Has Kerry dug himself into an inescapable hole?

[fubar]

I really don't want to give my email address to another newspaper, would someone please paraphrase the Trib article?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I am very disappointed. I defend Kerry on most of his statements, but this was purely pandering to the swing voters who were in favor of the war. I cannot understand how anybody, knowing what we know now would still want to go into Iraq when we know that there are much bigger fish out there like Iran.

 

[Annie]

I am very disappointed. I defend Kerry on most of his statements, but this was purely pandering to the swing voters who were in favor of the war. I cannot understand how anybody, knowing what we know now would still want to go into Iraq when we know that there are much bigger fish out there like Iran.

PJ, you seem a rational sort of person, for a liberal. Do you really think we would know, what we now know about Iran, without Iraq? Do you recognize how much more vunerable Iran is now? Please check out the Iraqi blogger post, in Najaf I just posted-does is resonate with you, at all?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Show me where, within the last year, he has flip-flopped.

9/11 commission, SIC, Iraq WMD investigation, and gay marriage should be up to states to name a few flipflops.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

PJ, you seem a rational sort of person, for a liberal. Do you really think we would know, what we now know about Iran, without Iraq? Do you recognize how much more vunerable Iran is now? Please check out the Iraqi blogger post, in Najaf I just posted-does is resonate with you, at all?

Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.

I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.

I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.

I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.

I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.

PJ: Have you ever considered that the US KNEW that we would be facing problems with Iran and North Korea and therefore, needed to get the situation with Iraq settled so that we would not have VALUABLE resources dedicated to "containing" (on the US $ and Brit Pnd mind you) Saddam?

The 911 Commission states that the problem was that, before 911, we, as a nation, did not view the "Wars" declared against us as wars. Well, perhaps after 911 Bush and company decided that they were going to LOOK AHEAD AS IS THERE JOB and this is all part of a MASTER PLAN to rid the world of Islamic, terrorist, thugs? Ever think about that?

 

[Annie]

Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.

I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.

I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.

Biting not allowed, under most circumstances. Sudan is a whole different kettle of fish, go in, root out the bad and give aid. Leave and the whole thing starts up again, but will take awhile to get so low. NK, that's waaayyy different. Iran would be harder by far than Iraq, which is why I think they would like to give time for fall from within, but time is not working it's way there. NK, Saddam X 10, minimum-very dangerous, to both Seoul and our troops. Reason why held for 'last.' That one has nothing to do with Islam, everything to do with terror.

Here's that link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141558&postcount=3

 

[dilloduck]

Thank you. Not all of us lefties foam from the mouth, though we do bite.

I couldn't find the post, but if it is written by an Iraqi in Najaf I would love to read it, especially at this point in time.

I was just suggesting Iran, but there are others that we wouldn't necessarily have to invade, but would have to spend a lot of money on, like Sudan or North Korea. But I would not have invaded Iraq. It was effectively contained just as Powell and Condi stated in the summer of 2001.

However Saddam may have been the weak link that put the US in the catbird seat in the Arab world. serendipity (sp) anyone?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

PJ: Have you ever considered that the US KNEW that we would be facing problems with Iran and North Korea and therefore, needed to get the situation with Iraq settled so that we would not have VALUABLE resources dedicated to "containing" (on the US $ and Brit Pnd mind you) Saddam?

The 911 Commission states that the problem was that, before 911, we, as a nation, did not view the "Wars" declared against us as wars. Well, perhaps after 911 Bush and company decided that they were going to LOOK AHEAD AS IS THERE JOB and this is all part of a MASTER PLAN to rid the world of Islamic, terrorist, thugs? Ever think about that?

Master Plan? LOL

If they could look ahead you'd think they'd have been able to figure out that there would be resistance in Iraq, there wouldn't be WMDs and Chalabi is a liar.

NK at the time was a growing threat, they didn't go nuclear until late 2002, so the war in iraq allowed them to get a nuke. I see that as being worse off than if we had taken out their facilities and left Saddam in power.

Of course Iran was already a huge threat as they enabled the hijackers and backed terrorism, now we know they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon, if they haven't already. So again, I'd leave Saddam in power if it meant that Iran could no longer house Hezbollah and achieve nuclear weapons. Adding to that, they have a strong movement within their country to be democratic so an invasion would actually have support within the country, thus making it much easier.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Biting not allowed, under most circumstances. Sudan is a whole different kettle of fish, go in, root out the bad and give aid. Leave and the whole thing starts up again, but will take awhile to get so low. NK, that's waaayyy different. Iran would be harder by far than Iraq, which is why I think they would like to give time for fall from within, but time is not working it's way there. NK, Saddam X 10, minimum-very dangerous, to both Seoul and our troops. Reason why held for 'last.' That one has nothing to do with Islam, everything to do with terror.

Here's that link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141558&postcount=3

Good link. I saw that info on the news already and it is bad for Iran.

I also think that time isn't going to cause the fall of Iran, we will have to get troops in there, but I do think that once we do we will have a large community that will help us, something we aren't seeing in Iraq.

NK and Sudan are different, needing mostly aid in both cases, though toppling Kim Jong Ill seems almost impossible.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

However Saddam may have been the weak link that put the US in the catbird seat in the Arab world. serendipity (sp) anyone?

Maybe, but it will take 10-20 years to find out. In the same amount of time we could end our dependency on oil, thereby ending the problem of the middle east altogether.

 

[freeandfun1]

Master Plan? LOL

If they could look ahead you'd think they'd have been able to figure out that there would be resistance in Iraq, there wouldn't be WMDs and Chalabi is a liar.

NK at the time was a growing threat, they didn't go nuclear until late 2002, so the war in iraq allowed them to get a nuke. I see that as being worse off than if we had taken out their facilities and left Saddam in power.

Of course Iran was already a huge threat as they enabled the hijackers and backed terrorism, now we know they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon, if they haven't already. So again, I'd leave Saddam in power if it meant that Iran could no longer house Hezbollah and achieve nuclear weapons. Adding to that, they have a strong movement within their country to be democratic so an invasion would actually have support within the country, thus making it much easier.

You totally missed my point. Nobody EVER said Iraq was going to be quick, or easy. Actually, you didn't miss my point, you just ignored it. Typical.

Iraq was the easiest of the three to tackle, so they were tackled first. Sure, some say go after the most difficult targets first, but we needed a base of ops in the ME (cause we KNEW the Saudis are NOT reliable, but we need their oil), and Iraq serves that purpose JUST FINE!

As for NK, thank your buddy Clinton for NK. Their advancement in their technology clearly shows that THEY NEVER stopped their program as Clinton had indicated. Carter f*cked that one up royaly.

The NK's are not stupid. Once we slam Iran, NK will be more willing to negotiate a peaceful solution. I am willing to bet that it will be part of some kind of unification scenario with the south and part of the agreement will be that they will get to keep their nuclear technolgy and weapons, but they will have to become a signatory to the Missile and Nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

NK wants nukes not just because of the USA, but also because they are still living in 1953 and they still fear Japan and China although China probably to a lesser extent.

 

[Bonnie]

PJ, you seem a rational sort of person, for a liberal. Do you really think we would know, what we now know about Iran, without Iraq? Do you recognize how much more vunerable Iran is now? Please check out the Iraqi blogger post, in Najaf I just posted-does is resonate with you, at all?

Kathianne I think many people forget how important it is to have friendly governments in that region. We now have two more in addition to maybe Jordan, Israel, and may add Iran to the mix. This war on terror is a slow and multifaceted process. Im amazed at how quickly people's resolve can break when the answer is not as fast as they unrealisitcally think it should be.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne I think many people forget how important it is to have friendly governments in that region. We now have two more in addition to maybe Jordan, Israel, and may add Iran to the mix. This war on terror is a slow and multifaceted process. I'm amazed at how quickly people's resolve can break when the answer is not as fast as they unrealisitcally think it should be.

I agree. Some that claim to be 'brighter than the rest' refuse or are unable to look at the larger scheme of things. Sometimes it's downright depressing.

 

[Bonnie]

www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20040813.shtml

Kerry continued, "Before you go into battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American People (and) fundamental American values for a threat that was real and imminent. 'So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war."

Shouldn't Senator Kerry explain to us "why we (would have) had no choice" and how the "threat (would have ) been real and imminent" if we would have beleived ther was no stockpiles of WMD, especially considering Kerry's insistence that there was no significant linkage between Iraq and Al-qaeda?

To reconcile these inconsistencies we must conclude that Kerry didn't believe that threat from Iraq was real and imminent a few weeks a go but does today. There's no wiggle room here for the senator.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

You totally missed my point. Nobody EVER said Iraq was going to be quick, or easy. Actually, you didn't miss my point, you just ignored it. Typical.

Iraq was the easiest of the three to tackle, so they were tackled first. Sure, some say go after the most difficult targets first, but we needed a base of ops in the ME (cause we KNEW the Saudis are NOT reliable, but we need their oil), and Iraq serves that purpose JUST FINE!

As for NK, thank your buddy Clinton for NK. Their advancement in their technology clearly shows that THEY NEVER stopped their program as Clinton had indicated. Carter f*cked that one up royaly.

The NK's are not stupid. Once we slam Iran, NK will be more willing to negotiate a peaceful solution. I am willing to bet that it will be part of some kind of unification scenario with the south and part of the agreement will be that they will get to keep their nuclear technolgy and weapons, but they will have to become a signatory to the Missile and Nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

NK wants nukes not just because of the USA, but also because they are still living in 1953 and they still fear Japan and China although China probably to a lesser extent.

Iraq is the easiest of the three, which is exactly why Bush decided to go there, because in his warped mind it was going to be an easy win that would make him look good, plus he could continue being the war president.

Both Clinton and Bush failed us big time on NK. It is far too late to be able to go back and I see no way of ever defeating them, certainly not militarily, the people have all been brainwashed to such an extent that they believe everything their leaders Kim Sung and Jong Ill have said.

 

[Hobbit]

Iraq is the easiest of the three, which is exactly why Bush decided to go there, because in his warped mind it was going to be an easy win that would make him look good, plus he could continue being the war president.

Both Clinton and Bush failed us big time on NK. It is far too late to be able to go back and I see no way of ever defeating them, certainly not militarily, the people have all been brainwashed to such an extent that they believe everything their leaders Kim Sung and Jong Ill have said.

Typical liberal. No, he didn't attack Iraq because it was a threat, or because he could make an example of them to the other targets, or to free an oppressed people, or to enforce U.N. rules the U.N. backed down from. No, none of those could have been the reason. It was to make him look good. Let's face it, no outcome in Iraq would make the liberals like Bush more and he knew it. He actually had the interests of the American people in mind.

As far as NK goes, they know they're a target, and I think they'll negotiate.

 

[Bonnie]

Maybe, but it will take 10-20 years to find out. In the same amount of time we could end our dependency on oil, thereby ending the problem of the middle east altogether.

The bigger problem for us is terrorism coming for the middleast, not oil.......Does that even need to said again for the 8 millionth time

 

[freeandfun1]

Iraq is the easiest of the three, which is exactly why Bush decided to go there, because in his warped mind it was going to be an easy win that would make him look good, plus he could continue being the war president.

Both Clinton and Bush failed us big time on NK. It is far too late to be able to go back and I see no way of ever defeating them, certainly not militarily, the people have all been brainwashed to such an extent that they believe everything their leaders Kim Sung and Jong Ill have said.

Did you even readd what I wrote? I think not.

I am very familiar with Korea as I travel there often, I am married to a Korean and I have many, many friends in Korea. The n Koreans are losing their faith quickly in Kim Jong Il. The brainwashing is not working like it used to and defectors are arriving in Seoul all the time (still via third party nations as the border is too difficult to cross). s Korean businessmen, etc. are making more an more contacts with the north and they are starting to open up. As I clearly stated in my post that you obviously didn't read, was that once Iraq is completed (very soon I am sure) and once Iran is turned, the n Koreans will have no choice but to negotiate. And again, it is of my opinion that whatever is negotiated will probably include some kind of unification plan and that lets a unified Korea keep what they have, but that prevents them from developing more and that prevents them from participating in proliferation.