It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bout Time
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?"
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.
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!!!
Originally posted by The Vagabond
So you are saying that Kerry explicitly acknowledged his belief in America's right to act unilaterally when need be, and made no statements during the campaign that would contradict this? I'll play fair- I'll google like hell for answers later today, but I'm not sure if I should expect to find any such quotes.
The problems occurred when portions were taken as whole; I quoted below exactly what he said ...in a nutshell, he would never abdicate Americas defense perogative. What he did say is that actions, like Kosovo or Iraq, need to be shared efforts. After the clusterf**k that Team Bush has put un in there under completely false pretenses, can you argue that Kerry is wrong on that?
So Kerry has picked and chosen his the types of appropriations he supports?
Of course, all Congressmen do. It not the core, but the riders attached that have most things declined ( i.e. the Patriot Act being a 32 page document at it's inception, that grew to a 500 page document covering Hooters & Eli Lily).
It's not true that he has opposed virtually every cent of military spending proposed since he entered the senate, including the USS Ronald Reagan (aircraft carriers being instrumental to our new more fluid military environment)?
No, it is not true. Republican Senators had defended Kerry as such. Here's the non-partisan factcheck.org and their breakdown on the propaganda that was the mainstay of GOP campaigns: More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense voting Record
How about his repeated implications that he could somehow have gotten France and Germany to play ball? It seems extremely likely that these statements were designed to avoid the direct question of "If nobody else would back us up, would you have removed Saddam?". Why? Because his record is conflicted on that statement and the bottom line answer is probably no. This is a man who during his Vietnam protest days said he was an internationalist and would only like to see US forces deployed under the consent of the UN security council.
Of course he would have been able to get France & Germany to play ball. The sticking point is that Team Bush refused to share the wealth of the newly plundered Iraq, tying up all contracts prior to the planned invasion with firms that half of Team Bush used to work for.
I would have hoped he would have left Saddam alone for the time being. Nothing, absolutely nothing, about Iraq signaled a clear & present danger to America or Amricans abroad. Scott Ritter, the IAEA, Hans Blix and common sense was fully vetted by the inspectors quitting & going home, saying that there were no WMD's. Containment worked, Saddam was not then nor now a threat.
The Context on Kerry's protest days wish on internationalist policy:
- may none of us have to account for the s**t we slung in our twenties, before we even remotely started on our real jobs, famalies &relationships
- the man just came back from the front & having friends die over a war predicated on unilateral hubris.....I can see why he'd say that, his own Congress & President didn't self check like they were suppose to, so an outside check sounded preeeeeety good to him , I'd bet.
I'm just saying that his somewhat admirable pacifist tendencies are going to get in the way of some aggressive actions that will need to be taken if America is to continue its prosperity and security through this century.
That's only true if America continues in a PNAC global hegemony initiative; then yes, we will have to fight a never ending string of wars just to stay in place, much less advance.
With that fear gone, there is little doubt in my mind that Bush 41 would have made his move on Saddam even if the world had told him to slag off.
Of course, his was already a failed presidency at that point, as was his son's prior to 9/11/01. An invitation for Iraq to take Kuwait was preactically hand ingraved by the Bush team in 1990.
My point is that there is growing movement towards China/Russia's side in a part of the world strategically vital to the US, and one of those countries is hosting an unpopular revolutionary group in a neighboring nation.
You know why? China & Russia are doing it the old fashion way: they are investing in those countries and establishing legitimate trade. The word 'legitimate' means legal, but does not speak to the reality: it's a sweet heart deal where money is being thrown at Latin America, with the only tangible return for China/Russia is influence.
That's how America used to do it...what happened? Well, we established it, handed it off to corporation to proctor, it turned to a rape and here we are. Now, our "influence" is being the muscle behind Chevron & protecting their pielines or squashing peasant uprisings because Monsanto spayed their field & their kids have deformities.
In a perfect world we'd know that the UN would never tollerate manipulation of Latin-American politics designed to threaten our strategic position, but since we don't have that luxury we are going to find ourselves needing to take aggressive action with or without the UN's say-so, probably including helping Columbia with FARC and possibly in the future having to militarily enforce the neutrality of the Panama Canal. I don't think Kerry is the man to do that.
Interpretation. I see Kerry as someone who can react to a bad situation & turn it advantageous. Bush, on the other hand, as Texas Gov. & American president, took something viable & left it worse than he found it.
You show me the ideal candidate and I'll show you a far less cynical and less republican vagabond.
Show me one too! I'll tell you this: that person will show themselves in the next 4 years, and it won't be the genteel & complacent whisper on the wind you're talking about. With the economic, environmental, social & international disasters as we are to endure under this CABAL over the next 4 years, that leader better be able to piss fire & crap sparks.
Originally posted by Bout Time
"The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt".
Republicans are 95% Corrupt, Democrats are 75% Corrupt