user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
THANK YOU for noticing...
It is amazing that the Bush group accuses Kerry of changing policies to adjust to the facts ...
When they try to change facts to adjust to the policies.
Simple, they believe you should never challenge Republican power, Nixon was in office in 72. You should always lie to protect them.
Many of his eye-witness accounts have been factually discredited, such as his story about being chasing insurgents into cambodia when in fact he never stepped foot in that country. Etc.
I think the main reason soldiers are pissed at him is because of the way his words were used so effectively as propaganda by the vietcong to break american morale. Something about that, giving aid to the enemy in a time of war, smacks of treason . . .
Herzog - when are you going to realise - and I'm not USA-bashing here - I'm telling the truth. Most of the world is in a state of disbelief as to how people can be so stupid to continue to support Bush when he is good for no-one or nothing - especially for the American people (unless you happen to be a millionaire and you have no children that you'd like to be able to breathe in 50 years).
Keithsheen, when aer you going to wake up and see that we basically have no other legitimate choice other than Bush? We are stuck.
Keith: when will you see that americans don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about us, our government, or our president? Do you care what we think about your country?
herzog -- That's the exact WRONG attitude to have when we're fighting an international war on terror. When Americans are THAT arrogant, no wonder they get pissed off to the point of attacking us.
As for John Kerry "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," a misunderstanding of events that happened isn't aiding the enemy. Giving the enemy guns is what aids the enemy.
Keith: when will you see that americans don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about us, our government, or our president?
herzog: Seriously, I thought you were above that.
Yeah your right thats the stupidist thing ever. American soldiers did murder innocent people in vietnam and anyone who says otherwise is a dirty rotten liar and a moron.
by seon on Tue Oct 12, 04 2:42am
[+]
danny: I admire you're not promoting Bush as a decent choice, only as *I don't see another choice*. At least you're being honest, with yourself as well as us.
However, I have to say that the labels here are responsible for a lot of problems.
Bush is no Conservative, whatever his label may be.
And he just doesn't have the capacity to serve in that role, IMO.
This election will be seen as a referendum on the US, under George W Bush.
If he is voted out, the World can say it was an abherration and that the US was temporarily hijacked by its leaders. Then maybe we can get back some of the credibility we used to have.
But if Bush is re-elected, the World will know it is no abherration and that the US cannot differentiate Freedom from 'American Dominance.'
'herzog -- That's the exact WRONG attitude to have when we're fighting an international war on terror. When Americans are THAT arrogant, no wonder they get pissed off to the point of attacking us.'
They attacked us because we're arrogant? That's a pretty flimsy excuse. If that's true then they'd have attacked us for some other BS reason so it doesn't really matter. If it's not true then our 'arrogance' is irrelevent and has no effect on the war on terror. Which is it?
And as long as we're justifying attacks on other nations based on their percieved arrogance, when will we be given permission to attack france? A nation far more arrogant than the US, and with alot less to back it up.
PS, which is more arrogant: not caring what others think of you and doing what you deem best, or seeing fit to tell other, far more powerful nations, what to do when it is of no concern to you?
herz: I've read and reread Counciltucky's post, trying to see where he claimed it was *justification.* I can't seem to find that.
Perhaps you will point it out?
Plus: There is a difference between not letting other countries *control* you and just not giving a damn about anyone else.
It doesn't get individuals ahead in life, it doesn't get countries ahead in the world.
Can you give a good reason why we should take the opinions of other nations seriously when their best interests and ours are in direct conflict? The three most ardent opponents of the war in iraq, france russia and germany, were also cited in a report recently as being the largest recepients of smuggled iraqi oil. Why should we listen to a goddamned word they have to say on iraq when they're breaking the sanctions they agreed to in order to help out an enemy of the US to line their own pockets?
I'm not saying attacking us because we're arrogant is justified. I am, though, saying that it doesn't make us more liked in the world. As for interests being in 'direct conflict', I guess I don't see that.
And how is Iraq an enemy of the US other than for one reason (that reason being Bush ordered us to attack Iraq)?
herz: For one thing, it is rarely a given that their interests and ours are in conflict. That is where that neat little thing called Diplomacy comes in. And I am talking Real Diplomacy, not that on-paper excuse for a facade that Bush tap-danced to.
When you toss an ultimatum out on the table and say Take it or leave it ... that isn't diplomacy.
The issue could have been worked. Yes, it may have taken a few extra weeks. Or even a few extra months. Yes, it would probably mean that halliburton would *not* get all of those juicy reconstruction contracts. And yes, it would certainly have meant that the US couldn't have swaggered in like it was on a white horse in some global western.
And that is even giving you the hypothetical that the war was the right thing to do.
IF it had to be done, we could have. But you don't get cooperation by throwing your weight around. You don't get cooperation by positioning You're with us or Against us, putting world leaders in impossible situations domestically ... as if they will be giving into US demands.
Diplomacy, my friend. Research the topic ... it is worth reviving.
'herz: For one thing, it is rarely a given that their interests and ours are in conflict. That is where that neat little thing called Diplomacy comes in. And I am talking Real Diplomacy, not that on-paper excuse for a facade that Bush tap-danced to.'
They were getting oil deals from saddam in exchange for promises to keep the US out of the war. I'd say that presents somewhat of a conflict of interest.
'The issue could have been worked. Yes, it may have taken a few extra weeks. Or even a few extra months. Yes, it would probably mean that halliburton would *not* get all of those juicy reconstruction contracts. And yes, it would certainly have meant that the US couldn't have swaggered in like it was on a white horse in some global western.'
France vowed to veto ANY proposal that included war as a possible outcome. ANY PROPOSAL. How do you negotiate with that if war is found to be the only appropriate response? Especially in light of their corrupt, underhanded dealings with saddam.
herzog: Salesmanship starts when the customer says 'No.'
And if you keep trying to get the sale after the customer has said 'absolutely not under any conditions' then turned away, left, got in his car, went home and locked the door, it's called irrational at best.
That is what france did. They made it abundantly clear that they weren't going to support us in anyway no matter what. Not a lot to bargain with there. Perhaps we could have offered them larger oil bribes than saddam was giving them to switch sides, but that wouldn't really have been worth the cost.
herz: Because Bush is too hamfisted to even have a chance of doing it right. He is clearly incompetent. Amore competent diplomat could have done it.
It demonstrates that nation-states are nothing more and have always been nothing more than gangs, football teams
Passing themselves off as naturalesque, Reality
Does it really matter that France doesn't support us? I mean, do we really need France anyway? So why make a big deal that they disagree?
did Kerry tell the truth of just left it out that villages and children and women were throwing granades and suicide bombing them. War is not pretty.
|
|
