Kerry: "Don't behave in 19th-Century fashion by invading another country on trumped-up pretext."

reply to post by dawnstar

just heard the same from a US vet who was stationed in the Ukraine for several years
he called in on Alex Jones
he said that the majority of ukrainians do not want the EU, and that the russians were primarily securing their bases...
another caller said that also the russian language was removed from the language of commerce by the new government and that set the crimeans off...so they apparently called the russians in...

Rocky Dennis just needs to shut his stupid mouth already. I mean, He usually is protesting against war, now lately he's always pushing for it. What a typical paid, hypocritical, yes man lap dog. ~$heopleNation

jhn7537
reply to post by James1982

 

James, I respectively disagree with you. We have a 2 party system here and when one party is in control they have the power to dictate action. You suggest that a politician speaks on behalf of the country and not just themselves, to a certain degree I will agree with you that they are the "voice" you speak of, but I also believe Bush, Obama, Kerry, and other politicians are not my voice, nor the voice of the people, knowing that this country hasn't been "by the people for the people" for a very long time. So you can talk down to me all you want in your semi-abusive tone as you try to get this message knocked into my thick skull, but I just don't agree with you. This isn't a right or wrong thing here, you have your opinion and I have mine, I'm not telling you to think my way or that I'm 100% right, I just feel the way I do and I'm sharing it on this thread. I'm sorry you disagree with me so vehemently.

edit on 2-3-2014 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)

So your saying the sins of a country disappear when the president that presided over them is gone? How can the world keep America accountable for its actions, when any misdeeds are erased with a new president?

US military represents America around the globe. That doesn't mean they represent YOU, that means they represent the nation as a whole, as the entity known as "America"

I never said they were your voice. Speaking for america, and speaking for the american people are two separate things, another concept alien to many.

A spokesperson for GE "represents GE" because they represent GE as a whole. Whether or not they represent what the factory worker wants or cares about doesn't matter, they represent "the company" in the same way kerry represents "The US"

The attitude of "I wasn't in power then" (even though I voted in favor of the war) doesn't cut it in a democracy. That cuts it maybe in a dictatorship, because the man in power IS the country. That's what we are trying to avoid. In a democracy the people are the country, and the people don't get replaced. It doesn't matter what president resided over what, every president is responsible for acting as if it was an action they themselves took, because the blame doesn't matter, their job is to act on behalf of the nation as a WHOLE, past and current.

Think for a second how this looks to other countries, especially those who have been victims of past US aggression. You think they give the country as a whole a pass simple because a new guy is there?

I was wrong to have the tone I had, I apologize. Based on what you said I projected things onto you that you didn't do and that wasn't right of me. I'm not too proud to say I'm sorry.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Very glad to see this thread.....Would have started one if I hadn't found this one!

Doubly glad to see it started by an American citizen. +S&F

The hypocrisy of this creature Kerry (I would say man, but he's very far from one) knows no limit.....It really is time the good people of the US did something about the vipers in their midst, before they are led into a war they really do not want.

James1982

So your saying the sins of a country disappear when the president that presided over them is gone? How can the world keep America accountable for its actions, when any misdeeds are erased with a new president?

US military represents America around the globe. That doesn't mean they represent YOU, that means they represent the nation as a whole, as the entity known as "America"

I never said they were your voice. Speaking for america, and speaking for the american people are two separate things, another concept alien to many.

A spokesperson for GE "represents GE" because they represent GE as a whole. Whether or not they represent what the factory worker wants or cares about doesn't matter, they represent "the company" in the same way kerry represents "The US"

The attitude of "I wasn't in power then" (even though I voted in favor of the war) doesn't cut it in a democracy. That cuts it maybe in a dictatorship, because the man in power IS the country. That's what we are trying to avoid. In a democracy the people are the country, and the people don't get replaced. It doesn't matter what president resided over what, every president is responsible for acting as if it was an action they themselves took, because the blame doesn't matter, their job is to act on behalf of the nation as a WHOLE, past and current.

Think for a second how this looks to other countries, especially those who have been victims of past US aggression. You think they give the country as a whole a pass simple because a new guy is there?

I was wrong to have the tone I had, I apologize. Based on what you said I projected things onto you that you didn't do and that wasn't right of me. I'm not too proud to say I'm sorry.

edit on 2-3-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

I'm not saying the sins just disappear, but I do believe there is a "reset" when you close one chapter (ie. Bush) and open it with another (ie. Obama).. Do you still give Germany sh*t for the millions of people they tried to commit genocide on? Of course not, because it's in the past and things typically change. The point I'm making is that if you go far enough back in time with any nation or group of people you will most likely find horrible/questionable acts they committed.

I understand what you are saying with Kerry being a voice, but I do believe that a new President deserves to build their own legacy, instead of constantly being bunched in with other President's who may have done horrible things. If Bush, Cheney, or some other member of that faction made that statement then I would be in total agreement with the hypocrisy, but seeing as Kerry is speaking on behalf of President Obama's cabinet and his agenda (which is separate from Bush) then I can make a case for it not being hypocritical. The President dictates the foreign policy while the Secretary of State just relays the stance the President has. To this date, Obama hasn't invaded another country based off false allegations and because of that he can have the stance he does, where on the international stage Kerry is the "voice" of Obama and his foreign policy beliefs.

Like I said earlier, we don't need to agree here. I just believe a new President should have a fresh new start instead of being lumped in with all the previous ones. Going to my earlier point on Germany, should they never have a voice about invading another country knowing what they did back in WWII?

You kind of prove my point. Hitler was a dictator. Germany does still get crap for WWII, but reasonable people would know that it makes sense to not hold the actions of a dictator against the country as a whole. Yet many germans were still held accountable.

Bush wasn't a dictator, nor is Obama. Totally out of bounds on their authority, but nowhere near a dictator.

Germany as a whole has publicly and officially apologized, make ammends, etc for WWII and for Hitler's actions. People actually lack freedom of speech in certain circumstances because they are so ashamed of their past, and trying to make up for that.

That situation is completely different than in America. The US government hasn't made public official apologies for the last administration. We don't write history books in our own country about how Bush was an evil dictator that ruined our country.

From the point of view of the US government, the Bush regime was still an official and legal government. Going from Hitler to post WWII Germany, they are TOTALLY different governments. And after hitler the german people were wholly controlled by Americans and Russians, so there's that. Their right to self rule was revoked for awhile because they screwed up too badly. Did that happen in America because of Bush?

Post-bush did the entire federal government get torn down, constitution changed, and then rebuilt? No. It's just a new boss same as the old boss, they don't get off just because they are new.

Switching from one American president to another isn't even in the same universe as a dictator being removed via warfare and having the country as a whole go through a really really dramatic change. For all intents and purposes the American government is no different than when Bush was in charge. There really is little change, that's why they are still responsible.

If post-bush the US went through a civil war, and now had a new constitution and completely different government then yes, I would say they deserve a fresh start. Or, if post-bush, Europe and Asia took over control of the US and ruled us for a time, then yes, another fresh start. As it stands now, they deserve nothing, because they aren't new, they aren't changing anything. They are the same players doing the same thing acting like their chit doesn't stink because it's all bush's fault and you're defending them.

Is this guy an idiot or just forgetful?

I don't know anything about Lindsey Graham (Rep Sen.) but this quote pretty much sums it up for both Obama and Kerry...

"Stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators; it is not your strong suit," Graham advised the president. "Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody's eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression."

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Absolutely stunning case of ignorance on display for all the world to see! Kerry is an idiot, and perfect spokesman for this administration.

reply to post by la2


we are not as bad as everyone else...are government is as bad as all the other governments...keep us civilians out of the crap....

reply to post by stumason

This Ukraine crisis is a repeat, on a larger scale, of Georgia in 2008. They ended up losing a good chunk of their country to de facto Russian control and despite UN mediation attempts, the Russian's aren't giving it back.

This is in direct violation of the UN Charter and is as good a reason for War as you'll find, yet nothing was done.

Under that criteria, we should invade Israel.
Oops, that's right, we give them billions.
I think that when we stop supporting Israel, then we can think about criticizing Russia.

Didnt this guy lose a race for president back in the day? Why does anyone care what he has to say? I mean seriously, what difference does it make hearing this guy's opinion on the issue? Plus, he has to be like 90 by now (no offense old folks, but c'mon)!

reply to post by Salamandy


Well..... Secretary of State and Chief Foreign Affairs advisor should ideally hold some weight on the world stage, no?

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


FYI... "Turkish newspaper urges that the United States be listed in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions."

Just googled "us countries list destabilized invaded regime change". See that link:

academic.evergreen.edu...

Some here talk about "moral grounds"... Yhea, talk about it.

LadySkadi
reply to post by Salamandy

 

Well..... Secretary of State and Chief Foreign Affairs advisor should ideally hold some weight on the world stage, no?

edit on 2-3-2014 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

I don't think he knows that kerry is the sec of state and chief FA

It seems like whenever these politicians say things while operating under official capacity people give them leeway as if it's just a normal person shooting the chit around a beer. It's nowhere near the same, it's just horrifying few people understand why.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Yes if we must play the politics game. But this isnt our business. It is much wiser to keep our mouth's shut entirely or perhaps a "we wish our fellow earthlings peace in the region" would suffice.

This seems more a chance for him to put some make up on and stay relevant. Problem is, he is not relevant unless you put some credence into the title of "Speaker of American's" or whatever he has titled himself. Again, shutting his mouth is the best course of action.

reply to post by James1982


His titles and positions are worthless. He is just another man. In fact he is less of a man in terms of intelligence as proven by his actions in the public forum. Who cares if some US guy speaks "officially" about the Ukrainian/Russian conflict? Unless you are a posturing, dramatic type who uses another person's crisis to get air time in an attempt keep yourself relevant.

Salamandy
reply to post by James1982

 

His titles and positions are worthless. He is just another man. In fact he is less of a man in terms of intelligence as proven by his actions in the public forum. Who cares if some US guy speaks "officially" about the Ukrainian/Russian conflict? Unless you are a posturing, dramatic type who uses another person's crisis to get air time in an attempt keep yourself relevant.

Considering a speech from this administration caused some in Russia to want to recall their ambassadors, I'd say what US officials have to say is VERY important.


You don't have to LIKE what they are saying to recognize that it will have a great effect on the world.

Who was it that said, "It is better to be thought an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."?

I saw a clip of Ron Paul discussing this issue and saying we should mind our own business and let the folks involved solve their issues. It made me wish that he was our Secretary of State. I'm thinking that his view is far more representative of the American citizen than this rascal. Personally, I've yet to find anybody who thinks we should be meddling in this crisis. Most of the people I've talked with ask what would we do if we had a dust-up (like maybe some petitions of secession/protests?) and Vlad stuck his nose into our disharmony.
Think of it this way----Texas---what if they decided to secede? and it was a success---but then discontent set in because part of the state is ethnic Mexican---protests are followed by appeals to the Mexican government to save the ethnic Mexicans from genocide----do you see where this could happen? Now what if Vlad placed a call to Barry telling him what to do about it and how not to handle it?

I simply don't see where any good could come of us becoming involved...and certainly do see where that road could be full of ruts and potholes and blown-up bridges.

For sure the excuse will be that we have never invaded another Nation on our own but NATO was the invaders. They always will be. Bush had NATO to back up his invasion which has been in place for a long time. Russia, China, and North Korea do not have that. Although, Russia and China can Veto as being on the Security Council it makes our cases against Russia, China, and North Korea a problem.

It was not a problem with Iraq.

The problem is that when Russia and China become a problem can NATO go against them when they are Members??