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

reply to post by jhn7537


First off, everything james said to you Is 100% correct, and if he hadn't said it, I would have. Because I was thinking it while reading your posts. All of them.

Now for my post. You need to keep in mind that Kerry gave a time frame in his quote. He compared actions being taken place in the 21st century as comparable to the 19th century. So if we just take the actions of the United States in the 21st century he STILL looks like a hypocrite. We waged two wars in that time frame, drone people without approval and almost waged a THIRD war (on trumped up charges).

Face it man, Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth and you are doing a disservice to everyone by defending him.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


He did say that so I guess its time, Everyone Get your guns.. I need a Gun..

This is not surprising, this is merely the standard American hypocrisy.

Not that I condone what the Russian government has done. In fact I'm not sure what to make of the whole situation to be honest.

The fact is the boot is on the other foot now and the U.S. for once is not the nation snubbing international law and just doing whatever it feels like. The U.S. doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of lecturing Putin. There is very little the west can do and Putin knows it.

US President Barack Obama says Russia has violated international law in Ukraine. Russia is on the "wrong side of history", he said, adding that the US would look at a series of economic and diplomatic sanctions that would isolate Moscow. Mr Obama was speaking from the White House before a meeting with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

BBC News

Now that's hypocrisy. Actually shows them both sat there in the White House.

_BoneZ_


Isn't that what the U.S. did in Iraq? The U.S. invaded Iraq because it was claimed that they had "weapons of mass destruction", and it was also claimed for a short time that Iraq had some involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Both of which were false claims.

Why is it now "common knowledge" that Saddam had no WMD?

We sold him WMD in the 80s, so he would have had to have some.

_BoneZ_

This morning on CBS' "Face the Nation", John Kerry made this statement about Russia invading the Ukraine:

"It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country," ... "You just don't in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext."

When I saw that, I was like: WHAT

Isn't that what the U.S. did in Iraq? The U.S. invaded Iraq because it was claimed that they had "weapons of mass destruction", and it was also claimed for a short time that Iraq had some involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Both of which were false claims.

I smell an ocean full of hypocrisy here.

I just found Kerry's statement to be hilarious, hypocritical, and hogwash all at the same time, and wanted to share.

The US invaded Iraq because Sadaam violated the 1991 cease fire agreement. The WMD issue was only part of the story. If a combatant signs a cease fire and then violates that agreement, then hostilities may resume.

reply to post by NavyDoc

The US invaded Iraq because Sadaam violated the 1991 cease fire agreement.

Really? Please tell us more, because I really don't really remember this in the deluge of propaganda that was thrown at us in the build up to the war.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Care to prove that claim?

Anyway we really should save the fabrications and re-writing of history about the Iraq invasion for another thread.

Let's remember this is about the crisis in Ukraine folks.

Krazysh0t


Care to prove that claim?

Google: Rumsfeld sold WMD to Iraq

You`ll get hundreds of articles, including normal sources such as "The Guardian".

And yet, today the "consensus reality" appears to be "Iraq never had WMD".

Honestly folks, what do you expect the Secretary of State to say in this situation (being a hypocrite or not)? Do you expect him to stand up there and say, we DID THIS so you are not allowed to DO THAT...... Regardless of what the US is responsible for doing in their past doesn't change the fact that the US is not going to admit on the public stage to wrong doings they may have or may not have done in the past... Maybe when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan back in the day the leaders who felt they were making the right decision thought the intel they received from the CIA (or whatever alphabet agency) was credible and good...

reply to post by Skyfloating


How about we play a game where you vet your own sources and not get the people you are informing to look them up for you? Usually people who do that (in my experience) know they are posting bs and are trying to bluff with a "look it up yourself" statement knowing most people won't bother. I'm just going to say bs until you show otherwise.

reply to post by jhn7537


I expect him to make a political statment without putting his foot in his mouth thereby making our country look like a bunch of idiots. Is that too much to ask? Kerry could have said any number of things about our disapproval of what Russia is doing without making us look stupidly hypocritical. Of course most of those dialogs require him to admit to the government's past idiocy, so I guess we can only get hypocritical Kerry.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

How about we play a game where you vet your own sources and not get the people you are informing to look them up for you? Usually people who do that (in my experience) know they are posting bs and are trying to bluff with a "look it up yourself" statement knowing most people won't bother. I'm just going to say bs until you show otherwise.

Its OK. Im used to conspiracy-buffs needing to be babywalked through historical facts.

Daily Mail: Rumseld sold chemical weapons to Iraq

Guardian: Iraq used nerve gas throughout the Iraq-Iran War

Congressional Record: U.S. Helped Build a Monster

The Insider: USA sold Weapons of Mass Destruction to Iraq

Furthermore, the Kurds are quite offended by all the propaganda that chemical weapons were not used against them.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by jhn7537

 

I expect him to make a political statment without putting his foot in his mouth thereby making our country look like a bunch of idiots. Is that too much to ask? Kerry could have said any number of things about our disapproval of what Russia is doing without making us look stupidly hypocritical. Of course most of those dialogs require him to admit to the government's past idiocy, so I guess we can only get hypocritical Kerry.

So taking all that knowledge into consideration what do you expect him to say? As a world power he can't come into this announcement with his tail wagging between his legs, he needs to stay strong and sturdy, regardless of what hypocritical it may seem, because if he does admit to wrong doings over the past of the Bush administration then it just opens the US to a sh*t load more scrutiny... It seems like most of you expect the US to admit to any wrong doings and just move on from that. In reality the US will NEVER do that which is why we see the press conferences the way they do... If the US ever came out and admitted to all their short comings and wrong doings I would be SERIOUSLY scared, cause then I'd know something was seriously wrong with my Govt.

In most Govt's eyes they believe they do know wrong and are always acting out of the "best interest" of its people which is why you never see them apologizing or admitting to the F***** things they do..

And last, do you honestly believe that the things our US leaders say truly reflects on the type of people we are??? Most ALL intelligent folks around the world understand that WE (people in the US, you and I) have nothing we can do to fix the mess our Govt. is in. I believe ANY intelligent outsider (non-US citizen) knows that we are up sh*ts creek without a paddle, meaning there is little to nothing we can do because the Govt. was allowed to gain too much power in rare circumstances, ie. post 9/11....

Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

The US invaded Iraq because Sadaam violated the 1991 cease fire agreement.

Really? Please tell us more, because I really don't really remember this in the deluge of propaganda that was thrown at us in the build up to the war.

It was true, sorry if the truth upsets you. Permitting UN inspectors (remember that?) was part of the ceasefire agreement.

Here are the bullet points of the resolution to invade Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

As you can see, WMD was only one part of the resolution. Certainly, it played well on the news as a compelling reason, one that every politician, even Clinton and Kerry supported, but it is not the only issue. Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire and then, as appropriate in such a situation, hostilities resumed.

This was part of the discussion at the time. It's not my fault that ideology has given you a selective memory.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Oh please. Dont talk down on me. First off I like to do this thing called Deny Ignorance. Maybe you've heard it once or twice before? It involves not believing everything I read at face value, otherwise known as a skeptic. You said it yourself that this isn't talked about anymore, so common courtesy dictates you supply the uniformed with your sources.

Now on to your sources. I shall begin with the fact that they all literally came out at the tail end of 2002. We went into Iraq early spring 2003. One of the articles even has a recent update that basically says that Rumsfeld had nothing to do with wmd sales to Iraq which I had to scroll to the bottom of the article to read (almost lke they are admitting it was a lie but want to bury it at the bottom of a page of lies hoping no one reads that far) Did it ever occur to you that those articles were just propaganda and lies? Nope your high and mighty attitude is TOTALLY justified here... *rolls eyes*

Kram09
Anyway we really should save the fabrications and re-writing of history about the Iraq invasion for another thread.

Let's remember this is about the crisis in Ukraine folks.

What? The entire premise of the thread was that the US was being hypocritical and cited the Iraq invasion as a reason for that.

Krazysh0t

Did it ever occur to you that those articles were just propaganda

Tell that to the Kurds...

Oh, Im sorry....do I need to link evidence that Kurds exist?

Skyfloating

_BoneZ_


Isn't that what the U.S. did in Iraq? The U.S. invaded Iraq because it was claimed that they had "weapons of mass destruction", and it was also claimed for a short time that Iraq had some involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Both of which were false claims.

Why is it now "common knowledge" that Saddam had no WMD?

We sold him WMD in the 80s, so he would have had to have some.

It's not common knowledge that Saddam had no WMD. That's nonsense. He used them against the Kurds and during the Iran-Iraq war. He had them, most certainly. The question is where did they go between the time of when he used them and we went looking for them.


I wonder where the WMD Syria now has came from.