Kerry: US troops are terrorists

[Freakshow]

Bush Sr. could have removed Hussein and did not. Clinton could have done so and did not. Saying they wanted to is irrelevant;

How is that irrelevant?

There was never any evidence for WMDs...if I knew it, how is it that the geniuses in the Bush Administartion didn't know it?

What new information came to light between Clinton's leaving office and Bush going into Iraq? You've mentioned it before. If you could cite it, that would be cool. I'd like to take a look at it, myself.

 

[RandFan]

You can dance around it all you want, but 9/11 was the stated reason we invaded Iraq.

Actually this is demonstrably false. Non compliance was the stated reason. And you can dance around that all you want and it wont change.

Bush Sr. could have removed Hussein and did not. Clinton could have done so and did not. Saying they wanted to is irrelevant; they didn't even try.

What do you mean it is irrelevant? Stating something is "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. It is quite relevant. Why did they not do so is important? Perhaps there was not enough political capital to do it and after 9/11 there was. Why didn't FDR go to war with Germany and Japan before Pearl Harbor? He sure wanted to. Look, you can view the world by divorcing events from politics but you will not get an accurate view of history.

There was never any evidence for WMDs...if I knew it, how is it that the geniuses in the Bush Administration didn't know it?

Hind sight is 20/20. This is the nonsense of psychics. You believed something. You were proved right now you think there was no reason for anyone to have disagreed with you. Sorry but there was reason to believe that Saddam had WMD. Looking back was the evidence very strong? I'm willing to concede that it wasn't all that great.

 

[RandFan]

And was being sanctioned and isolated for it.

For 12 years. And how long were we supposed to continue with this? And did this demonstrate that Saddam would not reconstitute his WMD?

 

[Freakshow]

For 12 years. And how long were we supposed to continue with this? And did this demonstrate that Saddam would not reconstitute his WMD?

I'm going to take a wild a**ed guess that Mark is among those years ago that was complaining about the deaths of children due to the US sanctions. Just a guess. Mark, you are welcome to say I'm wrong. I don't mind.

 

[Upchurch]

3.) There are good arguments to be made why regime change was good policy.

4.) 9/11 was an event that gave George W. Bush the opportunity to implement a decade old policy.

These are the two points I take objection to.

I object to number 3, not because I don't agree that it was a good idea, but because it was not our place to make it happen. Democratizing a forgien country through military force seems like a contradiction in terms.

I object to number 4 because in doing so, Bush lost focus on the job at hand, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. (How many #2 men does Bin Laden have, anyway?)

 

[RandFan]

These are the two points I take objection to.

I object to number 3, not because I don't agree that it was a good idea, but because it was not our place to make it happen. Democratizing a forgien country through military force seems like a contradiction in terms.

I object to number 4 because in doing so, Bush lost focus on the job at hand, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. (How many #2 men does Bin Laden have, anyway?)

I have no problem with your objections. I don't necassarily agree but I can see your view point and it is not without merit, IMO.

 

[Mark]

I'm going to take a wild a**ed guess that Mark is among those years ago that was complaining about the deaths of children due to the US sanctions. Just a guess. Mark, you are welcome to say I'm wrong. I don't mind.

You're wrong. At the time I was complaining that the UN wasn't following through to make sure the humanitarian aid got to where it was supposed to go.

At least you didn't state it as fact. I appreciate that. Seriously.

 

[Just thinking]

These are the two points I take objection to.

I object to number 3, not because I don't agree that it was a good idea, but because it was not our place to make it happen. Democratizing a forgien country through military force seems like a contradiction in terms.

Isn't that how we (the USA) did it?

I object to number 4 because in doing so, Bush lost focus on the job at hand, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. (How many #2 men does Bin Laden have, anyway?)

Well, they're actually 2.1 , 2.2 , 2.21a ... sort of like software updates.

 

[Mark]

Actually this is demonstrably false. Non compliance was the stated reason. And you can dance around that all you want and it wont change.

What do you mean it is irrelevant? Stating something is "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. It is quite relevant. Why did they not do so is important? Perhaps there was not enough political capital to do it and after 9/11 there was. Why didn't FDR go to war with Germany and Japan before Pearl Harbor? He sure wanted to. Look, you can view the world by divorcing events from politics but you will not get an accurate view of history.

Hind sight is 20/20. This is the nonsense of psychics. You believed something. You were proved right now you think there was no reason for anyone to have disagreed with you. Sorry but there was reason to believe that Saddam had WMD. Looking back was the evidence very strong? I'm willing to concede that it wasn't all that great.

Hindsight!?!?!?

I said it---loudly---before the invasion!

Your other point...well, what can I say; there is a strong effort by the Right to alter history on that point. Bush, over and over and over again linked Iraq to 9/11. Trying to say that didn't happen is like saying Bush never existed.

 

[Grammatron]

I missed this post but I would like to comment on it.

Reading comprehension 101. One way to interpret Kerry's awkward statement is:

1 - You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. subject of paragraph.

This is already happening, seems like a disengenious statement to me.

2 - And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night implies that US troops are going into Iraqi homes in the dead of night for some type of enforcement purpose

Another statement devoit of context; what home and why? Are the US troops going in random homes? These are the kind of dumb things one can say to make US troops look bad. If he was trying to say he doesn't want US troops to be enforcing the law he could and should have phrased it far better.

3 - terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. scaring kids and women and violating cultural and religious customs.

Again, context? Better yed, evidence? Not for scaring, that one is tough to prove, but certainly he could have clued us in which customs US troops keep violating over there.

4 - Whether you like it or not... Iraqis should be doing that. Iraqis should be doing the enforcing.

And they are starting to do that.

I know this is asking a lot, but please try. Compare and contrast this interpretation with yours. Compare this with Kerry's previous positions. Apply reason and logic. See if you can come to some non-rabid, non-snide, non-flaming-partisan interpretation.

I think I did just that.

 

[Mark]

For 12 years. And how long were we supposed to continue with this? And did this demonstrate that Saddam would not reconstitute his WMD?

Depends how much you value the lives of our soldiers. How many years are we supposed to let them die with no achievable goal?

Iran---now that we created a power vacuum---is developing WMDs. Nice going, Bush.

 

[Grammatron]

Hindsight!?!?!?

I said it---loudly---before the invasion!

Your other points...well, what can I say; there is a strong effort by the Right to alter history on that point. Bush, over and over and over again linked Iraq to 9/11. Trying to say that didn't happen is like saying Bush was never existed.

Here's the thing Mark, there were many reasons mentioned prior to the Invasion. You can read one of the "State of the Union" addresses and hear just that.

However, somehow you equate the reasons for urgency to invade with the reasons to invade. They are completely different.

The reasons to invade were numerous and laid out before the public and they were not disagreed with.

The reasons for the urgency were WMDs and weapon inspectors not being able to do their job. And the reasons we should have been worried about that is to prevent another "9/11" this time with Iraqi WMDs.

You can certainly argue that Bush made a poor case for the urgency with or without hindsight. But not for invasion reasons.

 

[Upchurch]

Isn't that how we (the USA) did it?

Nope. We were not a foreign nation to ourselves. We organized and orchestrated our own revolution and solicited help from folks like the French. Ours was an inside out democratization. Iraq is an outside in democratization.

Of the people, by the people, and all that. We just simply aren't the Iraqi people.

 

[Grammatron]

Depends how much you value the lives of our soldiers. How many years are we supposed to let them die with no achievable goal?

You are, of course, aware that our pilots were being shot at during those 12 years.

Iran---now that we created a power vacuum---is developing WMDs. Nice going, Bush.

Ok, what should we do about it Mark?

 

[Just thinking]

I think I did just that.

Yes ... and to add, Kerry's use of the word terrorize implies (in these times) the act as being self-fulfilling. Terrorists use terror for that goal -- to terrorize. If in our actions some are terrorized as a consequence it should be noted as such. Not that those affected are less worse off -- but the intent is clearly worlds apart.

 

[Mark]

You are, of course, aware that our pilots were being shot at during those 12 years.


Ok, what should we do about it Mark?

2,000 of them?

What should we do about Iran? Not have invaded Iraq. But since we did, I have no idea. I just hope someone smarter than you or me comes up with an answer. Invading them won't work (look what happened to Hussein when he tried it), and we are spread too thin anyway; we can't even seriously bluff them at this point.

Bush has been an unqualified disaster in every way. I am not certain anyone can fix it.

 

[RandFan]

I said it---loudly---before the invasion!

Yes, that IS my point. Psychics also make predictions before they happen. That they are sometimes right doesn't prove that they knew that they were right.

Your other point...well, what can I say; there is a strong effort by the Right to alter history on that point. Bush, over and over and over again linked Iraq to 9/11. Trying to say that didn't happen is like saying Bush never existed.

But I have conceded the point. I'm not saying that it didn't happen. That is a straw man. (see point #4) and stop making this argument.

 

[Freakshow]

You're wrong. At the time I was complaining that the UN wasn't following through to make sure the humanitarian aid got to where it was supposed to go.

At least you didn't state it as fact. I appreciate that. Seriously.

No prob, dude. Like I said, it was a wild a**ed guess, and I invited you to tell me I was wrong. Its all good.

 

[RandFan]

Depends how much you value the lives of our soldiers. How many years are we supposed to let them die with no achievable goal?

Who says there is no achievable goal? I don't.

Iran---now that we created a power vacuum---is developing WMDs. Nice going, Bush.

I don't buy that we have created a power vacuum and AIU Iran was developing WMD before 9/11.

 

[Upchurch]

AIU

sorry? "As I Understand"?