It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans are 95% Corrupt, Democrats are 75% Corrupt

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not everyone who is against bad things is good my friend. Some of the loudest voices on the left are the same breed of weasel that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are. Half of the political radicals want to conquer the world, the other half want to hand over our sovreignity. All of those radicals are supporting agendas that do not benefit the people but which do benefit whatever secret political and business ties they have to certain influential conspirators in what presidents themselves have called "new world order".

I don't mean to be rude, but something in what I read sounded an awful lot like "even moderate conservatives like Powell are evil, but far left whackos like Boxer are the good guys". That's absolutely backwards. What few TRUE moderates we have are the good guys, and the extremists, almost to the man, do not represent the best interest of any majority of Americans.


Powell should be laufded on his military career....he should be damned on his political one. He carried that "Good Soilder" nonsense past the point of reason, to where he knowingly lied about threat assessments and actively participated in the deception. His supposedly noble quiet dissent was a variable in the 100's of thousands of deaths accounted for to date.

What, in your measure, defines Barbara Boxer as a "far left whacko"? Project Vote Smart has listed her voting record and mapped it against interest groups percentage of favorable rating - she consistently tracks to be a consumer & individual rights advocate. She was rated twice as high, compare to John McCain on Veterans issues, by the Military Officers Association. And, I love the fact that the Christian Coalition gave her a zero rating!
The reason she should be lauded is exemplified in your Powell endorsement: "genteel" & "reserved dissent" are useless in the face of ideology driven extremeists like the Bush Administration....they have the media, no Republicans are breaking ranks and almost all Democrats have decided to button their lip & wait for the next election cycle. We need literal & figurative Boxers or fighters to stop the wholesale selling out of America.




posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Interesting but false. Republicans have more guts, more credibility and are just plain smarter than the rest. We are not afraid to fight for our country when it is attacked. If left to the dem's, we would still be having a tea party trying to decide what to do next after 911.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Republicans have no guts; have you ever seen such a bunch of 'yes men' as assembled now?
Snake oil salesmen to the last. By your statement you're one of those lost souls who thinks that Iraq had something to do with the US being 'attacked' !?!


Take a breath & exhale the propaganda.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
The reason she should be lauded is exemplified in your Powell endorsement: "genteel" & "reserved dissent" are useless in the face of ideology driven extremeists like the Bush Administration....


The liberal whacko comment is aimed that the image she creates for herself for the way she's gone after Rice with guns blazing on the Iraq issue. Right wrong or indifferent, when you are that loud and that belligerent people write you off as a whacko. 51% of this country is not listening to Boxer.
You'll never convince me that 51% of this country voted for Bush. What would make him so popular? He pissed of union workers including myself with the 8 hour workday deal. He's pissed off anyone who knows anything about the military, including myself, by fighting Iraq right out of the Vietnam playbook.
Yet he was the pick of 51% of the country, including myself, because we were voting against loud-mouthed idiots like Kerry who offer no answers, just criticism; LOUD, VITRIOLIC criticism.

You and I will have to agree to disagree I suppose, but here is my final statement of my point just to show where I'm coming from.

Somebody who is respected by Bush's 51%- somebody who shows an aversion to war but who backs his country once the war is on, somebody with a moderate record and somebody who has credibility both inside and outside of the political arena has to oppose Bush with a soft voice and firm arguement. Not too many dems can offer this.

Everyone who wants to yell into a microphone and pose for the cameras and be a leader in the attack on this administration may as just save their breath and their posturing and give up because a good part of Bush's 51% see them as disloyal for it.
If these same people, with the backing of credible outsiders like Powell and McCain, want to tone down their volume and their choice of words, stop gunning for Bush and really focus on the issue at hand, they can win the issue. They speed us out of Iraq, they could keep us out of Iran, they could even probably change the constitution to keep this from happening again.
You know what they can't do? They can't win if they don't mean it- and right now they don't. They can't win if this is just a play for political power. What's this thread about after all? They are 75% corrupt too! They don't really want out of Bush's agenda half as bad as they want in to the whitehouse, and once they get there they will take Bush's crimes in new directions to suit their particular interests.

That's why I think it's so important to bring in people who didn't waste their voice shouting at the wind. Because they are the ones who will be heard now, and their positions have been no less politically motivated than those of people on the left- they just didn't have the luxury of having "the right thing" also be the convenient thing. Even the left did the right thing in the wrong way because that was what politics demanded.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
*sarcasm on*

When are all you conservative bashers going to quit being jealous about what and how us Republicans do things!

Now you're angry because we're more corrupt than you all!

See, if you guys were corrupt, y'all would be in control!

How about getting over it anytime soon!


*sarcasm off*



[edit on 26/1/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

from Bout Time
The above comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., our next NY State Attorney General, since Elliot Spitzer is vacating the job to run ( and become ) NY 's next Govenor.

Sorry to be the bearer of good news but he is not going to run.

Robert Kennedy Jr. Says He Won't Run for N.Y. Attorney General
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist son of slain U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy, said he won't run for New York Attorney General next year because he wants to spend more time with his family.


Just say No




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Ah the Kennedys are just as corrupt as any power family in any country. JFK was an alcoholic, he took drugs and was a womanizer as well as Bush junior.
The left are trully nutz; they think they have the right to destroy the definition of marriage (man & woman) and legalize gay marriage completely changing an age old tradition which is older than human civilization it's self. This is why Bush won the last election. The left got too greedy with their liberal adgenda, this caused African americans & other minorities to vote republican for the first time in their lives. People who never voted before simply voted for Bush because of the gay marriage issue. This is why Bush got re-elected. Avergage everyday joe six pack blue & white collar families don't want their children being read 1 Dad, 2 Dads, green Dad, Blue Dad in school. They don't want their sons and daughters to be exposed to the glorification of homo sexuality. They want tolerance, & acceptance BUT NOT the glorification of it. Families who normally vote Democrat realized that the liberal would have got their way if Kerry was elected so they changed their vote. Plain & simple.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   
The Vagabond - uhh you are ware that kennedy was the one who started vietnam?
We didnt go into veitnam after he died, he sent us into veitnam.
As for bout thread well, come on both parties are corrupt but the republicans are more corrupt?
Blah blah blah I hate bush blah blah blah



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sorry to be the bearer of good news but he is not going to run.

Robert Kennedy Jr. Says He Won't Run for N.Y. Attorney General
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) --


Just say No



Nothing more pathetic than a person who realizes they've been served s***t, yet asks for a second helping!


[edit on 27-1-2005 by Bout Time]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I just have to say this agin:

The US has taken bribery and called it lobbying!


Now youre trying to count who is corrupt or not?

Come one legislation is passed by the brown paper envelope already so why predend?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond


The liberal whacko comment is aimed that the image she creates for herself for the way she's gone after Rice with guns blazing on the Iraq issue. Right wrong or indifferent, when you are that loud and that belligerent people write you off as a whacko. 51% of this country is not listening to Boxer.

I would have to conclude that you in fact did not watch the full proceedings when this exchange took place. The entire exchange was conducted in full "Comittee Speak" - there were no raised voices, no heated words and especially no loquacious grandstanding. What you're echoing is the continued media framing of Boxer being a "loose cannon" going back to her dissent vote on the certification of the elctoral tally.....she's been a target of that supposed "LIBERAL MEDIA" ( you know, that one that seems to be coming up on the White House payroll with regularity)

You'll never convince me that 51% of this country voted for Bush.

They didn't - but those who ran the count felt that was a comfortable yet believable margin

What would make him so popular? He pissed of union workers including myself with the 8 hour workday deal. He's pissed off anyone who knows anything about the military, including myself, by fighting Iraq right out of the Vietnam playbook.
Yet he was the pick of 51% of the country, including myself, because we were voting against loud-mouthed idiots like Kerry who offer no answers, just criticism; LOUD, VITRIOLIC criticism.

Then you're emblematic of the biggest problem in this country - soundbyte duration "common sense" that won't get off it's proverbial azz and do it's own research, married to the displaced perception that it's a POPULARITY CONTEST. If nothing else was looked at, someone could have gone to the ATS campaign 2004 forum and seen a full analysis of each platform component, particulary on Kerry, SINCE I WROTE MANY OF THEM.
Loud criticism comes after a clusterf***k, that happens, don't ya know, especially for anyone who knows anything about the military & economy, like Kerry, me and as you say, you.



You and I will have to agree to disagree I suppose, but here is my final statement of my point just to show where I'm coming from.

Somebody who is respected by Bush's 51%- somebody who shows an aversion to war but who backs his country once the war is on, somebody with a moderate record and somebody who has credibility both inside and outside of the political arena has to oppose Bush with a soft voice and firm arguement. Not too many dems can offer this.

Your solution is a call for complacency...someone who wants to "Play Ball"!?! The supposed 51% are not worth placating.....the efforts need to be directed towards those 5% - 10% who were hung up on a single issue while turning a blind eye to the overall failure because of that single issue focus. The rest of that supposed 51% is no where near what we should cater our country towards!!!

Everyone who wants to yell into a microphone and pose for the cameras and be a leader in the attack on this administration may as just save their breath and their posturing and give up because a good part of Bush's 51% see them as disloyal for it.

See above

If these same people, with the backing of credible outsiders like Powell and McCain, want to tone down their volume and their choice of words, stop gunning for Bush and really focus on the issue at hand, they can win the issue. They speed us out of Iraq, they could keep us out of Iran, they could even probably change the constitution to keep this from happening again.

When does credability exactly get lost, in your eyes, with those two? Powell played face to some of the most damning lies to facilitate the lead up to war. McCain opposed every propaganda push by team Bush, then went out of his way to campaign for him, championing the same points he said were false.
Additionally, the presidential race is over, so that single source visionary is no longer able to gain a voice until 2008.


You know what they can't do? They can't win if they don't mean it- and right now they don't. They can't win if this is just a play for political power. What's this thread about after all? They are 75% corrupt too! They don't really want out of Bush's agenda half as bad as they want in to the whitehouse, and once they get there they will take Bush's crimes in new directions to suit their particular interests.


Keep in mind, that you're acknowledging Bush's crimes after you came out supporting him, via your vote.

That's why I think it's so important to bring in people who didn't waste their voice shouting at the wind. Because they are the ones who will be heard now, and their positions have been no less politically motivated than those of people on the left- they just didn't have the luxury of having "the right thing" also be the convenient thing. Even the left did the right thing in the wrong way because that was what politics demanded.

As I am in agreement with RFK Jr., I am in partial agreement with your assessment. However, if we are only dealing with 5% within the party who are in opposition, and 25% outside of the party, how do you propose for that small percentage of people, who do not chair any of the comittee's or hold any party leadership positions, get the message out? Ghandi like pacifism in COngress!?!? It's not going to work. Apply some hypothetical numbers to it:
100 Senators, lets say split down the middle along party lines. 50R x 5%= 2.5 non-corrupt. 50D x 25% = 12.5 non-corrupt. So this loyal band of American Senators go into every issue, every vote, every decision, outnumbered 85 to 15.....what exactly do you see as being a viable arena EXCEPT FOR the court of PUBLIC OPINION? And in that court, you don't get a camera on you unless you are making noise, especially when the party power brokers stage manage media interaction to the scale it's managed these days. Look at the staggeringly stupid comments made by the Democrats in the Rice Q & A. Look at Joe Biden say she was a horrible NSA, yet " I'm going to vote for her, because a president should have their choice of who they put in that role." Why rank & file Democrats don't burn these whores in effigy is beyond me.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
"The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt".

The above comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., our next NY State Attorney General ...


A KENNEDY calling people corrupt? I hope he included his own
family in these stats! They are the dregs ....

I don't know how he came up with 95% and 75%. I would think
that knowing those kinds of figures would be impossible. If he
actually knew for sure who was corrupt so he could come up with
those figures, those corrupt politicians would rub him out.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't know how he came up with 95% and 75%. I would think
that knowing those kinds of figures would be impossible. If he
actually knew for sure who was corrupt so he could come up with
those figures, those corrupt politicians would rub him out.


Could be why he's decided against running? ANd look at what you're spewing about corrupt famalies, yet being a rabid Bush support!!

RFK Jr. is proverbally an arms length away - I live in the area where his efforts have been focused...he's the real deal.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A new institution is going to have to work its way up from grass roots and appeal to people as the best option within "business as usual"


You're looking at it. The internet is our best shot against this crap. ATS one of the best places around for voicing decent. But what it really needs is a forum for ideas, for people to come together and plan real actions. Well what do you guys think? A new forum to get all us like minded individuals together under one roof , where we can make real discussion and plans? Sounds good to me



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
RFK Jr. is proverbally an arms length away - I live in the area where his efforts have been focused...he's the real deal.

RFK Jr. is a weak, chinless, stuttering, pasty little liberal hypocrite. He is oh sooo concerned about the environment except when it comes to his own back yard, then he's against it. He rides around in SUV's and private jets.

Hypocrite, that's him.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time Apply some hypothetical numbers to it:
100 Senators, lets say split down the middle along party lines. 50R x 5%= 2.5 non-corrupt. 50D x 25% = 12.5 non-corrupt. So this loyal band of American Senators go into every issue, every vote, every decision, outnumbered 85 to 15.....


Senate Roll Call on Rice Nomination

The 85-13 roll call by which the Senate voted to confirm the nomination of Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) as secretary of state.



On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to confirm and a "no" vote was a vote not to confirm.

Voting "yes" were 32 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 12 Democrats and one independent.

Alabama

Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes.

Alaska

Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona

Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California

Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado

Allard (R) Yes; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut



Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (D) Yes.

Delaware

Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida

Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho

Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes.

Illinois

Durbin (D) No; Obama (D) Yes.

Indiana

Bayh (D) No; Lugar (R) Yes.

Iowa

Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No.

Kansas

Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky

Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana

Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland

Mikulski (D) Yes; Sarbanes (D) Yes.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) No.

Michigan

Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota

Coleman (R) Yes; Dayton (D) No.

Mississippi

Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) Yes.

Missouri

Bond (R) Yes; Talent (R) Yes.

Montana

Baucus (D) Yes; Burns (R) Not Voting.

Nebraska

Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada

Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) Not Voting; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey

Corzine (D) Yes; Lautenberg (D) No.

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) Yes.

New York

Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina

Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) Yes.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio

DeWine (R) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma

Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.

Oregon

Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania

Santorum (R) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island

Chafee (R) Yes; Reed (D) No.

South Carolina

DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota

Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) Yes; Frist (R) Yes.

Texas

Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah

Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont

Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) Yes.

Virginia

Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) Yes.

Washington

Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming

Enzi (R) Yes; Thomas (R) Yes.

As a further emphasis of my point , as to the Democratic Leadership throwing the game, take this away with you: Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada (and Senate Minority Leader), voted 'yes'



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time


You'll never convince me that 51% of this country voted for Bush.


They didn't - but those who ran the count felt that was a comfortable yet believable margin




Then you're emblematic of the biggest problem in this country - soundbyte duration "common sense" that won't get off it's proverbial azz and do it's own research, married to the displaced perception that it's a
POPULARITY CONTEST.




Loud criticism comes after a clusterf***k, that happens, don't ya know, especially for anyone who knows anything about the military & economy, like Kerry, me and as you say, you.




Your solution is a call for complacency...someone who wants to "Play Ball"!?! The supposed 51% are not worth placating.....the efforts need to be directed towards those 5% - 10% who were hung up on a single issue while turning a blind eye to the overall failure because of that single issue focus.


You are clearly approaching this issue with a heavy liberal bias. You are suggesting that Bush is bad, liberals are not, and people are choosing liberals because "it's a popularity contest".

Has it ever occurred to you that as fcked up and wicked as Bush may be, he's actually the "lesser evil" in the minds of many many Americans? We don't our president starting wars for no reason, lying with a straight face to the international community, etc etc. We also don't want to elect a man who would never act in our defense unless people with no interest in the conflict were willing to put their azz on the line with us. We don't want to compromise our own security. If we have to choose between winning and unneccessary war today, or getting backed into a losing war that could have been prevented 30-50 years from now, you can bet you bottom dollar that a person with his mind in the real world is going to choose the warmonger over the appeaser every time.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

You are clearly approaching this issue with a heavy liberal bias. You are suggesting that Bush is bad, liberals are not, and people are choosing liberals because "it's a popularity contest".

Absolutely not...the only party I ever belonged to was Republican; Reagan was my first vote and I was in the military. I own guns, eat what I hunt & fish and went to parochial school for everything except college. Boot camp had nothing on me since the Jesuits had me first!! Add to this the fact that I'm a small business owner since 1993.......nothing in my makeup says "liberal" , except when people force black & white distinctions....in todays context, I'll gladly align with the Liberals since the Conservatives are too busy goose stepping.

Has it ever occurred to you that as fcked up and wicked as Bush may be, he's actually the "lesser evil" in the minds of many many Americans?

Absolutely. I spoke to that already - the soundbyte common sense.

We don't our president starting wars for no reason, lying with a straight face to the international community, etc etc. We also don't want to elect a man who would never act in our defense unless people with no interest in the conflict were willing to put their azz on the line with us. We don't want to compromise our own security. If we have to choose between winning and unneccessary war today, or getting backed into a losing war that could have been prevented 30-50 years from now, you can bet you bottom dollar that a person with his mind in the real world is going to choose the warmonger over the appeaser every time.


You're one of the constant mysteries over the past 2 years: Military veterans ( I'm guessing from your sig file? ), who actually thought that a fellow veteran who was directly involved in one of our countries lowest of low point military adventures would actually not only NOT put Americas interests first, but would never be as flippant about the deployments as is now!?!?!

Would president Kerry gone counter to the Powell doctrine & entered Iraq without overwhelming force? NO! The original manpower scope from Rumsfeld? 50K troops!!!! Tom White, Powell & Franks had to beg it up to the insufficent 135K.
As for Global Support - when a police action needs to happen, is it better to share the burden? Yes!!
Again, I know exactly what was marketed about Kerry....I received all of the mailers from all of the GOP mass comm campaigns. I just knew that they were bogus & was not afraid of the boogeyman.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Absolutely not...the only party I ever belonged to was Republican; Reagan was my first vote and I was in the military. I own guns, eat what I hunt & fish and went to parochial school for everything except college. Boot camp had nothing on me since the Jesuits had me first!! Add to this the fact that I'm a small business owner since 1993.......nothing in my makeup says "liberal" , except when people force black & white distinctions....

Well I suppose I have to appologize for making that generalization. My bad, plain and simple.
I will say though that the case for either side being viable as a lesser evil depending on your outlook remains.



in todays context, I'll gladly align with the Liberals since the Conservatives are too busy goose stepping.

Absolutely. I spoke to that already - the soundbyte common sense.


It'll be a heck of a lot easier to change the status quo domestically than it will be to change it abroad if we allow ourselves to fall to far behind the likes of China, India, and their allies in Russia and Brazil.
Call it whatever you like, but it's a fact that I'm supporting the man who is spending money on weapons systems and who has a secretary of defense backing our covert ops capability (even though that secretary probably is a nazi at heart) while the other candidate voted against additional military spending and has said that he would not commit troops without UN approval.
You can talk about the context of the security council's charter and the right to retaliate, but frankly that's not enough. Unless global Utopia breaks out, it is at times necessary to take offensive action to ensure you continued economic and strategic security. Just because we haven't reaced the point in the force continuum where we are sending troops doesn't mean we are not at war with China. The cold war was an economic war as well and we won it through aggressive action.
We're talking about two of my priorities here, and I'll list them in order.
Priority number one: My candidate has to be nationalist enough to preserve our prosperity and security. Minimal over-kill is preferable, but some sense of nationalism has to be there.
Priority number two: If I still have multiple candidates to choose from, I'm looking for the one who least resembles a nazi in his policies.

Bush is a -horrible- fit for the second criterion there, but unfortunately between him and Kerry he was the one who wasn't going to screw our future security.



You're one of the constant mysteries over the past 2 years: Military veterans ( I'm guessing from your sig file? ), who actually thought that a fellow veteran who was directly involved in one of our countries lowest of low point military adventures would actually not only NOT put Americas interests first, but would never be as flippant about the deployments as is now!?!?!

This is the part where most Republicans call Kerry a coward for certain events surrounding Vietnam, but I'm not one of them. I'm very conflicted about being a Republican as the sum of my political posts on ATS probably show.
The fact is that John Kerry has stated his support for the UN's stipulation that no nation may attack another nation without permission from the Security Council unless that nation is first attacked. I know that sounds good, but it's too idealistic and it's dangerous so long as the UN is not willing and able to protect American interests against indirect threats in the future from other super-powers. Take for example FARC in Columbia, backed by Venezuela which is in turn supported by Russia. Who do you suppose is next, maybe Panama? The cold war isn't really over- for that matter it never really had a beginning. This sort of thing is as old as nations. Can we afford to have our rivals growing in influence and presence near the Panama Canal and not far from Mexico- which is strategically vital to America?



Would president Kerry gone counter to the Powell doctrine & entered Iraq without overwhelming force? NO! The original manpower scope from Rumsfeld? 50K troops!!!! Tom White, Powell & Franks had to beg it up to the insufficent 135K.

I have no illusions about what's going on in Iraq my friend. We never were concerned with a successful occupation, and Rumsfeld figured that we could knock over the Iraqi forces with 50k, which we could have if we didn't give a dang about security afterwards, which Bush and Rumsfeld don't.
They want bases in Iraq and they wanted to let their friends at Halliburton raid the US treasury. They are accomplishing a minor and arguably unimportant strategic goal and stealing from the American people.
Taking that in isolation I'd want to lynch this administartion. Considering that along side the alternative; well fck it looks like we're gonna have to take it until a milder breed of nationalist comes around to protect our strategic security without acting like a nazi.



As for Global Support - when a police action needs to happen, is it better to share the burden? Yes!!
Again, I know exactly what was marketed about Kerry....I received all of the mailers from all of the GOP mass comm campaigns. I just knew that they were bogus & was not afraid of the boogeyman.


OK, well if you've got the facts I'm open to them and if they check out I'll say holy sht i was duped by the first chimp.
Would you mind giving me the straight skinny on what Kerry would and would not have been willing to do, especially in the face of UN refusal to cooperate?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
OK, well if you've got the facts I'm open to them and if they check out I'll say holy sht i was duped by the first chimp.
Would you mind giving me the straight skinny on what Kerry would and would not have been willing to do, especially in the face of UN refusal to cooperate?


In the Campaign 2004 forum and in the live presidential debates, this one one of the recurring questions - "Would the UN dictate American Security under Kerry?" It was treated, rightfully so, as an absurd question in both venues. John Kerry voting for the type of military that is needed for todays warfare - mobile, rapidly deployed, instead of the military industrial complex wasteful expenditures like cold war weapons meant for protracted land wars with Russia, had lim labeled as anti-military.
Global Test was a soundbyte beaten in the news cycle by trhe minister of propaganda, Karl Goebbels Rove. Here's Kerry's response: ""They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one.

"And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president."


As a point of reference & definition, the global test is what President Bush did prior to the 1991 Gulf War. It resulted in an allied forces concensus that the action was legitimate; hence, we endured only a shared burden & a shared cost.

You mentioned something else very interesting: Venezuela. That country happens to be the only democracy in that part of the world that has had consecutive, democratic votes that were untainted. The people elected Chavez....we've tried to overthrow him. As with most countries, you have a two class system, the rich & the peasants. Convicted felon and Bush crime family Stalwart, Juan Otto Reich, had been hyper active in the country prior to their first overthrow attempt by that gentry class ( you see, Chavez won't f**k his people in order to make the rich ones richer ). If you remember, the Bush administration recognized the illegal overthrow of the Chavez government before it was even complete, and then had to backpeddle when the gov. & people were able to maintain solvency.
Think about that: the Johnny Appleseed of Liberty & Democracy was setting up & looking to tumble the only other free elections democracy around!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join