How about John Kerry

Parent Cafe
301

<p>“Many, often on the left, fail to understand the difficulty of these choices”</p>

<p>Sorry junior no, we probably understand better son. I’m not such a lefty anyway. I love the military channel and the history channel and I read. There was no real plan to this adventure and jr should have read dad’s book on the first time round. He might have learned something and kept so many alive. Sr did it right. Unfortunately for him, the economy was a problem and BC was too smooth. Sr was a far better commander in chief than junior. Junior will go down as one of the worst presidents military wise in our history. </p>

<p>If the dems win congress or senate look for hearings of possible impeachment for such a botched job. Your not a liberal if you recognize bad leadership in time of war and citation, it’s bad leadership.</p>

302

<p>

</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>Don’t you EVER get tired of hyperbole? C’mon…</p>

303

<p>Hyperbole as defined “A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect”</p>

<p>It’s an opinion that literally there will be dancing in the streets, and was not used for emphasis or effect. We will have to wait and see. It would be a major victory for Al Qaeda no doubt.</p>

<p>However if the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate next Tuesday and if obvious celebrations occur in selective muslim countries (such that CNN or other left wing networks could not hide or ignore it) , it would clearly not be helpful to the Democrats and I predict Nancy Pelosi or someone in a similar Democratic leadership position would issue a written or verbal statement</p>

<p>Something a bit vague but enough to make the general point, possibly something like this:</p>

<p>“While we have achieved a great victory for our party, it would be a mistake for our enemies to misinterpret our intention to stand firm as one country against those entities seeking to harm the United States”</p>

304

<p>“Besides you are 19 years old, you weren’t even around during nam”</p>

<p>Sorry to inform you however I first was admitted to the bar in 1983 and got my MBA 6 years before that -so I’m hardly “19 years old”</p>

305

<p>CITATION X,</p>

<p>You honestly believe that Dems are just going to roll over to terrorists? C’mon…</p>

<p>Prior to 9/11, it’s not like Republicans were up in arms over terrorism, either. Nobody was.</p>

306

<p>911 changed everything (including even many Dems in Congress beyond Lieberman) though they will not admit it), and I do believe that if the Dems do win in this election, they will become more practical and not simply oppose everything: like the Patriot Act, foreign intercepts which they still constantly tag “domestic spying”, and nearly everything that happens at Gitmo and a dozen other anti-terrorist programs. Much of that for them I believe is just about attacking Bush - as their mindless opposition has very little practical application to the real problems of protecting america</p>

<p>If Pelosi becomes speaker she will move toward the right on terrorist issues for sure</p>

<p>I would agree nearly everyone (including both parties) was asleep back in the 1990’s and there was no way the general population would have backed President Clinton had he decided to launch a full-scale or moderate scale continued military operation in a pre-emptive fashion against Al Qaeda and the Talaban operating in Afghanistan. So much of the criticism of what Clinton allegedly didn’t do is in fact just 20/20 hindsight</p>

<p>Clinton however did tend to treat terrorists in general as a law enforcement/ criminal issue whereas the conservatives in general tended to treat these matters as a type of war -and this is a big difference, however one perhaps with very little difference in outcomes as to what did or did not occur in the 1990’s leading up to 911</p>

<p>The problem with Iraq is it’s not just about Iraq and if it were - Murtha style “redeployments” would be undertaken. As bad as the Viet Cong were, they did not engage in the ongoing utter depravity of the enemy being faced in Iraq and any “redeployment” w/o regard to conditions on the ground would have repercussions fare greater than the benefits of withdrawal. Bush is correct that Al Qaeda has chosen Iraq as a primary battlefield and for the United States to simply constructively abandon these people, which is exactly what would occur - it would make Vietnam look like minor defeat for the United States</p>

<p>The only long term solution to terrorism is a forced alliance between the United States and China (initially against North Korea) with Russia forced to join-in - as well as the other nuclear powers such as UK, France, India. Pakistan, Israel etc - and unfortunately limited use of nukes will probably be necessary at some point. Note that the primary issue with nukes today is not their destructive power (as unimaginable and destructive as they are) - its the uintended consquences of other nuclear powers and their possible response </p>

<p>When all the nuclear powers are foreced to be on the same side of the fence for practical reasons - only then will Al Qaeda be stood up against. No way will the Unite States get into land wars in places like Iran to shut down their quest to build nukes to destory Israel - the public will not stand for it</p>

<p>Ironically its China’s incredible success in the last decade of so as an emerging communist/increasingly capitalistic future Superpower that will make this scenario most likely. China has alot to lose at this point - should Al Qaeda start to deploy nuclear weapons - as while they Al Qaeda cannot destroy the major countries per se Al Qaeda could effectively shut down the global economy to a large degree by selectively planting low megaton weapons in various cities in the world</p>

<p>Hong Kong, now a westernized city to a large degree for example is no doubt on the target list of Al Qaeda and China understands this - although so far they are still dragging their feet</p>

<p>Al Qaeda doesn’t fear the United States nor to they fear any other country per se, however they do fear a unified major country defense when the very nature of this (for want of a better term) anti-jihadist nuclear alliance would (for the first time) allow such Super-powers and near-Superpowers to use ALL their firepower as was necessary -including selective use of lower yield nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda and certain cities harboring Al Qaeda</p>

307

<p>

</p>

<p>This is more of a political thing than anything. Opposition parties everywhere engage in this. It’s their job. If you think the howling from the Dems is bad, you should see the catcalls from the Tories in the UK. You’d think that Blair had stabbed the Queen and Charles with rusty knives and declared England the property of France the way they’ve tried to tar and feather him. </p>

<p>Be thankful (assuming you don’t like this sort of behavior) that you’re not a citizen of a parliamentary-- in particular, Westminster-style-- government! It’s atrociously vicious there!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree. I think that both sides really saw it as a sort of gray issue that didn’t really deserve a lot of spending. Like Bill is so quick to point out, Bush II tried to spend a lot less time on the issue at first-- and for good reason! There was no political will anywhere, because there was no precedent to really get us going. After all, the most devastating terrorist attack prior to 9/11 wasn’t from the Al-Qaeda-types, but from a homegrown-type.</p>

<p>And that sure doesn’t do much for rallying the support. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I cannot disagree more. I mean, I can’t even agree one iota. First of all, using nukes is opening Pandora’s Box. Pandora’s Box^nth power, really. Not only does it send a very very very bad message to the world, it gives rogue states like North Korea and Iran much more leeway in arguing for proliferation. It is also likely to lead Japan, already somewhat edging toward nuclear power, to further consideration of going down that road. The last thing we need is an arms race in Northeast Asia. It wouldn’t end well.</p>

<p>And Russia…eh. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But see, that’s the problem. The PRC has no reason to really fully align itself with the US. Neither does Russia. What’s the incentive to do so?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Doubtful. Even a cursory analysis of detonation of low-yield nukes demonstrates that the actual effect is limited compared to the perceived effect. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Now? Hong Kong’s been Westernized for decades. And I doubt that it’s a huge target. Hong Kong’s probably as important a target as Tokyo (e.g. not very).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This seems a bit too broad a brush to me. Not only does it make many assumptions, it really makes Al Qaeda into the supervillian that it isn’t. Most of what I’ve read on the organization (mostly stuff from the various agencies and the Economist) suggests that it’s not this ultra-prescient omnipresent power that we believed it to be right after 9/11.</p>

<p>Of course this doesn’t mean we should underestimate them.</p>

<p>But to call for grand alliances with countries just as likely to stab us in the back seems a bit hasty as well.</p>

308

<p>No doubt China and the United States will be forced to align and w/o any doubt both (when the other countries are brought on board) -will be ready to use their full capability. North Korea will not stand against a unified United States and China -the notion is absurd. Now if China and the United States waits 3 to 5 years when North Korea have 100 operational 15 megaton (hiroshima sized) nukes - that will be a different story. By the way, Japan can be nuclear within 6 months, everything is ready for that to occur.</p>

<p>The following story just off Drudge will provide part of the INCENTIVE, a world with nukes in highly unstable countries readily able to hold the civilized powers hostage. Pakistan we must live with, however the major powers are going to call a halt to this game -sooner rather than later and many of the Dems such as Hillary Clinton in the United States are going to soon recognize the same thing. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html[/url]”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Times November 04, 2006 </p>

<p>Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor</p>

<p>Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology </p>

<p>THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology. </p>

<p>The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.</p>

<p>The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.</p>

<p>All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.</p>

<p>“Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest [in using] nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,” Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants.</p>

<p>Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a “security hedge”.</p>

<p>“If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],” he said.</p>

<p>The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.</p>

<p>Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices.</p>

<p>The case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world.</p>

<p>Since then, however, the Iranians have accelerated their nuclear power and enrichment programmes.</p>

309

<p>

</p>

<p>North Korea won’t really stand up against the US, either. Kim is a cruel dictator, but he’s not stupid. He’s posturing, sabre-rattling, and doing whatever he can to keep attention focused on North Korea. As Susan Shirk noted, China’s already shown a much firmer hand toward the DPRK than in the past because it knows that it has to play nice with everyone else. </p>

<p>However, nobody, South Korea and China especially, wants to see the end of the Kim regime. That much is clear. So they’ll play the “go along with the US and everyone else” card, but really try to prop up the DPRK as long as they can.</p>

<p>And of course Japan could be nuclear whenever it wants. It’s one of the world’s largest military spenders and best equipped nations in terms of nuclear technology.</p>

<p>But one thing is severely lacking: political will. Nukes have been, historically, a sort of “less said is better” issue. The anti-nuke lobby in Japan is still extremely strong, and if the [url=<a href=“http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/1102/013.html”>http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/1102/013.html&lt;/a&gt;] recent consternation in the Diet<a href=“Google%20translation%20might%20help%20here…sorry%20about%20my%20lack%20of%20an%20English%20source…”>/url</a> is any indication, then it’s still the bull in a china shop that it was in the past.</p>

<p>My semi-expert opinion is that Japan is VERY unlikely to develop nukes any time soon. The LDP isn’t ready to give up power, at any rate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Clinton’s a convenient fall-woman, but is she really the party platform? It’s fun to point fingers at the party that’s not in power, but it’s even more fun to look at the party in power and ask, “so, what have you done for me lately?”</p>

<p>And lately, the GOP hasn’t been really that great either. And the big difference? They’re the ones holding the keys. </p>

<p>As far as proliferation of nukes in the Middle East, of course it’s bad. But I think that the article doesn’t really do the issue justice. Nuclear power does not necessarily mean nuclear weapons. And even if Saudi sits on tons of oil doesn’t mean that it’s the economically viable way to generate energy. That doesn’t take into account the fact that the Saudis have shown a recent desire to get away from Dutch disease-style policies.</p>

310

<p>

Are you saying that the troops – along with Republicans – are too stupid to catch Kerry’s nuances? For another point of view <a href=“9/11 AND IRAQ VET TO KERRY: STOP STEALING SADDAM’S OLD TALKING POINTS”>9/11 AND IRAQ VET TO KERRY: STOP STEALING SADDAM’S OLD TALKING POINTS;

<p>

Just another typical soldier.</p>

311

<p>Christopher Hitchens, more or less agreeing with my take.</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009197[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009197&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

312

<p>"Are you saying that the troops – along with Republicans – are too stupid to catch Kerry’s nuances? "</p>

<p>First of all, I was reporting what Keith Olbermann said, not what I myself said. Let’s be accurate.</p>

<p>Secondly, my opinion is that it’s obvious to anyone who thinks about it for half a minute, despite the botched wording, that Kerry was referring to bush, not the troops.</p>

<p>The Repubs. aren’t stupid. They have cleverly latched onto this and, even though they KNOW Kerry was referring to bush, they are milking it for all it’s worth by spreading the word that Kerry was attacking the troops. People believe what they’ve been fed. Their ‘leaders’ say Kerry insulted the troops, and people (including the troops) believe it without really thinking about it themselves.</p>

<p>It’s just an excuse to attack Kerry, and, therefore, the Democrats. Good heavens, just use a little logic here: would ANYONE knowingly and intentionally attack our troops??? That would be political suicide. So, unless you think Kerry is a total idiot, the whole thing is totally blown out of proportion and ridiculous.</p>

<p>(Before anyone says that yes Kerry is stupid, please realize that no matter how much you may dislike someone, that has nothing to do with their intelligence or lack thereof. ‘Stupid’ is a common insult but rarely accurate.)</p>

313

<p>

So were the forged Texas Air National Guard documents…so was the CNN “Operation Tailwind” libel against U.S. Army Special Forces in Vietnam. So were the patently ridiculous allegations of Joe Wilson. So were the stories of raped infants at the Super Dome during Katrina.</p>

<p>I assume you were referring to this ABC story, Opie: <a href=“U.S. Troops Said to Use Iraqi Wives as Leverage - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=1552649&lt;/a&gt; so let’s analyze it. We’ll ignore this howler (mangled syntax aside):

and just note the obvious cultural sensitivities at play in the recent sentencing handed down in Saudi Arabia to a woman victim of a gang rape–90 lashes. She was out without her husband, you see.</p>

<p>Anyway, the ABC article notes that

Beyond the fact that “at least two” hardly amounts to “SOP,” as you put it–the image of combat units routinely bursting into homes and carrying the women off as hostages that you portrayed–the army says

Why might that be? Well, all those bombs and guns in the house, for one thing, along with the fact that in this kind of war you never know who’s doing the killing–men, women, children. But once again, you choose to believe the media, rather than the military. If the facts were actually as egregious as you claimed, why do you suppose ABC hasn’t done anything more with this story since January?</p>

314

<p>

Do you not see how you continue to denigrate the troops with this type of comment? Are you suggesting that they are not able to think for themselves? Many of the comments that I’ve read from military families show a good understanding that Kerry probably did not INTENTIONALLY insult the troops. But people are pretty quick to catch the general drift of his thinking – he DOES seem to hold a pretty low opinion of the military, as demonstrated by many comments over the past thirty years. </p>

<p>Even if he meant to merely insult the President’s intelligence, what does that say about him and the people who continue to defend his comments? That it’s ok to call the POTUS studpid in a time of war?</p>

315

<p>“Do you not see how you continue to denigrate the troops with this type of comment? Are you suggesting that they are not able to think for themselves?”</p>

<p>No, I don’t see that as denigrating the troops, any more than it would be denigrating doctors, lawyers, policemen, teahers, plumbers, or any other segment of society. I am referring to people in general. IN GENERAL, people are quick to believe what they’ve been told, quick to accept the mainstream propaganda, whatever it may be. People generally are too busy or maybe it’s because of their religion or biases, or for whatever reason…but most do not actually take the time to dig deeply into issues. This is not a statistical fact so please don’t accuse me of presenting it as such. It is my own personal conclusion based on my own personal experiences. Take any given topic on any given day, bring it up in any given place: at my workplace, at a social function, whatever - and the general response tends to be a simplistic acceptance of the mainstream view. </p>

<p>So, the troops are probably about equally capable of thinking for themselves as anyone else. Please do not twist my words. I was speaking of people in general.</p>

<p>"Many of the comments that I’ve read from military families show a good understanding that Kerry probably did not INTENTIONALLY insult the troops. "</p>

<p>Good. I’m glad to hear that. I arrived at the same conclusion when a co-worker who is in the military admitted the same thing (that Kerry probably didn’t intend it to be directed at the troops). He still adamantly resented the comment itself, and I don’t blame him at all for that. It WAS a screwup! Kerry screwed up royally! It DID sound bad! No doubt about that!</p>

<p>“But people are pretty quick to catch the general drift of his thinking – he DOES seem to hold a pretty low opinion of the military, as demonstrated by many comments over the past thirty years.”</p>

<p>??? I don’t see how people get that out of what he has said. There is a HUGE difference between being against a WAR and being against the PEOPLE in the military!</p>

<p>“Even if he meant to merely insult the President’s intelligence, what does that say about him and the people who continue to defend his comments?”</p>

<p>It says that he is smart enough to recognize that the ‘emperor has no clothes’ and courageous enough to voice it in the midst of all the people who still think he’s wearing clothes.</p>

<p>“That it’s ok to call the POTUS studpid in a time of war?”</p>

<p>Um, yeah. Dissent is one of our liberties. It is patriotic to question our ‘leadership’ when they aren’t doing a very good job of leading, when they are making bad decisions like invading countries on false pretenses, then failing miserably, with no clear plan to end it, while more and more of our troops are losing their lives. Now THAT is disrespectful to our troops! Far more so than any mere words could ever be!</p>

316

<p>I never have a problem with people who want to debate issues and policies. I do have a problem who think that insults are the height of wit, and that name-calling is appropriate form of disagreement.</p>

317

<p>I agree with you (like I am apt to do, these days), SJ.</p>

<p>I don’t see why intelligent people can’t discuss issues, and only the issues, without resorting to ad hominem attacks.</p>

318

<p>Golani, to put it plainly, you’ve been punked. If you go back to Kerry’s comments, in the full transcript linked to by razorsharp, this is what he said,* in context*:

Your take on the carefully selected exerpt you quoted, leaving out the context, was …

Well, actually Kerry was describing it as such. War is harmful and offensive to the occupants of the land enveloped in it; making American soldiers resposible for implementing those tactics makes them targets and us hated. Do you doubt that our military tactics in Iraq frighten children? Do you doubt that the things we do there violate local customs? Of course they do. And they probably have to to be effective. But why are American soldiers doing those things instead of Iraqis? </p>

<p>That was the point Kerry was making, and he actually stated it pretty clearly. But it’s always possible to take a brief statement out of context and make it look like something else. The morally bankrupt and politically corrupt who have little else to offer will be the first to turn to this tactic.</p>

<p>Who has turned to this tactic here? The right wing propaganda machine has spewed out carefully edited fragments of Kerry’s speeches to create the illusion that he said something that, quite clearly, was not what he was meaning to communicate. You might ask yourself why that effort has been made. Kerry is, literally, a nobody. He’s not running for election; he’s not in control of any political office which can actually control events at this time. Why are you being told to look at the carefully distorted cartoon version of John Kerry, instead of the man behind the curtain?</p>

<p>Golani, a word of advice: Always try to seek out primary information sources. That means, don’t rely on what somebody says somebody else said, try to find out for yourself what was said. That way the agenda of the people who fed you the information won’t distort the data you work with. This time, you got punked.</p>

<p>…and SJMom, let me add that I agree with your post 316 as well.</p>

319

<p>I disagree with your analysis of that interview. Nowhere do I see him talking about war being harmful etc all i see is his him yet again talking bad about the army, just take his words for face value kluge</p>

320

<p>READ the interview, Golani. Kluge posted Kerry’s words, and he talks directly of the tolls of war.</p>