John Kerry For President

Then howcome he voted to send the troops to Iraq, and then he voted not to support them financially while they're there? Howcome he said himself that EVEN KNOWING WHAT HE KNOWS NOW he WOULD have gone to war? Then a month later he flip flopped yet again. He changes his mind whenever it is convenient and fits the time. You CAN'T deny this. So I guess, going by what Kerry has shown, he supports the war, but not the troops. These views came frome Kerry himself, did they not? He said he would have gone to war and even actually voted for them to go to war in the first place, yet he would not vote to support them.

You're right, supporting the troops and supporting the war are 2 different things. But that doesn't change the fact that John Kerry's views are upside down and backwards.

Face it! Kerry is a flip flopper. Check out this article.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20040920.shtml

And I know there are some of you who will come back with "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" -- as always. Here is an excerpt from the following web site:

Terrorism didn't begin on September 11, 2001. It started earlier than the Beirut barracks attacks in 1983. It began in the hearts of evil men who preached about an angry god intent on wiping out his enemies through violent acts. That disease spread, and whether it found a host in Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, the virus exploded into a worldwide plague. Sen. Kerry's remarks were not about finding a cure to the plague but about surrendering to it, or taking diplomatic placebos hoping the disease will go away.

It is my hope that the American people will wake up before election day and realize that ignoring the issues wont make them go away. This is, after all, John Kerry's philosophy-- sometimes.

 

Not to point out the obvious, but your article was from a strictly conservative opinon editorial. Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
I mean it would be one thing to show me unalienable prrof that Al Queda was involved then I may change my mind, but politics is not religion (as much as people would like to intertwine the two) and I will not go on faith. The real facts from the real CIA and the real media sources indicate that Al Queda was not involved. Come back with an article from CNN, or the Associated Press and maybe then I'll entertain the idea that Osama and Saddam are good friends and plotted against us.





I have examined the facts, not just selectivly looked at what just Kerry or Bush has done, Kerry's record does not show felonies or cowardice. Maybe if Bush's father hadn't participated in setting up coups and toppling leaders with the CIA we wouldnt have some of the problems we have today. Any one that makes this many mistakes, should not be rewarded.

 

What about when people get info from johnkerry.org? Wouldn't this be considered to be the same type of thing??

 

Haven't we seen enough bad results from the "lets wait and see" attitude. There may be no evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, but, if you think that Saddam didn't take joy in seeing us attacked, you're just not paying attention. When ALL other country's embassies in New York raised their flags to half mast in respect to the victims of the attack, the Iraqi flag flew full, everyday. Saddam had plenty of reasons to want to hurt the U.S., and I believe he would have used whatever means to do so, that he could muster. He attempted to have a U.S president assasinated. Is that not declaring war on us? It would have only been a matter of time before he collaborated with Al-Queda, if he hadn't already. After 9/11, I'm glad that Saddam has been pre-empted, and any other countries that want to threaten the U.S. should take notice.

I don't particularly care for republicans or George Bush, but I do care about how our country is percieved in the world. There should be no question that threats against the U.S. will me met and dealt with immediately. There can be no doubt among those that would harm us that they will face consequences for their actions. I don't think John Kerry can project that kind of decisive leadership like George Bush can.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm severely pissed about 9/11 and the unanswered attacks that led up to it. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=410799&postcount=25

We must eliminate that threat forever. We owe it to our children. Democracy and prosperity are good catalysts to effect that change. We are on the right path.

 

I don't think we have the right to pre-emptively attack another country on what they might do in the future, and every intelligence source that's been made public so far has stated that there was no connection between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.

I agree with you here, but would think that whole situation points to a larger problem with the partisan politics. I think (and it's a big imo, only!) that the majority of people could really have cared less about that whole scandal. It was blown way out of proportion by our warring democratic and republican parties, and that kind of foolishness is what cripled the country. That being said, Clinton was still a dumb ass, he knew full well that if he got caught, that's the exact result he would have gotten.

I strongly disagree with this. Up until we invaded Iraq, we had overwhelming support. This war, imo, is completely illegal, and we've lost any ground we may have gained, and then some. Our foreign policy, and the way we police the globe is fueling the fires. More and more militant groups are forming the world over, and they hate us, and they will attack us, and there's no way we can stop them through the use of force. I posted one of my favorite quotes in some thread in the random thoughts folder: "Peace cannot be maintained by the use of force, it can only be brought about by understanding." Albert Einstein said that. But I'll add this, the problems in the middle east is beyond my whimpy problem solving capabilities, but I believe the way we're handling it is wrong. There's so many ways we could seriously counter the negative image our country has. Bono from U2, of all people, has a really good plan that's slowly gaining support; get far more drugs into Africa to curb the aids epidemic that's sweeping that continent at an ungodly rate. Withholding our medicine because they're too poor to buy them, is just wrong. They cost so insanely little to manufacture (and I work in the pharma industry) that we could seriously do something about it with ease. But no, it truly is all about the money...

Sorry for ranting, continue with the comments/criticism/enlightenment.... and note, I'm not trying to pick on ya Hippie, you just seem like one of the few on here that comes from a somewhat different perspective (than me) that doesn't resort to insults and such.

 

Your absolutley right unless we are talking about what a particular candidate says he is going to do for his term, facts should not be used from those kind of sites, they should be well documented to proper resource centers if they are.

 

This attitude is what allowed Al-Qaeda to become strong enough to pull off 9/11 It's like saying the Cole and Embassy attacks were not meaningful enough to go to war over them.

Besides the gross human rights abuses in Iraq, that every hippie here should be appalled by, Saddam attempted to assasinate a U.S. president. If nothing else, 9/11 taught me that we can no longer let, what some might think are minor indiscretions, go unanswered. I stand by my statement.

Tell that to Osama.

Amen. I saw Bono on The O'Rielly Factor talking about this. He's a good guy and that's a great idea. Has Kerry made any comments about that idea?

No apologies neccesary. Ranting is what we're all doing here. Insults produce nothing and make readers want to move on to another thread. I am here solely to enlighten, or to be enlightened. Please continue.

 

I totally agree here... and I think we were justified for going after him in Afganistan(this thing really needs a spell checker); and Osama has officially declared war on us, and any country that supports him, as blatantly as Afganistan did, should be addressed in some form. But, justified as it is, I just don't know if force is the answer. We simply can't stop these people from striking back at us. They are going to get their hands on nukes soon, and I seriously doubt we can stop them from getting them into our country and using them.

I mean, which country should we attack? Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, Greece, Turkey, and many more that I'm forgetting? All of them have strong militant Islamic groups that have declared jihad on the U.S., and I just can't see us addressing them all fast enough militarily, and Iraq should be proof of that... we won the war, but the terrorists are still there; and until the larger issues are addressed, they're just going to gain more and more support.

I have doubts concerning our validity into going into Iraq the first time, as well. Our own National Security Advisor met with Saddam Hussein, the Emir of Kuwait, and a Saudi representative, and proposed that Iraq invade Iran, seizing the Khuzestan oil fields. That started the Iran/Iraq war. While it was going on, the Emir of Kuwait seized Iraqi oil fields and Kuwait and western oil companies stole $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil.

Over 7 thousand Iraqi kids died a month due to our sanctions of Iraq. We could of at least let food and medicine into their country... you can't make weapons out of them.

I've no idea, really... but Bono's gotten really good bipartisan support, and perhaps now that this generic drug thing has begun, he can get more countries involved if our companies won't loosen up their wallets.

 

Force is part of the answer. We have to persue them as that degrades their ability to function. Intelligence is also key.

Syria and Iran are the only problematic ones of those that you listed. The others are either already democratic or have secular governments, and while having to appease their own religiously zealous constituents, also have an interest in placating terrorism so as to maintain their hold on power. Therefore they are likely to help in the War on Terrorism rather than hinder it. They help by providing inteligence that can lead to captures, which in turn then provide more inteligence, thus further degrading capability.

The problem countries hopefully will recognize the benefits of co-operation...their continued existance, as well as the potential pit-falls of belligerence...regime change. The thing is, that won't happen unless we're successful in creating a democratic Iraq.

I'm interested to hear what you think those issues are? Do you think that changing our relationship with Israel would really change anything in the Middle East? I think not. Until we no longer rely on the mid-east for oil, we'll have problems there.

Is that how it happened? I didn't know that. I do know about other reasons though that Saddam had for hating us. He had legitimate gripes, but he was also an unpredictable sociopath, making it impossible for us to deal with him.

Agreed. That's where oil for food came from. Then Saddam corrupted that and used the revenues for himself and not his people.

We seem to agree on most everything. It's intersting how we have reached concensus, yet not really changed any minds about who is best to lead us next.

It's Friday night...time for Stargate SG-1

be back later.

 

This is what Moonjava says:

This is what we hear:










.

 

Seriously, you are so blinded by Republican propaganda it's incredible. He didn't vote to send our troops to war. He voted to give the president that authority so our threats to Saddam would look legitimate so Saddam would let inspectors in. He trusted the president and the president let him and everyone else down by going into war when we didn't have to.

He also did not vote against funding the troops. He didn't like the way the bill was being financed, he wanted to do away with the tax cuts to the rich. Bush threated to veto the bill, so I guess he doesn't care about financing our troops, especially since he sent them to war without body armor! So now Halliburton is making out very well indeed.

Kerry also said he wouldn't have gone to war. Face it, no rational person would have.

If anyone who originally supported the war has not, by now, done a flip flop and decided that it wasn't such a good idea, they are insane.

 

Here are a few republican posers on this board.

 

I agree



Kerry Now and Then

Authored by Michael Pate on September 24th, 2004 at 4:28 PM
This is what he said today.

The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaida. There’s just no question about it. The president’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win. - John Kerry

​

This is what he said earlier in the week.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not — that was not — in itself a reason to go to war. The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. - John Kerry

​

This is what he said in 1997.

We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest. - John Kerry

​

I wonder just exactly when he would ever feel anything was in our national interest?

http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/

 

Matthew- yes John Kerry has flip flopped many times. But how about Bush? He's flip flopped over and over again on many key issues. And the biggest flip flop of all time: In 2001 he wanted osama bin laden "dead or alive" and all that jazz. He did say later on that he couldn't find him and didnt care where he was and he wasnt our number one priority. Not our number on priority! This should outrage all americans including you.

so if youre gonna criticize kerry better go after bush too. if you have any sense of fairness in your body at all.

the best thing to do is leave the flip flopping thing out of the argument. it just makes you look bad. talk about the issues for once.

 

I do agree ... i was only playing the same game as others..i have no vote in the upcomeing election being english and all..but these forums are full of bush haters , they seem to think that Kerry is not falable or would or could make any better decisions. Then their are people that think that they are as bad as each other and a third way would be better ..... all this is good or bad whatever way you look at it ... simply choices need to be made and they will piss off vast No.s off. I have already tried to say that people that think any war is wrong should put their hand up and state this...and leave all the debating for people that don't. I think their are many people that also because the war was not done and dusted within a short space of time , and people were not killed (unlikely)... have decieded that this war was wrong and lies were being told..erm well if you believed the goverments then you did not make a choice yourself and just agreed with your 'masters' wich is wrong..you can not be lied to if your personal opinion was diffrent before any evidence was given ...surely it was just not the same as what you thought ... If people that thought this war was wrong and feel like they were lied too ..what would happen if they were wrong and their 'inteligence' was faulty...fuck all i think .

I do try and talk about personal decisions and others things rather than the same old same old...what do i get ??? a few nice people responding and the same old tired bullshit , and the same threads re appearing saying the same old bullshit again and again. from both sides (if that is being fair)..

The general pupblic require answers immediatly and 20/20 vision wich is immposible..i don't see people being brought to account when their point of view is questionable or wrong... people in high office should no better and have THE bottom line and know everything and be almost omnipotent .... thats not fair.

 

This is for those who do not support Kerry nor do they support Bush. I am not trying to ask a dumb question but I am curious because my friend is against him: What is wrong with Kerry? I dig that people hate Bush. I hate him. But what is wrong with Kerry?

 

Well my guess would people that don't really like him must not agree with most of his politics.

 

I dig it. What does everyone else think?

 

you pose a good question, I am for Kerry tho so i can't answer that

 

America does not know what suffering is. The world trade center is just the tip of the iceberg. The war that America is engaged in will never end. Pull our troops home and the shooting and bombings will begin in American streets. I don't think Americans have a clue as to what is happening here. America is the Great Satan. According to Moslem extremist all Americans must die. Do you think we all just go home and all is forgotten. The first atomic bomb that falls into the extremist hands you will have a line of terrorist a mile long wanting to be the first one to set it off in an American city. Now it's just a matter of time before it happens. Americans will not have the resolve to stop the terrror to come. While our enemies plot our destruction, we will have a leader who will test the direction of the wind to determine what he should do. We are now in a situation of kill or be killed. We are no longer dealing with sensible nations, we are dealing with insane people.