[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Kerry had plenty of time to refute those ‘made up stances’ - but he didn’t.
Go figure.
Uh, he did loud and clear during the debates. I watched them and heard him say that he was not asking for permission. Again, you hear what you want to hear and selectively exclude everything else.[/quote]
Uh - he might have denied the charges, but he never expounded on what he would do - giving the appearance, at least me, that it was a lip service denial. Much like him showing up in black churches right before the election, or holding up a shot gun he voted to outlaw - he was whatever he needed to be at a given moment. It doesn’t take a Rhode’s Scholar to smell a fake.
You seem to exclude from your recollections that Kerry has said that no military action should be taken without the blessing of the U.N. You also seem to exclude from your reasoning that Kerry has said many many many times that we should have gotten the support/approval from France and Germany, and not just the coalition of the willing.
If you wanted to vote for Kerry because you didn’t like Bush - that’s fine - but don’t insinuate that those that voted for Bush lack reasoned thought.
If you wanted to vote for Kerry because you didn’t like Bush - that’s fine - but don’t insinuate that those that voted for Bush lack reasoned thought. [/quote]
No, I insinuate that those who voted for Bush greatly overlooked the potential to create a government that has gained more power in one term than under any other president…all while sending thousands of troops ill-equiped to war.
Oops, sounds like I got the “with us or against us” thing wrong… my bad.
Zeb,
You don’t get elected by saying that America isn’t the greatest place on earth with the best economy and the most capable military and that it hasn’t been “God blessed”.
This may also be true in Canada, if you’d prefer to discuss Canada and have me chide somebody other than an American.
Maybe you could try to attack the message (issue) and not the messenger (me) once in a while? It would give the impression you were debating something instead of attacking people who dare to have opinions.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, I insinuate that those who voted for Bush greatly overlooked the potential to create a government that has gained more power in one term than under any other president…all while sending thousands of troops ill-equiped to war.[/quote]
Maybe, after weighing the 2 choices at hand, the majority of America felt like they would be better off with Bush rather than a opportunistic chameleon.
You make these assumptions that you are right and the rest of us - well - are just a card or two shy of a full deck.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your dislike for Bush and his advisors seems to be clouding your ability to realize that your side of the election is no more enlightened than the winning side.
As for Bush’s potential to create Big Brother - Look at the powers that Lincoln had 145 years ago. Look at the powers that FDR had just 65 years ago. Geez - what would you be saying if Bush told you that you couldn’t buy a car, or tires, or sugar?
[quote] vroom wrote:
What Kerry possibly meant is that he’d have waited long enough to twist the arms of the members of the security council to get a vote… instead of going without one when it could have been obtained.[/quote]
There you go again - Kerry had every chance in the freakin world to say what he possibly meant, and he blew it - but we still need to listen to those suffereing from severe P.E.S.T. rationalize Kerry’s defeat.
Additionally, if the “messenger” is making shit up - he needs to be shot.
What you seem to miss is that nobody is trying to rationalize a defeat (well, okay, perhaps someone out there is still).
We are discussing what seems to be a persistent issue with “republicans” recharacterizing the opinions of their opponents instead of debating their opponents actual opinions.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Passing a test for using our forces. No I don’t agree to that or think it is wise. That’s not what a leader does. It’s what Kerry would have done.[/quote]
Indeed. Establishing a set of standards, that includes the input of allies, that must be passed before going to war is unwise. I mean what leader would do such a thing? Can you image a leader having to hold possible military action up to some scrutiny? We’d be in ruin! That’s what I’ve had against that wimpy “Powell Doctrine” all these years.
P.S. I know that’s not what you meant, but re-read it as written. Sounds funny.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oops, sounds like I got the “with us or against us” thing wrong… my bad.
Zeb,
You don’t get elected by saying that America isn’t the greatest place on earth with the best economy and the most capable military and that it hasn’t been “God blessed”.
This may also be true in Canada, if you’d prefer to discuss Canada and have me chide somebody other than an American.
Maybe you could try to attack the message (issue) and not the messenger (me) once in a while? It would give the impression you were debating something instead of attacking people who dare to have opinions.[/quote]
vroom:
If someone does not call you on some of your liberal rants then there might be some poor soul surfing this site who actually buys into your chatter.
I am not attacking you, however people need to know that you are an ultra-liberal. Sorry if that feels like an attack, it is not meant as one. You can call me a conservative, I don’t mind.
As for Bush’s potential to create Big Brother - Look at the powers that Lincoln had 145 years ago. Look at the powers that FDR had just 65 years ago. Geez - what would you be saying if Bush told you that you couldn’t buy a car, or tires, or sugar?
[/quote]
With talk of an “american identity card” going around (so that we can weed out all of the illegal aliens…because they can get driver’s licenses too), how do you know that isn’t where we are headed?
The Powell Doctrine states that we will use overwhelming force and make sure the military has the support of the people.
It is a doctrine promulgated by the chairman of the joint chief of staff at the time of the Gulf War.
I don’t recall anything about the approval of our allies.
I think what all of you fail to realize is that sometimes as the world’s only super power we must act in our own national interest. This may not benefit Europe or Asia and the action may not be taken while your party is in power. It doesn’t mean it is wrong, indifferent or criminal. You can only have one person in charge.
I think what most of the libs on this board absolutely resent is that a leader is taking charge and getting the job done. They are picking and sniping but in all reality they wish it was some liberal democrat doing the same thing.
You have a choice. Either accept tyranny and terrorism or you can fight it. Appeasment doesn’t work and subtle nuance just doesn’t cut it. You can lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Zell miller laid it out clearly for most of the democratic party. Too bad they didn’t listen.
Do you actually believe what you are saying? You think people cannot make their own judgement based on the issues discussed – they need to know that you feel I’m an ultra-liberal?
If people need to be told I’m this or that and can’t figure it out for themselves, then maybe in fact I am not! If I was, they should be able to tell. I’m certainly not holding anything back or hiding anything.
Anyhow, please try to discuss issues some time, your endless blather which is really only label pasting is quite sad. I really hope you were just being funny.
The fact is that some people believe that there are other things to do that don’t involve questionable invasions or appeasement.
For example, not many people are bitching about Afghanistan. I’m not bitching about it, that is for sure.
Seeing the world through a lens which gives you only two options, appeasement or massive invasion, really limits your options. Perhaps it is simply a lack of imagination on your part?
Oh, did I miss the tag, is it your turn now?[/quote]
Naw - I think we’re pretty much just ganging up on you
[quote]What you seem to miss is that nobody is trying to rationalize a defeat (well, okay, perhaps someone out there is still).
We are discussing what seems to be a persistent issue with “republicans” recharacterizing the opinions of their opponents instead of debating their opponents actual opinions. [/quote]
It just so happens that those that are seeing this supposed “issue” are those that were most against Bush during the campaign.
Do you actually think that the DOD hasn’t been looking at their strategies on an ongoing basis? That they just came up with the idea of changing strategies by sneeking a look at Kerry’s paper?
Naw - I think we’re pretty much just ganging up on you
What you seem to miss is that nobody is trying to rationalize a defeat (well, okay, perhaps someone out there is still).
We are discussing what seems to be a persistent issue with “republicans” recharacterizing the opinions of their opponents instead of debating their opponents actual opinions.
It just so happens that those that are seeing this supposed “issue” are those that were most against Bush during the campaign.
Do you actually think that the DOD hasn’t been looking at their strategies on an ongoing basis? That they just came up with the idea of changing strategies by sneeking a look at Kerry’s paper?
You guys give Kerry WAY too much credit.[/quote]
You get it wrong. I personally am amazed at how many of “you” didn’t see that it would take CHANGE for us to continue to make progress instead of simply losing lives. You still haven’t mentioned why Bush hasn’t gotten the troops the armour they need. I suppose you think this is some intelligent strategy to put one over on the bad guys, huh? If anyone is giving someone too much credit…
ABC, NBC and CBS fooled the populace for years! They stated that they were being fair when pushed. In reality they were mouth pieces for whatever the liberal cause of the day was.
You have a style of writing which is rather interesting. You begin as if you are about to write a balanced piece. I think this can pull a reader in. You then subtly switch to your liberal agenda, oh so smoothly.
Sure, most of the regulars know exactly which side your hitting for. However, many of the newbies, or occasional readers might actually think you have something “balanced” to write. We don’t want those folks getting sucked into your tired liberal dogma now do we?
The fact that you think me calling you a “liberal” is a personal attack is just flat out funny! I will never understand why liberals (such as yourself) run from such a label. Labels can be a good thing. If someone refuses to work and sleeps all day (barring any medical problems) he can be called lazy. When someone continues to espouse liberal beliefs he can be called a liberal. Is that an insult?
In your case I could take it further. You are not only a liberal, you are a foreign liberal who continually writes negatively of America and the American people. You do this during a time that our country is at war. Are we supposed to enjoy this?
Finally, when someone calls you on these things you become defensive and whine about it. I don’t feel that I have thrown any personal insults in your direction. Can you say the same thing about your many comments regarding America and the American people? No.
I have some advice for you. I think President Harry Trueman said it best: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You get it wrong. I personally am amazed at how many of “you” didn’t see that it would take CHANGE for us to continue to make progress instead of simply losing lives. You still haven’t mentioned why Bush hasn’t gotten the troops the armour they need. I suppose you think this is some intelligent strategy to put one over on the bad guys, huh? If anyone is giving someone too much credit…[/quote]
First off - I don’t believe any of “us” have been championing a stay-the-course strategy, nor do I think you can find anything that would support your assertion that this administration was against a strategy shift.
We’ve only lost one war in our history. None of the wars we’ve engaged in - except maybe GWI - have been waged based on the original war plans. Strategy shift is part of war.
Up-armoring is part of war - have you heard about the tanks in WWII that weren’t equipped to get through the hedgerows in Europe? We fixed that problem and won.
When you are trying to up-armor 20-20 thousand HUMVEES - there is a lag time. Since the fall of Baghdad, there have been over 15,000 HUMVEES up-armored.
No one has addressed the “lack of armor” issue because it is a bullshit issue. Only those that are against the war are pulling this card out. We are the best equipped, best protected military force on the face of the planet. Your indictments of being ill-prepared, and un-willing to do what Kerry said to do are just flat wrong.
Iraq is only the current phase of the war on terrorism. Not the last.[/quote]
No, with the institution of this “intelligence bill” your home, personal id info and medical data are also the current phase of the war on terrorism. Tell me, do you truly not see a threat with this? Would you if the president were a Democrat?
Kerry did run a bad campaign. He did not take a hard stance because he wanted broad support. But the people that point out his ambiguity never would have voted for him in the first place. Personally, I value someone who is more retrospective and able to change a stance when the original stance clearly was not right. Bush is too hard-headed to do that.
The Patriot Act has far and away been invoked primarily for non-terrorist related reasons. The author of the Patriot Act, I think his name is Viet Dinh, spoke at my school last year. He even said it has not been used as he intended.
It has been shown that there was a direct correlation between where you got your news from and who you voted for: Fox news and talk radio went Bush, CNN and major newspapers went Kerry. I think network television was divided.
ZEB: Criticism of the government is essential for democracy. Just because Vroom is not American, doesn’t mean he hates America. Hell, enough conservatives think that Americans criticizing the conservative administration is unpatriotic. This whole war time behavior thing is complicated. I agree soldiers do need support, but they wouldn’t if we never got into this mess. I don’t think its right to feed them misinformation just to keep them happy. I know you weren’t claiming otherwise, but my thoughts just progressed along these lines.
hedo: What about the Bush senior quote about why he did not occupy Iraq in Dessert Storm? What about the fact that Saddam was not involved with Al-Qaida? Sure, he didn’t like America, but he was in no position to do anything about it. Iraq is not part of the war on terror. It was a digression, letting North Korea and Iran foster their nuclear programs. And the only reason North Korea began any nuclear program was because Bush set an oil embargo on them and they needed energy. This was a few years ago.
Professor- I don’t think it is a threat to me because to be honest I am not involved with crime, terrorism or defrauding the government. This may sound naive but my experience has shown me that staying away from these things pretty much eliminates a lot of the problems of the government invading my privacy. I think it allows the coordination of information already in existence.
My largest customer is the US Govt… Compared to most clients they are pretty fair in dealing with contractors. Paperwork intensive and bueracratic…but very fair.
Would it bother me less if a democrat were president. No. It doesn’t bother me now.
V-
Don’t be naive and believe all the PC crap you hear in college. Do you for one minute think that Al-Queda, with a presence in over 30 countries wasn’t in Iraq??? Hello… Iraq was a base for terrorism. A place to regroup and arm up. Hell, Sadaam the poster boy for liberal apologists, paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers who checked themselves out in Iraq. on’t be simplistic and think he wasn’t in bed with Iraq.
Iraq sends a message. Stop killing americans and supporting those who do. Iran and North Korea will fall in due time. If you have an address and a WMD and you are supporting terrorism the Great Satan is is coming to visit you. It’s vety easy to avoid, however, give up the WMD’s and stop acting like an asshole towards the US. It worked for Libya. After Gadaffi saw his buddy Sadaam getting a dental exam after his capture he suddenly decided he doesn’t need to suffer the same fate.
A distraction on the war on terrorism. Sounds like a Kerry campaign soundbite…oh wait a minute it was.
