Force in Iraq
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Force in Iraq

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786

    Force in Iraq

    Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq

    http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

    GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

    Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

    Huh!?! am i reading this wrong or is this the exact opposite of everything he's said before? except for the part where he could do it better of course
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    I’ve seen French school girls shoot better! One could say he is a pathological flip flopper!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    That's what he's always said, like millions of others: agree on the war, not agree on how it's done...

  4. #4
    Senior Member OverdueSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    556
    OK. I'm still confused here. Kerry would have voted for the Authority to direct troops, wherever necessary, to combat terrorism, but exactly what would Kerry have done differently? Kerry believed that Saddam was a threat to the United States and Kerry. How would kerry have conducted the war? I mean, you can't wait on an 'International" United Nations decision to go to war, because Kerry would be dead of old age before that ever happened. Now, if Kerry had an intern on the side, I guess he would have bombed suspected Al-Queda camps in "South Korea".
    The mentally handicaped are persecuted in this great country, and I say rightfully so! These people are NUTS!!!!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Kerry authorized the president going to war, and believes that a president should have that power. There are a few things he would have done differently, though.
    One of them is the money needed for this war. Kerry voted against American taxpayers having to pay $87 billion. In stead, he'd have brought in the allies and share the burden. Bush talks a lot about those allies, but let's face it: the 21,000 non-American troops that have been in Iraq are a joke (not the troops themselves, but that number). Only a little over 30 countries have provided troops. That's not "the alliance", that's a small part of what the alliance should be and has been before Bush.
    Also, Kerry would add 40,000 active duty troops, and end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists, double the special forces (the ones that should've been send to Iraq instead of "newbies")

  6. #6
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Were are these magical allies? The real world scenario is, Bush or Kerry "they" didn't support the US across the board. That line in my mind is BS. It's easy to say "I would have brought in more allies." Wouldn't have happened in fact I believe; just like Kerry believes he could have garned this massive world support out of nowhere, that Kerry wouldn't have done anything but pass another United Resolution to add to 10 years worth of red tape and pocket filling.

    In addition Kerry openly spoke ill of the war at first. He didn't always support it, just like Vietnam, he's a hero, he hates all his brothers and calls them baby killers, then he's a hero again. We should accept Kerry's new found love for the war because "He didn't like the way Bush went about it"? Because Bush didn't wait another year or 2 for help that will NEVER come?

    The troops are thin, where is 40,000 coming from? Large numbers of soldiers here, in the low thousands, have just returned and they already have marching orders in Feb of 2005 to go back for another year or more. Why is our military so thin? Answer = Bill. I hate to mention it but that is exactly what the national guard is for. It's amazing all the people I know who detested the war, spoke ill for a year about every aspect of it now think it's great. Where were these guys when it started, we would be out of there by now with that kind of support.

    Kerry should be careful adding 40,000 from nothing could mean a draft?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,024
    Originally posted here by !mitationRust
    I’ve seen French school girls shoot better! One could say he is a pathological flip flopper!
    Better watch it or EA will sue you

    I recognize that, my friends used to play mohaa 24/7.
    [H]ard|OCP <--Best hardware/gaming news out there--|
    pwned.nl <--Gamers will love this one --|
    Light a man a fire and you\'ll keep him warm for a day, Light a man ON fire and you\'ll keep him warm the rest of his life.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    Originally posted here by Negative
    That's what he's always said, like millions of others: agree on the war, not agree on how it's done...
    "always"
    Kerry Voted Against The Use Of Force In Iraq. (S. J. Res. 2, CQ Vote #2: Passed 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, 1/12/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

    2003: Kerry Said His Vote Was For "Threat Of Force."

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Kerry Voted Against The Use Of Force In Iraq. (S. J. Res. 2, CQ Vote #2: Passed 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, 1/12/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

    2003: Kerry Said His Vote Was For "Threat Of Force."
    Nice one, !mitationRust, especially since you conveniently didn't mention the date of S.J. Res. 2...
    S.J. Res. 2 was passed in 1991. Remember the first war on Iraq? That's what the vote was about. I'm not sure, but I think Tedob was talking about the most recent one

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    That's what he's always said, like millions of others: agree on the war, not agree on how it's done...
    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


    Hasn’t Kerry been saying for the past few months that Bush has been ''misleading'' us into war. Misleading us about the WMDs…”where are the WMDs mr bush?” showing complete disrespect for the office he seeks by calling the president mr. and meaning that had Bush not ''lied'' about WMDs, we wouldn’t have gone to war at all.

    Didn’t kerry also say that he voted to give bush the authority to go to war just so bush could threaten saddam into allowing weapons inspectors to continue. His vote was not intended for us to actually attack iraq.

    Is he saying that he doesn’t understand the voting system?

    Kerry keeps insisting we should have waited for help from our “so called” allies or ask for their assistance now. Look what our allies are doing in the sudan. Nothing! They’ve decided its not really genocide thats happening there. Hey! That solves the whole problem conveniantly. People of a certain ethnic and religious background are being slaughtered by the thousands but its not genocide? What is it? And who cares if it is or isn’t genocide, it just needs to be stopped. Not threw years of resolutions and negotiations. this has been tried, but rather by forceful threat backed up by determination. This is exactly what kerry’s friends and his so called 'plans' lack completely.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •