Honestly... Now I HAVE heard everything!

hylandrdet said:
(see rebuttal 4)




Rebuttal Point 1- Yes they can because Clinton did it against Bush Sr.. It is an historical fact; we Americans tend to vote for candidates who can promise a stronger economy over national security.

Except in this election in poll after poll Foreign relations has been the hot topic, and while Kerry won the debate battle, it appears that Bush is winning the war no this one.

Rebuttal point 2- (sigh) As said before, John Kerry voted to give President Bush permission to start the war on Iraq with the understanding that Bush would seek the support of the UN. Bush reneged on the deal. I wonder why? Was it because...


1) Bush couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction?
2) Bush couldn't find evidence that Iraq was supporting terrorism?
3) Bush, in a rage of arrogance, refuse to admit that he was wrong and was willing to allow soldiers to die order to "save his face"?

For the record, Kerry's vote was used by Bush.

Either Kerry is the stupidest man in the Senate or he is being disingenuous here. None of the Democrats were "shocked" that he went quickly into war, and until the debates in the Primaries Kerry was all for the war. It wasn't until the polls indicated that in order to get the Party nod that he had to be anti-war that he began the shift.

Kerry, with a guilty conscience, set out to make things right. Kerry voted against the 87 billion dollar budget for the troops in an attempt to send a message to the president...

My interpretation of Kerry's message

"You'd lied to this nation; if you chose to send underfunded troops into an unjustified war, the blood will be on your hands"

Like Pontus Pilot, Bush chose to send the troops to their deaths and is now trying to wash his hands of it.

Kerry, once again this point, was all for the war until polls indicated that he would not get the DNC nod with a pro-war stance, he then began a shift that began with too fast and ended with "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" it is simply disingenuous to believe he didn't know Bush would take us to war. Then to give his approval stamp again and again until the Primaries just makes me see this man is willing to say or do anything in order to get the power he wants to have.


Rebuttal point 3- If Kerry becomes President, the troops will have no choice but to obey his orders. Dude, you have no military experience. the othe countries had spoken, we won't follow bush!

Undeniably there are more people in the service that want Bush in than want Kerry. There was an article and thread that stated that, but having no choice does not mean that they will stay in. I specifically did not re-up when asked because of Clinton, the same will happen for Kerry. It is no wonder the Democrats want the draft, they will get nobody in the Service otherwise.


Rebuttal point 4- France and Germany will join because Kerry will restore their oil contracts with Iraq. You know, the contracts that are currently VOID because their deals were made with Saddam Hussein. Before you boo me on this note, remember this; we have same contract with Iraq as well as a history of Iraq bailing us out when it came to oil shortages.

I expect Kerry to restore enough ties with the UN to establish an international force strong enough to crush the remaining insurgents and have the elections go smoothly in January. I call it the "Reagan" factor!
Except they have undeniably already said that even with his "bribe" of oil they will not help in Iraq. Unmistakably making it clear his intention to make this a "war for oil" he offered to give them access to the oil fields if they would help in Iraq. The UN is already in Iraq preparing for the elections, but there will be no significant "UN Force" that will enter Iraq as they have made it clear that they are unwilling.


The reason why "lil" Bush opposes this deal is because he acted like a runaway in denial. He ran a few blocks, didn't know where to go, started to panick, then turned around and came back home. That's why he was sucking up to the UN two weeks ago.


"The best way to earn power and respect is to protray a sense of both to those who oppose you" - hylandrdet

Sucking up to the UN? You didn't hear the speech obviously, he made it clear that he expects an International group to back up their resolutions and that he believed that they were shirking their duties.

The UN was becoming ineffective in Iraq in so many ways, not the least of which the bribes in the Duelfer report that were paid to officials in France, Germany, and Russia in order to insure that the Sanctions would not continue. The Sanctions were coming to an end and Iraq would have the free reign that they needed in order to continue their grab for WMD. The only effective part of the Sanctions was the fact that US military was there to back it up, thank the gods for that.

While I don't agree with the timing of the war in Iraq, or that we should have gone there it is clear that Kerry's plan is simply "I will do what Bush does, but will get even less allies because I have already insulted every one that we currently have and made it clear that nobody should send troops to a quagmire that is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. I intend to bribe people that have already said they will not be bribed or even tempted by my bribe, but most people in the US will miss that fact."

The Polish will be voting on whether to continue in Iraq in January, they have already spoken about Kerry's irresponsible insults to their sacrifice in Iraq. If Kerry is voted in, there is one ally already poised to leave this coalition of the Insulted and Degraded.
 
-=d=- said:
I can see the resemblence..

kerryrambo.jpg

He looks a little like Nick from Family Ties.

"Ayyyy"
 
hylandrdet said:
Rebuttal Point 1- Yes they can because Clinton did it against Bush Sr.. It is an historical fact; we Americans tend to vote for candidates who can promise a stronger economy over national security.

Rebuttal point 2- (sigh) As said before, John Kerry voted to give President Bush permission to start the war on Iraq with the understanding that Bush would seek the support of the UN. Bush reneged on the deal. I wonder why? Was it because...

1) Bush couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction?
2) Bush couldn't find evidence that Iraq was supporting terrorism?
3) Bush, in a rage of arrogance, refuse to admit that he was wrong and was willing to allow soldiers to die order to "save his face"?

For the record, Kerry's vote was used by Bush.

Kerry, with a guilty conscience, set out to make things right. Kerry voted against the 87 billion dollar budget for the troops in an attempt to send a message to the president...

My interpretation of Kerry's message

"You'd lied to this nation; if you chose to send underfunded troops into an unjustified war, the blood will be on your hands"

Like Pontus Pilot, Bush chose to send the troops to their deaths and is now trying to wash his hands of it.

Rebuttal point 3- If Kerry becomes President, the troops will have no choice but to obey his orders. Dude, you have no military experience. the othe countries had spoken, we won't follow bush!

Rebuttal point 4- France and Germany will join because Kerry will restore their oil contracts with Iraq. You know, the contracts that are currently VOID because their deals were made with Saddam Hussein. Before you boo me on this note, remember this; we have same contract with Iraq as well as a history of Iraq bailing us out when it came to oil shortages.

I expect Kerry to restore enough ties with the UN to establish an international force strong enough to crush the remaining insurgents and have the elections go smoothly in January. I call it the "Reagan" factor!

The reason why "lil" Bush opposes this deal is because he acted like a runaway in denial. He ran a few blocks, didn't know where to go, started to panick, then turned around and came back home. That's why he was sucking up to the UN two weeks ago.


"The best way to earn power and respect is to protray a sense of both to those who oppose you" - hylandrdet
1) When Clinton defeated Bush Sr., the issue of national security was not as strong as it is now. Since 9/11, that is the issue Americans are most concerned about. This is reflected in the polls. Kerry is viewed as more favorable when it comes to handling the economy. Bush is viewed as more favorable when it comes to handling nationa security. Overall, Bush has a lead in the polls, although it be a slight lead. And, just a couple of weeks ago, before the first debate, Bush had a decent margin of a lead. If the economy were the main concern of Americans, it would seem Kerry would have a pretty big lead in the polls, considering that most do not think the economy is doing well (I disagree).

2) Bush did try to get UN support. Colin Powel went to the UN and presented our case. The UN, specifically France and Germany, did not give us the support. As Bush said, and I agree 100%, the UN, and other countries WILL NOT decide if and when and how we go to war and protect ourselves. And, as far as I am concerned, Saddam himself, was a WMD. And not only did our intelligence, but other countries also told us that Saddam had WMD.

Kerry voted for the war. He had to know war was imminent. He even said, not long ago, that knowing what he knows now, HE WOULD STILL VOTE FOR THE WAR. But, he says that he stands by his decision of having voted against the $87B. So, he would still vote for the war, but still not vote for the support!? :shocked:

3) No doubt if Kerry is elected the troops will have to follow his command. I never said they would not. But, with Kerry's statements, I doubt as though he will have the support from the troops. I doubt as though he will be looked upon favorably as a CIC. This will effect the moral and probably the elistment into our military.

4) Do you have some sort of inside information with France and Germany? Both have stated, already, that THEY WILL NOT JOIN, EVEN IF KERRY IS ELECTED. If he does not have troop support and cannot get other country support, as he wants, then how does he expect to follow through with his plans of starting to bring troops home in six months? If he does, it will be a premature pullout, the terrorist will claim themselves as having won and America will look even more vulnerable.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp

Forum List

Back
Top