Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on October 21, 2004, 10:34:55 AM
-
When the RNC jumped on Kerry's "global test" comment about use of US forces abroad, many on the left (including most especially the Kerry campaign), were quick to claim it was not what it sounded like. They said that what Kerry didn't mean he would go to the UN to seek permission, but was instead referring to some type of self-assessment of the need for US action, preferably with wide spread international support (a.k.a. UN approbal), but without if necessary. Indeed, if his debate comment is taken in context, it could be construed that way. However, he has shown in the past that what he really believes is exactly what the Republicans say he meant. That is, the only way Kerry would authorize force is if the UN "granted" permission.
Here is the third paragraph from a front-page Washington Post article by Helen Dewar and Tom Ricks on Kerry's foreign policy record:
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard had this comment about the article:
When the Bush campaign talks about John Kerry's wanting a "permission slip" from the U.N., many commentators dismiss it as rhetorical excess. But Kerry really does believe that the United Nations is a fundamental, legitimizing body for the use of U.S. force. One hears this deference to the U.N. all the time in European capitals, but it is rare to hear it even among mainstream American liberals. In this respect, as in others, Kerry really is a throwback. He still shares the McGovernite distrust of U.S. force and suspicion of the judgments that are arrived at by the American body politic.
Sorry, but I'm not about to trust my nation's security to a man with such a fundamentally flawed belief on the subject.
-
He has a plan.
-
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/JFK1.bmp)
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/JFK2.bmp)
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/JFK3.bmp)
-
Hehe, those are great Rip. :aok
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hehe, those are great Rip. :aok
I got about 10 more, want them?
soupnazi60@yahoo.com
I made a couple of bumper stickers for the rear window of my Global Warmer. I get alot of "Thumbs up" on the freeway!
-
WHO CARES IF FRANCE AGREES?
I hope we never farm out our security to the UN. I don't intend to ask that organization when we can protect ourselves, or how.
Our economy drives the world - We don't need France or any other enemy symphathizer....screw them.
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried.
:D
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Sorry, but I'm not about to trust my nation's security to a man with such a fundamentally flawed belief on the subject.
Really? It's a shame you would allow op-eds to dictate your opinion.
Here's what he said. Please point out the flaws:
"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" asked Jim Lehrer, the PBS anchor who moderated the debate.
"The President always has the right, and always has had the right, for [a] preemptive strike," the Massachusetts Senator replied, according to the published transcript. "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
h
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.
And here I thought that invading Iraq to get rid of these alleged WMDs was ALL ABOUT human life. Or did we go in to get those fictional weapons 'cause they smelled bad? If mass graves and oppresive/homocidal dictators are the reason to send our citizens into harms way, then we've got a looooong road ahead of us. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it, and I most certainly wouldn't trade the life of one of my family members for the lives of even a thousand Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried.
:D
shut up cretin
See where some are buried (http://crdp.ac-reims.fr/memoire/lieux/1eregmCA/cimetieres/francais/ferme_de_suippe.htm)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.
What SOB said above, and:
I'll type real slow so you understand.
Here's a real world example of "legitimate reasons"-- All the world was with us when we attacked Afghanistan in retribution for 9/11. The USA was as united as I've ever seen it. Everyone was behind Bush-- Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian alike. One voice. From Europe to the Orient, they were all with us. This is a "legitimate reason."
Bush then decided to attack Iraq--after not finishing the job in Afghanistan nor capturing the main culprit responsible for 9/11. He had to stretch the truth, sell the immediate threat to his country and to the world at large for goals that frankly were thin at best.
Countries turned away from us--allies are now few and if not insignificant, leave to us the lion's share of the burden. Our own country is split in devisiveness, thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded. Iraq a long term drain on our country's resources. And for what? To free Iraqis? To destroy the illusory WMD's? This is NOT a "legitimate reason."
I know you probably can't understand the above, but I had to give it a shot.
I'm with SOB on this one: "...I most certainly wouldn't trade the life of one of my family members for the lives of even a thousand Iraqis."
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
And for what? To free Iraqis? To destroy the illusory WMD's? This is NOT a "legitimate reason."
I know you probably can't understand the above, but I had to give it a shot.
h
Sleep safe tonight Horn. Someone is keeping it that way for you, even if it was pre-emptively. I understand that your from a blue state (Colorado) and I don't expect you to understand that, but keep on keeping on, son. (**Ha! Got to use it twice today! :) )
-
Horn, here's the flaw:
"...and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
In other words, you get the world (a.k.a. the UN in his mind) to agree with you...a global test. Of course, if you ignore this last sentance, you could then look at these two quotes, by the same guy mind you, as further proof that he is a flip-flopper. Take your pick.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sleep safe tonight Horn. Someone is keeping it that way for you, even if it was pre-emptively. I understand that your from a blue state (Colorado) and I don't expect you to understand that, but keep on keeping on, son. (**Ha! Got to use it twice today! :) )
Hey, Rip! I'm from CO, and last I looked we were still leaning conservative (barring Denver and Boulder, or course).
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So mass graves was not enough for ya? Oh, thats right the CIA, er Bush Admin lied about WMD, which are more important than human life. I forgot.
Aiding and abedding a dictator when he commits mass genocide and then use those said genocides to validate your agenda when the need arises, how Neo-clown of you.
-
FWIW, I've recently been to Paris and it no longer suprises me why they'd rather surrender than have the city destroyed. It's beautiful and contains treasures beyond most people's understanding unless the've actually been there. The Louvre alone... My god it's priceless. Just building it nearly bankrupted France more than once. Think about that, building a palace and museum so grand that BY ITSELF it bankrupted the entire country. In modern terms, that would be like a 40 trillion dollar museum, paid up front. Simply amazing, and the entire city is like that, one amazing bit of history after another, lined up farther than you can see.
Paris will probably never fall.. It will be given freely whenever it changes hands unless it falls into the custody of people such as the Taliban freaks who destroy such beauty on the principle that since it's not mentioned in the Koran, it must be eradicated, like the priceless ancient statues and temples destroyed for no reason only a couple of years ago in Afghanistan. But for the rest of the world, Paris is a treasure that can't be lost.
Anyhow, just some insight into at least the Paris thing. The French are convinced that French culture will endure no matter who occupies Paris, so long as Paris is not destroyed. So far, history has proven them right. Even when the British occupied Paris, the city endured and France survived.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Sorry, but I'm not about to trust my nation's security to a man with such a fundamentally flawed belief on the subject.
LOL!
You mean someone like FDR?
-
Originally posted by Horn
Really? It's a shame you would allow op-eds to dictate your opinion.
Here's what he said. Please point out the flaws:
"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" asked Jim Lehrer, the PBS anchor who moderated the debate.
"The President always has the right, and always has had the right, for [a] preemptive strike," the Massachusetts Senator replied, according to the published transcript. "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
h
thanks for the post, I had forgotten how much of a F*** up he really was. :aok
-
I believe the statement that Sabre was referring to was made in 1994. I THINK....But it does still sound like what he said in the debate more or less.
Again to the rest of you guys that seem to have such a dim view of Iraq and the current situation and WHY we went to war......
Kerry was behind it the war at first.
Hind-sight is always 20/20.....and could be called Flip/Flop
-
lolol global warmer
-
Originally posted by Horn
What SOB said above, and:
I'll type real slow so you understand.
Here's a real world example of "legitimate reasons"-- All the world was with us when we attacked Afghanistan in retribution for 9/11. The USA was as united as I've ever seen it. Everyone was behind Bush-- Democrat and Republican, Green Party and Libertarian alike. One voice. From Europe to the Orient, they were all with us. This is a "legitimate reason."
Bush then decided to attack Iraq--after not finishing the job in Afghanistan nor capturing the main culprit responsible for 9/11. He had to stretch the truth, sell the immediate threat to his country and to the world at large for goals that frankly were thin at best.
Countries turned away from us--allies are now few and if not insignificant, leave to us the lion's share of the burden. Our own country is split in devisiveness, thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded. Iraq a long term drain on our country's resources. And for what? To free Iraqis? To destroy the illusory WMD's? This is NOT a "legitimate reason."
I know you probably can't understand the above, but I had to give it a shot.
I'm with SOB on this one: "...I most certainly wouldn't trade the life of one of my family members for the lives of even a thousand Iraqis."
h
What is fundimentally wrong with your view on the Iraq war is that you tie it to that fact that we have not found WMD.
What people like you will never understand is, at the time, EVERYBODY assumed Iraq had them. Russia, France, the UN...EVERYONE. Russia even passed on intelligence to Bush saying that Iraq was planning attacks against America. The CIA told Bush Iraq has WMD, "it's a slam dunk"
What people like you will never understand is that the President had to act in light of all the signs pointing to Iraq as a threat.
Hey, didn't the same people against the war in Iraq also blame Bush for not stopping 911? People like you would never had stood for a war in Afghanistan to PReVENT 911......you only react AFTER we are attacked it seems.
Bush made the only call he could make.... to make DAMN sure another "911" was not going to come out of Iraq.
You people with your hinde sight just amaze me.
-
S! Eagle, that is correct. You guys really should lay off France, it is unbecoming.
If Kerry is so enamored of total world-wide and UN support, why did he vote against the Gulf War in 1991? He is a hard-core, no-war-at-any-cost Liberal, and is not fit to lead our country.
I am not saying that he is not patriotic, or brave, just that it is his core beleif that all disputes can be resolved by discourse. That is lovely when you are smoking pot in college, but in the real world, you get your bellybutton kicked.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What is fundimentally wrong with your view on the Iraq war is that you tie it to that fact that we have not found WMD.
What people like you will never understand is, at the time, EVERYBODY assumed Iraq had them. Russia, France, the UN...EVERYONE. Russia even passed on intelligence to Bush saying that Iraq was planning attacks against America. The CIA told Bush Iraq has WMD, "it's a slam dunk"
What people like you will never understand is that the President had to act in light of all the signs pointing to Iraq as a threat.
Hey, didn't the same people against the war in Iraq also blame Bush for not stopping 911? People like you would never had stood for a war in Afghanistan to PReVENT 911......you only react AFTER we are attacked it seems.
Bush made the only call he could make.... to make DAMN sure another "911" was not going to come out of Iraq.
You people with your hinde sight just amaze me.
correct NUKE:aok
-
Geeze.... eagl...
It's so rare to read something which is unlike any perspective you've ever read, heard or considered before.
The kind of thing that makes me wonder why I've never heard anything remotely like it.
That was good stuff.
-
Ditto...Nash.
Straffo wtf?:p
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Bush made the only call he could make.... to make DAMN sure another "911" was not going to come out of Iraq.
You people with your hinde sight just amaze me.
"Hinde sight"... Okay.
Maybe you should widen yours a bit: 911 happened because lunatics got a bright idea. That same can happen in everywhere; think about Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City.
-
Originally posted by Staga
"Hinde sight"... Okay.
Maybe you should widen yours a bit: 911 happened because lunatics got a bright idea. That same can happen in everywhere; think about Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City.
So true, and that's why the war on Iraq was justified.
-
Nash,
Believe it or not, it was a scottish tour bus driver that got me thinking along those lines. He is a decent source of information, pointing out this site and that, here's where this happened, that building was built by this or that king, oh yea this is where the british barracks were when they occupied the city, blah blah. The only time he talked about the city actually getting damaged though was an inadvertant bombing by a lone allied bomber during WWII that hit one or another historic landmark while the Germans occupied Paris. He talked about how the German General in charge of the Paris occupation refused to follow orders to burn the city to the ground and that General was never allowed back into Germany as he is still considered a traitor, even though there is no question it would have been immoral to level the city.
Sure there was a little good natured ribbing about how Paris is great and it's a shame the French are currently occupying it, but underneath that seemed to be great respect for what has been done in Paris. One of the newest building complexes in Paris is their new national library. Their goal and neverending task is to translate every word ever published into French. The enormous ego necessary to simply assume that documents ought to be archived in French boggles the mind, but that is to some degree the essence of the French national identity. France endures not only as a nation but as the rightful center of the world's culture. If you look at France's international policy from that point of view, a lot of what they do makes more sense. They do not seem to feel the need to "save the world", they aren't currently into nation building, and they're content to keep their cultural influences turned inward because all else is at best a pale imitation of the original French. They act out of national self interest and if that makes them look greedy, selfish, weak, or whatever, that's sort of ok as long as they survive and France flourishes.
It's nearly the middle point between absolute isolationism and empire, although that's a simplistic description because it's not a 2-dimensional scale of behavior.
-
Very good analysis Eagl.
Did you visit Versailles yet ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
See where some are buried (http://crdp.ac-reims.fr/memoire/lieux/1eregmCA/cimetieres/francais/ferme_de_suippe.htm)
is there an English version of this website?
-
I don't know of any DieAz but when searching I've found this text : http://www.ku.edu/carrie/specoll/AFS/library/AFShist/AFS2c.htm
Comming from this site : http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/memoir/AFShist/AFSTC.htm
-
Straffo,
We drove past it I think... It was only a 2 day tour really so we drove past a lot of things. I'm looking forward to spending about a week or so there so we can really SEE all these great places instead of drive up, look inside and around, take photo, hop back onto bus before bus driver gets another ticket for being British.
Honestly, a french cop was set up in an intersection and every british car or tour bus that drove through got stopped and thoroughly inspected including all paperwork. Our bus driver had forgotten to fill in a line on some permit or another and he got fined over 100 euro after getting waved over for a random inspection in this intersection. When he said it was stupid because it's something he was supposed to fill in, not even something an official would fill in, he got fined another 100 euro for backtalking the officer. As we sat there watching all this happening (it took over half an hour because the cop pretended he didn't know english so the driver had to ask some random french citizen to translate, even though later on the cop spoke it very fluently) we watched a half dozen french cops stop every single car with brit plates or UK markings, 2 more brit tour buses, while letting go every single vehicle that wasn't british.
It would have been funny if we weren't sad to see our tour guide lose most of his comission right there on the spot. At least we weren't the poor guy in the car who got his car emptied, frisked, etc. all because he seemed to be missing a bit of paperwork. I don't know how much he shelled out to get let loose but he literally emptied his wallet, 3 different types of currency, into the cop's outstretched hand as everyone watched. Some other poor guy got to watch his car get towed for some reason we never could figure out since he was a well dressed dude driving a nice but not-quite-new car. The cops were at this intersection for most of the day shaking down tourists. I don't know what they were doing there but in our case, they got 200 euro because our driver missed one little bit of writing on a permit and without raising his voice (I was there, heard the whole thing) got fined for backtalking an officer who was pretending to not speak english. If I recall correctly, that was in front of the old opera house or something like that.
Anyhow, Paris was nice and we can't wait to go back, but I'm not carrying any cash with me, don't plan on driving at all, and if I see any cops I'll seek shelter in the nearest building until they leave
:(
-
I agree that Paris is a magnificently beautiful city and I trust you'll enjoy Versailles your next trip. The Parisians can sure be a little frosty and superior though. Kind of like a city filled with Martlet, Ripsnort and others who just happened to have been born in France instead of choosing to be born in America, as they did. :D
-
"The only time he talked about the city actually getting damaged though was an inadvertant bombing by a lone allied bomber during WWII that hit one or another historic landmark while the Germans occupied Paris. "
Surprising he didn't mention the specially-made "paris guns" the Germans used in WW1. The guns caused some damage and a couple hundred deaths. Makes for the interesting kind of tidbit tour guides are usually fond of.
J_A_B
-
I have met toad and he is not the least bit frosty or superior even when the situation is such that he could be (like talking about aircraft and pilots)... I would hope that a toad raised anywhere in the world would still be... well... a toad.
rolex, you on the other hand come off as extremely smug and superior with very little reason that I can see.
lazs
-
Yeah, I've never met Toad IRL, but he doesn't seem that way here on the BB.
-
Well, I like frosty cold beer and I also like superior Scotch. Maybe that's what he was talking about.
-
Toad likes superior scotch? Sorry, Toad. I'll edit the post now to delete your name.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What is fundimentally wrong with your view on the Iraq war is that you tie it to that fact that we have not found WMD.
What people like you will never understand is, at the time, EVERYBODY assumed Iraq had them. Russia, France, the UN...EVERYONE. Russia even passed on intelligence to Bush saying that Iraq was planning attacks against America. The CIA told Bush Iraq has WMD, "it's a slam dunk"
Do you actually believe what you wrote above?! FYI Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both said immediately prior to 9/11 (Powell in Feb '01, Rice in August '01) that Iraq had no WMD whatsoever, and had no prospect of getting them because the sanctions were working.
So did the CIA lie? Or the US administration? IMO both, since both clearly knew that Iraq had no WMD.
:rolleyes:
Btw I dont give a toss if everyone else in the whole world thought Iraq had WMDs. The fact is, the US knew they didnt. Knew enough for 2 of the top people in the US govt to come out and categorically state they never had them. But still attacked.
How many more lies?
-
And as someone else pointed out earlier, please dont give the excuse about him mass murdering his own people. It was the US that had given him the weapons to do it! What the hell did you think he was going to do with them?!
-
Originally posted by SOB
If mass graves and oppresive/homocidal dictators are the reason to send our citizens into harms way, then we've got a looooong road ahead of us.
Bear in mind these mass graves were from 1991-92, I don't think we supplied Saddam the weapons, glas.
Agreed. We certainly do have a long road ahead.. We intervened in the Balkans, and we have HERE (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html)[/b] as well....
The head of the unit, Greg Kehoe, who has seen more than his share of horrors in places such as the Balkans, couldn’t believe what he saw.
"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."
Some of these people were opponents of the regime, gunned down after an uprising against Saddam in 1991 and then dumped in big trenches. Women and civilians were also among the victims.
Beyond the visual impression, though, it is the smell that I will never forget. The bodies had been underground for over 10 years, but you could still feel the rot of the past. The remainder and reminder of life, snuffed out by a horrendous regime.
-
"We will go after the terrorists and the countries that support terror" GWB
Dunno what the problem is, he has said it all along.
I've always been in favor of going into Iraq. For whatever reason. WMD's,Terrorism, Oil (yes oil) or as I've said seveal times "because its tuesday".
I've always seen it as a deal with it now or deal with it later but sooner or later we are gonna have to deal with it.
Now me personally I'd rather deal with it now then later. I've never beleived containment would work in this saituation just as it hasnt worked in North Korea.
-
For the cop story ... I've never been annoyed by the cops in 15 year driving but I'm not brit :D
I heard some cops where acting pretty badly with the English tourist but I've never seen that myself. I'm however surprised by the fine usualy it's 90 € not 100 and the fine you can have by backtalking to a policeman is not decided by the cops but by a judge.
I think it was not the cops but more the "douanes" they usually behave like that and are full of a**hole