulted us directly and have insulted the honor and the dignity of the Iranian people.

 

I think that this oppinion, coming from the people of Iran, is very telling of why John Kerry is the wrong choice when it comes to the Middle East.

 

I encourage you to read the whole letter...I know, it's very long, but it is also very telling of why John Kerry would not make a good President.

[MennoniteHobbit]

But the boss in the CIA presented dubya with intel saying that Iraq wasn't developing WMD. In other words: Dubya knew that Iraq didn't have WMD, because the CIA told him that. I don't know what your sources are, but mine is Politiken, one of the three largest and most respected newspapers in Denmark.

 

Eh hem... It is a respected newspaper in Denmark. I am not saying it isn't good, as i have never seen or read it, but it is an overseas newspaper. Where does it get its info??? Generally, overseas newspapers tend to bias their articles to the country's main belief. Especially when opposed to the US.

[toms]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Eh hem... It is a respected newspaper in Denmark. I am not saying it isn't good, as i have never seen or read it, but it is an overseas newspaper. Where does it get its info??? Generally, overseas newspapers tend to bias their articles to the country's main belief. Especially when opposed to the US.

 

I think you will probably find that overseas newspapers (at least the ones that aren't a part of big multinational empires) are more likely to be neutral about a subject than those that are in the country immediately involved.

 

Of course, they will tend to slightly spin things in favour of their own political bias, and the views of their country (which in almost all countries is anti-US), but they will do it far less than the local papers will.

 

------

 

Iran isn't a democracy... but it has been making progress and becoming less extreme in its views over the last decade or so. I guess it depends on whether you think this process can be best encouraged by interacting with them, or branding them a terrorist state and attacking them.

 

Of course, the US has no problem dealing with other states that are no better than Iran (Saudi Arabia, China etc...). but then i guess they ahve a financial interest in being nice to them, and a political interest in attacking iran.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Actually, the people of Iran don't want any more bloodshed even for their freedom. If they wanted bloodshed it would have begun a long time ago.

[rccar328]

I found this to be exceedingly interesting:

John Kerry said that Clinton didn't need UN sanction to go into Iraq...

 

 

I also found this report...it's laughable:

Kerry accuses Bush of making "history" by launching attack ads earlier than in any other campaign

But he fails to mention that he was playing attack ads before Bush. Besides that, I've seen these supposed "attack" ads but out by the Bush campaign...they attack John Kerry's record, and there's no valid reason to complain about that...if anything, you'd think that Kerry would be all for it - after all, if he thinks his record is all that great, then the Bush campaign is giving him free advertising.

 

 

I also found this report, which indicates that apparently, John Kerry (or at least the people that run his campaign), thinks we're all stupid...

_A spokesman for Kerry said he believed the Web site was struck by ``a virus'' yesterday. He then promised to get back to us with a better story, but never did.

The news story is about the f- and s- word being found in multiple places on Kerry's campaign website. Personally, I don't really care what Kerry says - I already don't think he's fit to be President of the United States. But the simple truth of it is that John Kerry did say those things, in an interview with the Rolling Stone...but instead of admitting it, they blame it on a "virus"...yeah, right.

[toms]

1) Very Interesting. Damn slippery politicians.

 

"Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked," said Kerry. "I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term 'serious consequences will flow.' On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the Security Council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern – where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity? But in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."

 

I agree that this does sound rather dodgy. But again, i'm surprised you find it odd that a politician has changed his tune on something. happens all the time, whatever the side.

 

2) Do any US politicians ever run anything other than negative attack ads? I've never seen any evidence of it.

 

3) oooh!! Kerry said a bad word!!! what a naughty boy!!!

Who cares. Sometimes the US just needs to grow up.

 

Personally, I think everyone of the candidates on both sides looks dodgy and this is a product of the fact you have to have the right money, family, backers and frieds to even get considered.

[SkinWalker]

I personally find some of that about Kerry disagreeable, but not nearly to the extent that I find the underhanded leadership, failures and shortcommings of the Bush admin disagreeable.

 

The fact that Kerry is willing to use the F-word is fine by me, as long as he doesn't say it while showing his pierced nipple on live TV I can live with it.

 

I'm not impressed by the "flip-flop" point about Iraq. The context is different and this is a Senator showing support for his President. Ironically, some of the criticism that Clinton received at the time was from Republicans. I don't see you getting worked up about their "flip-flop" of the issue. Surely many of them are running for re-election in various Senate and Congressional seats.

 

As to the attack ads, Kerry is correct. Bush has launched some underhanded attack ads that demonstrate his willingness to distort the truth (many people call this lying).

 

The Bush campaign accused Kerry of "a pattern" of trying to cut intelligence funding. Bush personally accused Kerry of attempting to "gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" 1995 proposal.

 

But the proposal Bush criticized would have amounted to a reduction of roughly 1%. And senior congressional Republicans supported a cut two-thirds as large at the time.

 

Bush said, on the day before the Primary here in Dallas:

 

[align=center]His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war.[/align]

 

Kerry's bill would have cut Intelligence spending by $1.5 billion over 5 years. The Boston Globe reported that the classified Intelligence Budget was $27 Billion/year, so a $300 million annual cut is hardly "gutting." In addition, Kerry's bill came just after the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was discovered to have squirreled away $1 - 1.7 billion in a "rainy-day fund." In other words, this government agency lied about it's budget so it could keep the money rather than share it with other needy agencies.

 

Bush said it was "irresponsible" of Kerry. To me, it sounds very logical and, in fact, the Republicans supported the measure.

 

Bush said Kerry showed a "pattern of intelligence cuts." But Kerry's legislative record in the Senate doesn't bear that accusation out. There was one other bill to reduce the deficit that included a $1 billion/year in cuts to the intelligence budget for 1994-1998. Hardly a pattern, but certainly a lie from the President.

 

Fire the Liar. Elect Kerry.

[toms]

rccar328, you seem to be missing the fact that there are "politics" involved in almost everythign politicians say. When you have an adversarial system (such as the US) you are always going to end up with two sides who are defending their own side's decisions and attacking the other sides, whether they individually happen to believe in the issues or not.

 

No one would even get to the candidate stage if they hadn't been a team player. I think you would probably find that if it had been a democrat leader who had started teh war in iraq then all the republican politicians who are currently so for it would be attacking the move with a fair amount of vigour.

 

People have also been know to change their minds and stances on certain issues as circumstances change, as they change and as their knowledge of the situation changes.

 

Personally I can be more worried by politicians that rigidly stick to their views no matter what evidence is thrown up, this often smacks of extremism and fanaticism on their part, rather than reasoning.

----

If you don't already I highly suggest you watch West Wing, as it should give you a bit of an insight into the deals, trades, groupings, lobbying and other things that need to go on to get a few hundred people to agree on anything. Vote the party line on one issue you don't happen to agree with, get backing for another issue you care more about, etc..

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Eh hem... It is a respected newspaper in Denmark. I am not saying it isn't good, as i have never seen or read it, but it is an overseas newspaper. Where does it get its info???

 

Probably from Reuters or the BBC, I'd say. Frankly I don't know, but the paper generally has a high standard when it comes to checking its sources.

 

Generally, overseas newspapers tend to bias their articles to the country's main belief. Especially when opposed to the US.

 

Or maybe the US media are simply biased towards the US.

 

Besides that, I've seen these supposed "attack" ads but out by the Bush campaign...they attack John Kerry's record, and there's no valid reason to complain about that

 

There is if they are misrepresenting him. For example, you could take the same-sex marriage bill pointed out by Skin. The neo-conservative, Pro-dubya sources that you linked to made it out as though Kerry had voted against a bill that was consistent with his political position, whereas Skin pulled that apart in less than five lines, by explaining what the bill was really about: Degrading homosexuals to second-grade citizens. Considering the average IQ of dubya's staff, and its... pragmatic view of truth and honesty, I'd say that Kerry probably has something to complain about.

 

The news story is about the f- and s- word being found in multiple places on Kerry's campaign website.

 

Please explain why that's interesting at all.