|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 2, 2004 14:47:57 GMT -5
Now I'm no fan of Bush but this John Kerry fellow is starting to worry me as well.
In a recent speach he stated he wanted America's allies to start doing there part in the war on terror. Ok I can see his point here but is it me or is he doing his upmost to convince America's only ally that went in with her (admittadly reluctatly) to abandon her entirely?
He has to my knowledge managed to land two blows against the British government in less than a week.
First off he has decided to released documents which will lose Tony Blair his job and probably put an anti war party in power.
Secondly he managed to insult British servicemen by implying that they didn't fight and in some cases die in Iraq.
Now having Tony Blair out of power wouldn't bother alot of Britain but it would be a blow for USA-UK relations at the moment. However insulting the sacrifices made by British servicemen in any conflict regardless how unpopular is a sure fire way of angering the general public.
Oh and just to add insult to injury this little speach about America's allies not doing their 'bit' seems real rich coming from the candidate from a state that supported the IRA.
Is Kerry insane or has he just got a real careless speach writer.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 2, 2004 15:10:10 GMT -5
Now you see what we conseratives have so much fun with. Another point is Keary will make the U.S. safe and respond to every attack. So are safe by waiting for an attack, that will injure and kill people. (how about going after the terrorist). Keary will destroy the terrorist, with what? He voted against every weapon system, voted to reduce the military in troop strenght, VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ, but refused funding for proper armor and equipment.
But the most interesting thing of all, the demorat convention. Keary is the first presidental candidate not to get a bouce in poll numbers, not since 1972 has this happen for a PC. It is rather amusing to listen to the mouth pieces of the left trying to explain why Keary did so poorly.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonameapparent on Aug 2, 2004 15:26:32 GMT -5
just noting, that a score of european countries went in with Britain- fx. Spain, Italia and my homeland Denmark.
I admit they didn`t contribute as much as UK but they were there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 2, 2004 15:36:24 GMT -5
Well if you listen to the left media and most demorats the only people who are in Iraq is the U.S.
By igoring all of what other countries are doing, Keary is going to rebuild trust in the world.
How by insulting them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 2, 2004 18:00:26 GMT -5
Sorry Oblivion no slur intended
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 2, 2004 23:51:08 GMT -5
Heh, I love it. Every politician who followed Bush into Iraq has lost his job or lost a great deal of political power. Spain, boot, Japan, major loss in the recent elections, England, probably boot.
Yeah, anyone's going to follow America the next time it cries wolf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 3, 2004 12:30:38 GMT -5
Come now Hussar, you think that Bush is the only one who believed Saddam had to go?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonameapparent on Aug 3, 2004 13:55:57 GMT -5
non taken mate  As to wither Bush was only who believed that Saddam had to go, probably not, but he was the only one who actually wanted to do anything about it. In my personal opinion he didn`t, he had Iraq and was more or less content with that. He was only a menace to his own people, which I suppose is a kind of reason to go in. Even if I dont believe it was or oil for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 3, 2004 15:16:42 GMT -5
So how many terrorist attacks do we go through before doing something about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on Aug 3, 2004 15:24:41 GMT -5
As many as it takes.
If a man takes your shirt, give him your coat as well.
An anti-war government would not be a bad thing ... but it seems morality has gone out of fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 4, 2004 6:35:35 GMT -5
Well, considering that Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM, I would say that Gal's arguement is pretty much worthless. Hussein had no links to organised terrorism, nor did he specifically have any links to AQ. So, playing the terrorism card in respects to the invasion of Iraq is, well, only showing a complete lack of knowledge of the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 4, 2004 14:53:53 GMT -5
Ah yes, Let see terrorist are in singapore, their in Spain, France, Russia, indonesia, afganhistan, New York, south Florida, Minnesota and a few other places. BUT, and I mean a really big BUT,
[glow=red,2,300]THERE ARE NO TERRORIST IN IRAQ.
[/glow]
Except the one Bush made. Oh yes I can see the warped out in left field logic were using here. I mean come on now everyone know that Saddam is a misunderstood nice guy who was framed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 4, 2004 15:10:17 GMT -5
Bush will be reelected we will continued to rid the world of terrorist and some countries will hate the US. I can live with this. Take a look at newspapers from world war II, the same things they say now was said before.
We are still here.
In WWII we were after a more open and easy to find enemy THE SOCIALISTS. and Nazis. Today we are at war with terrorist who are a bunch of cowardly punks that hide like rats. in hospital or schools or send there kids off to be killed.
No one like going to the dentist but it has to be done. the US is just clearing out some bad teeth. If peopel want to hate us for that, go ahead, just remember no one is immune from a terrorist attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 4, 2004 15:41:12 GMT -5
To be honest I'm happy that Sadam is out of power and its a bought time to.
On the other hand a full scale war over it was not the right way to go about it. The fact Bush lied twice about why we all went in and failed to get UN backing just make the whole thing so morally unacceptable.
Bush wanted Iraq's oil its so painfully obvious that’s the only reason he went in. If it was otherwise wouldn't restoring power to cities have rated higher priority to repairing oil wells?
The only thing to be thankful about in the 2nd Gulf War was that the damned air campaign wasn't waged on the flatten the lot and let the ground troops sort it all out like it was in the Afghanistan War.
Challenger
|
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 4, 2004 15:45:28 GMT -5
I mean come on now everyone know that Saddam is a misunderstood nice guy who was framed. The problem is while Saddam was a right ****** and deserves to be tried for mass murder etc he was however framed. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction and asside from being on bad terms with the US had no links with terrorism. Saddam was alot of things but stupid was not one of them harboring terrorists would have been a death penilty so why would he do it. Its a little like planting evidence in a suspects house who you know is guilty but can't prove it. It might be moraly justifiable but its still wrong. Challenger |
|
