Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 119

Thread: AT LAST Straight talk from kerry

  1. #1
    Olivier
    Guest

    AT LAST Straight talk from kerry

    at last, one can have the feeling there is actually a difference between Bush and Kerry.
    A good thing for democracy in the US..

    now, the credibility of the plan seems another issue.




    Talking Sense, at Last, on Iraq

    Published: September 21, 2004

    After weeks of politically damaging delay, John Kerry finally seems to have found his voice on what ought to be the central issue of this year's election: the mismanaged war in Iraq and how to bring it to an acceptable conclusion. It was none too soon. While the fate of the Iraqi people, the success of the war on terrorism and America's international standing have all been teetering ominously in the balance, Mr. Kerry has allowed the presidential campaign to veer off into squabbles about events long past - like the candidates' 30-year-old war records - and about Mr. Kerry's confusing and sometimes contradictory recent statements on foreign policy.

    Speaking in New York yesterday, Mr. Kerry laid out a well-grounded, intellectually straightforward and powerful critique of the Bush administration's past mistakes in Iraq. He gave a coherent explanation for his vote two years ago to authorize President Bush to use military force, making a clear distinction between how the White House should have used that authority to maximize international pressure against Saddam Hussein and the self-isolating course it actually followed. And, for the first time since becoming a presidential nominee, he explicitly said that he would never have supported the invasion of an Iraq that did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

    Even more important, he linked his criticisms to a set of alternative policies, which, while not entirely new to those who have closely followed his campaign statements, offer the best chance for retrieving a situation that daily grows more dangerous for Iraqis, Americans and a volatile region. As Mr. Kerry correctly noted, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

    This should signal the start of the kind of serious and useful debate the American people deserve. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush still declines to even acknowledge the disastrous condition the war has fallen into, preferring simply to assert over and over that the course there is now firmly set for a democratic and stable future. Democrats who question these Pollyannaish projections are almost instantly slapped down as unpatriotic underminers of military morale.

    That was the president's reflexive response to Mr. Kerry yesterday, coupled with the preposterous claim that Mr. Kerry's plan for a much more broadly internationalized effort is no different from the administration's own American-fought, American-paid-for and American-directed approach. It is encouraging to see that Republican foreign policy heavyweights like Senators Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar and John McCain are now also asking tough questions about the way the war is going. It is surely no service to America's brave fighting men and women, who know firsthand what they are facing, for Mr. Bush to pretend otherwise and to refuse to consider policy changes that might help them prevail and come home.

    Turning things around at this late date will not be easy, but the president could make a beginning today, when he addresses an audience of world leaders at the United Nations. Mr. Kerry set the stage when he urged Mr. Bush to convene a summit meeting of those leaders to build a truly international effort to protect the elections, train Iraqi security forces and create a broader-based, more effective reconstruction effort.

    Perhaps the presidential campaign is finally under way
    Last edited by Olivier; 09-21-2004 at 11:05 AM.

  2. #2
    Gabriel
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivier
    at last, one can have the feeling there is actually a difference between Bush and Kerry.
    A good thing for democracy in the US..

    Perhaps the presidential campaign is finally under way
    And it's a big mystery why LOTS of people don't like nor respect Kerry. He's only been campaigning for over a year and half and he's only now sure of his plan and stance? Wait another week to see if he completely reverses this stance, wouldn't suprize me in the slightest.

    Some may not like Bush, but at least it's not a total freaking mystery where he stands on VITAL issues.

  3. #3
    Olivier
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel
    Some may not like Bush, but at least it's not a total freaking mystery where he stands on VITAL issues.
    Yeah you're right.

    Bush stand for more butchery..


    Editor's Note | The title is a wordplay. Bushery is pronounced "boucherie" in French. Boucherie means butchery/mass killings.


    "Bushery"
    By Eric Fottorino
    Le Monde

    Monday 20 September 2004

    Behind the numbers, there are the deaths. All kinds of deaths. Civilians and military, those with "weapons in hand" and those "who were just passing by that way" who will never again pass by anywhere.

    Iraq has become an enormous statistic of violent mortality. So here we trace curves, fill out diagrams to create a more removed version of this humdrum horror, but how speaking it is, screaming even.

    A religious leader explained this weekend to our Baghdad special envoy Rémy Ourdan (Le Monde 19-20 September): The Americans kill forty times more civilians than fighters. And those civilians have fathers, brothers, and sons who will not know any peace until they've avenged their deaths.

    So all this is going to continue. Time and blood run out together. Hostage takings multiply, after the French journalists, after the two Americans and a Briton, comes the turn of Turkish truck drivers, abducted and murdered.

    The killing machine is running lose and no one capable of stopping it.

    In the United States, these deaths in Iraq are not spoken of in the election campaign. We see members of the movement Military Families Against the War speaking out, wearing t-shirts reading: "President Bush, you have killed my son."

    Ever since the White House launched this war, every day is a day of mourning in America, every day is a tornado, the end of the world in which they believed in their own invincibility, and enjoyed the feeling of being right. "Right" infuses. The right that might makes.

    In spite of this supposedly won war, however, more than a thousand American soldiers have died. Kofi Annan considers it "illegal" and the weapons of mass destruction would have almost become a reason to laugh, if the laugh had not been paid for in so many lives.

    What can be going through the head of the United States' president, a candidate for his own reelection, when everything that he has said is revealed to be false, when every one of his choices is a mistake?

    One could believe that in his conscience he looks for an opportunity to redeem himself, to stop the massacre. Maybe he'll wake up tomorrow after a bad night to decide: "The next person who dies over there, I'll withdraw American forces and hand Iraq over to the United Nations."

    The next person who dies...Angelicism is not in fashion. Bush persists and Iraq bleeds. He would be wrong to recant. It seems that his people applaud when he pronounces a sentence such as: "America and the world are safer with Saddam in a cell."

    We could have sworn the opposite. I would bet without any pleasure that terrorism has become more organized, more dangerous, with constantly more killing candidates trying to make that warrior for The Good, "W.", swallow his own smugness.

    Yesterday, eminent members of the Republican Party criticized the president's "mistakes or incompetence" in Iraq. I could not believe my ears. An attack of wisdom?

    Not at all. These strategists consider urgent...a new ground offensive, including the deployment of 70,000 more soldiers and 25,000 more marines. In short, another "Bushery".

  4. #4
    Canajew
    Guest
    and what, exactly would the UN do with Iraq, and how would that help?

  5. #5
    Mira~
    Guest
    Kofi Annan said today that the UN would not be going back into Iraq until the security situation is stable. Bush requested international assistance several times, again today, and no country has volunteered additional troops. How would Kerry succeed in convincing these countries or the UN to commit troops given their stated positions? It's is very easy to criticize the Bush administration's job in handling the war. He made obvious mistakes, and many more that are not obvious, which were made by the present administration and by Clinton's administration as well.

  6. #6
    Olivier
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mira
    Kofi Annan said today that the UN would not be going back into Iraq until the security situation is stable. Bush requested international assistance several times, again today, and no country has volunteered additional troops. How would Kerry succeed in convincing these countries or the UN to commit troops given their stated positions?
    As usual, I 'quite' agree with you. But for me I think Kerry would get a better chance than Bush.


    Europeans are very conscious how critical the situation is and what is at stake in Iraq.
    Now, NO ONE wants to commit with a guy who's been litterrally pissing on us for months and who makes blunder after blunder. Have you heard Bush parading in the UN today? Invading iraq was a blunder of historical, unprecedented magnitude. It took something like a whole year for Bush to admit that they was more than just "a few foreign terrorists" .. now I do not think he had the lucidity to utter the word "uprising". A today what do we hear ... just a quote "We've accomplished much in the last year" when i read that I just see red.

    Now, should we change our policy and actively support Bush? This guy is unable to make a proper decision, he is unable to assess a situation. At best he's an idiot, no doubt the most dangerous man alive.
    Should we send our soldiers to be killed in Iraq? This is not only idiotic but impossible. No european public opinion will allow this. Even the brits are pulling out now.



    Now Kerry would be no magic man, iraq is incredebly messed up... but at least you get someone clever you can talk to and who has the ability to listen. That is not going to change the world situation : were're with a single nation with a disproportionate military power.. and willing to use it in the most stupid way possible.


    And reading this forum regularly, you might find europe-bashing and hatred of france a normal thing, Mira. Well THIS IS NOT A NORMAL THING. No one in europe and many other countires will work with an administration so full of contempt.



    but I'm getting away from topic... you now the polls, Bush is ahead and stands the best chance to get re-elected.


    For me the big news of the thread is : americans will have a choice.
    I've been asking again and again here what the difference between Bush and Kerry was over Iraq. To no avail.

    So if there is a difference, if there is a choice, if the election is about the real issue in the world today... That's news.
    Last edited by Olivier; 09-21-2004 at 02:44 PM.

  7. #7
    minusthejihad
    Guest
    Olivier, Thanks for confiming why a majority of Americans will vote for Bush. Why? Because the disgruntled French want Kerry. What percentage of Americans do you think like or want to agree with the French on this one.

    Basically, I'm happy there are people like Olivier posting anti-Bush propaganda. All it does is help Bush.

  8. #8
    I am David
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by minusthejihad
    Olivier, Thanks for confiming why a majority of Americans will vote for Bush. Why? Because the disgruntled French want Kerry. What percentage of Americans do you think like or want to agree with the French on this one.

    Basically, I'm happy there are people like Olivier posting anti-Bush propaganda. All it does is help Bush.
    So you're saying Americans will vote for the opposite of what the French want instead of DIRECTLY what Americans want? You don't find that extraordinarily stupid? How sad.

  9. #9
    Binyamin
    Guest

  10. #10
    Olivier
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by I am David
    So you're saying Americans will vote for the opposite of what the French want instead of DIRECTLY what Americans want? You don't find that extraordinarily stupid? How sad.
    I'm afraid most of the people I ended up putting on my ignore list are what i'd call 'kindergarten intellect'.

    The problem is not just they act like spoiled kids, but since they come from the most overarmed country on earth they actually kill people in the process. Like a kid playing with an ant and tearing it's legs off one by one.... "all arabs are terrorists, we must kill them all".


    That's a bit what is at stake in these elections ... and the worst thing is by many aspects, the main handicap of Kerry is just that he is "too clever to be elected". 'kindergarten intellect' prefer a failed business man, whose obessions and blunder killed thousands and trigger a worldwide clash of civilization ... but who looks more like an ordinary man, even in his ability to react when the WTC burns or in his obsession on saddam (which results in letting Ben Laden walk free while most US troops and energy are stuck in iraq).



    Now about "europe supports Kerry". There is no support for Kerry in europe. there is an intense dislike for Bush. Nuance.
    Last edited by Olivier; 09-22-2004 at 09:36 AM.

  11. #11
    minusthejihad
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by I am David
    So you're saying Americans will vote for the opposite of what the French want instead of DIRECTLY what Americans want? You don't find that extraordinarily stupid? How sad.
    No, that wasn't what I was saying. But I see how you could have twisted that. Actually, it only acts as a confirmation.

  12. #12
    minusthejihad
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivier
    I'm afraid most of the people I ended up putting on my ignore list are what i'd call 'kindergarten intellect'.

    The problem is not just they act like spoiled kids, but since they come from the most overarmed country on earth they actually kill people in the process. Like a kid playing with an ant and tearing it's legs off one by one.... "all arabs are terrorists, we must kill them all".


    That's a bit what is at stake in these elections ... and the worst thing is by many aspects, the main handicap of Kerry is just that he is "too clever to be elected". 'kindergarten intellect' prefer a failed business man, whose obessions and blunder killed thousands and trigger a worldwide clash of civilization ... but who looks more like an ordinary man, even in his ability to react when the WTC burns or in his obsession on saddam which result in letting Ben Laden walk free and give a spectacular boost creating new terrorist organizations.



    Now about "europe supports Kerry". There is no support for Kerry in europe. there is an intense dislike for Bush. Nuance.
    You are an arrogant fool. Plain and simple. Don't read too much into it.

  13. #13
    minusthejihad
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivier
    Like a kid playing with an ant and tearing it's legs off one by one.... "all arabs are terrorists, we must kill them all".
    I love how trolls like Olivier put words into my mouth. I've never said the above, but I did say this:

    "99.9% of Muslims are not terrorists, but 99.9% of terrorists are Muslims."

  14. #14
    TheyAre
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivier
    forum members who are unable of basic courtesy and use insults
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivier
    I'm afraid most of the people I ended up putting on my ignore list are what i'd call 'kindergarten intellect'.
    Hypocrisy is so refreshing. Or perhaps you'd prefer it be called nuance.

  15. #15
    I am David
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by minusthejihad
    No, that wasn't what I was saying. But I see how you could have twisted that. Actually, it only acts as a confirmation.
    If that wasn't what you were saying then you weren't saying anything at all, because that's all there is to your post. If you meant something else, it wasn't explained in the post. Because of that, I have no option but to believe that's what you meant and you've given no reason to believe otherwise but unsupported denial.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-05-2004, 12:39 PM
  2. The Kerry Doctrine
    By Olivier in forum U.S. Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-01-2004, 05:36 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-28-2004, 08:10 PM
  4. Kerry on the offensive
    By Olivier in forum U.S. Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-29-2004, 11:44 PM
  5. John F. Kerry
    By Alfred in forum U.S. Politics
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 03-30-2004, 12:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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