OK i'm not being courteous there. Sorry minus.Originally Posted by TheyAre
OK i'm not being courteous there. Sorry minus.Originally Posted by TheyAre
As an Israeli, I'm interested to learn about John Kerry specific policies
towards Israel -- apart from commonplace "support" and its derivatives.
The only thing I managed to find so far is one sentence in this interview:
"They [the Bush Administration] haven't even engaged in a legitimate effort
to try to really transform the ability of Israel to find a legitimate entity
to negotiate with."
It was not easy for me to understand this polite English phrase,so I've
translated it *semantically*, not grammatically, from Kerry-speak:
"They [the Bush Administration] haven't" means "US should have"
"even engaged in a legitimate effort to" means ...
"try to really transform the ability of" means "to force"
"Israel to find" after all searches fail means "Israel to continue"
"a legitimate entity" can't be any other means "Arafat's men"
"to negotiate with" an euphemism, really means "to give in to"
After joining the right-hand parts in a correct order, here is the result:
"US should have forced Israel to continue giving in to Arafat's men."
mmm hypocrisy ?? Provocation ??Originally Posted by Guy
let me guess ... you another hater and you'll soon be spending post after post french-bashing.
we have plenty of posters like you there (and I don't know why, but the ones NOT holding these hateful opinions tend to leave).
Last edited by Olivier; 09-23-2004 at 09:37 AM.
Yup, this coming from a guy who has changed his identity several times. Right.....Originally Posted by I am David
Don't worry, the post wasn't intended for you anyway. Go attack abortion clinics or whatever you do in your sparetime.
Welcome to IF Guy, that was very excellent deduction. Actually, you've been able to deduce more from one Kerry statement than most of America has from his entire campaign. L'Shana Tova!Originally Posted by Guy
interesting column from france. reflect both the relief at a US campaign which will not avoid the "real issues" and some skepticism at the Kerry plan
Iraq According to Kerry
Le Monde | Editorial
Tuesday 21 September 2004
The forces of the United States and its allies are proving to be less capable each day of controlling an Iraqi situation characterized by deadly attacks, hostage-taking, assassinations, and growing chaos. The paradox of the American electoral campaign is that, in spite of this reality, according to the polls, more voters continue to credit George Bush for the invasion of Iraq than reproach him for having "led America astray" in this affair. This paradox may partly be explained by the failure John Kerry has demonstrated up to now to present a coherent critique of the outgoing president's policy.
The Democratic candidate's speech yesterday, Monday, September 20, 2004, at New York University, demonstrates clear progress. First of all, the Massachusetts Senator is right to alert Americans to the fact that, far from improving, the situation in Iraq does not stop deteriorating, making it a hotbed for the most radical kind of Islamism.
Anarchy spreads; violence reigns. Iyad Allawi, interim government head, leads an administration the authority of which is daily demolished by the insurgents. The American expeditionary forces' losses keep growing. As the -Republican - Senator Chuck Hagel said, the United States is in "a very serious situation" in Iraq.
So, Mr. Kerry a presented a solid case against the decisions Mr. Bush has taken, which, by dividing the United States' friends and uniting its enemies have made the world "more dangerous for America and for Americans." Without rejecting his October 2002 vote in the Senate authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein - "Any president would have needed it in order to act effectively," he explained - Mr. Kerry detailed the errors, the mistakes, and the lies, at least by omission, that have marked the preparation for the war, its execution, and then an occupation that has turned into a disaster.
He asserted that with regard to the present chaos, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was an inadequate reason to go to war. Mr. Bush and his proponents have taken seized on this statement since their ultimate argument is to challenge their opponents to say they would prefer to see the Iraqi dictator still in power.
Mr. Kerry's observation has the merit of acknowledging a reality that Mr. Bush denies, disputes, or prettifies. So while the president speaks only of "holding the course", his Democratic rival considers it urgent to "change" direction. That's obvious. On the other hand, we don't see how the United States could convince other countries to join it in this quagmire.
"To put Iraq under the world's responsibility," as Mr. Kerry recommends, risks remaining a pious wish as long as the Americans and their Iraqi protÃ©gÃ©s have not established a minimum of security. Yet is there another solution? Only if one is resolved on, as Mr. Kerry has correctly formulated it, "the perspective of endless war."
At least when Bush is reelected, you will stick only to posting useless articles about the Iraq War again. I look forward to it.
Such a nice, unassuming person who says I blow up abortion clinics in my spare time, and also ignores my argument to boot. (I guess you never knew I was against abortion)Originally Posted by minusthejihad
And changing my identity? What the heck?
Knock it off. You know what I am talking about. Maybe over a year ago you and I went at it about your identity and stance on certain issues, soon after you joined. I remember my first impression of you when I read your first post and then saw the name beside it and thought, great, another Yehudi (the poster).
And who said I was nice?
Hmm no not really. I was curious as the the answer of some anti-Israel arguments and mabye some of my topics may have seemed from the 'anti-Israeli' perspective but thats it.Originally Posted by minusthejihad
Anyway you managed to turn this into a debate about my supposed identity switch from being about you alleging that Americans will vote opposite the French vote...Good Job...
No, Americans will not vote for president based on how the French feel. But knowing that the French are rooting for Kerry is even more incentive to make sure he is not elected. Is that OK for you? What? Want a full retraction or something? You are barking up the wrong tree. You should be writing CBS.
A.) It's irrellevant what the French think because the leadership sucks/is stupid and why would you trust the judgement of your average Pierre?
And B.) that does sound like you are saying that Americans will (at least in part) make their decision soley based on what the French think
Its not about the French. Listen to the people that come out in favor of the guy:
Oh not about the French? You seemed to be just talking about them O_o.Originally Posted by minusthejihad
Again, why trust the judgement of someone who seems to deranged and stupid (in a practical sense). That fool is just believing what the Republicans are saying about John Kerry and liking it. It's not the truth. I trust MY beliefs, not those of any others.
That someone dispicable supports a candidate is no reason to not support the candidate. That's lazy arguing and expected from a party who cant argue the issues themselves.
LOL!Originally Posted by Guy
Guy, that's an excellent translation of Kerry-speak. Well done!
"All we are saying is give peace a chance." - John Lennon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)