Why would John Kerry make a great President?

[Tablarasa]

Saddam ignored or attempted to subvert UN resolutions for 12 years, regarding access and accountability. Someone was going to have to go in and MAKE him do it, or take him out of power, sooner or later.

I wouldn't call that a fascist decision. I would call it backing up what was already on the table. No one else is willing, as a country, to put their deeds with their words when it comes to backing UN authority, except the US. Anytime there is a problem ANYWHERE, the UN turns to the US first to see if we will be interested in helping resolve it.

Whether it is money, or military, people always want something from the USA, and people are always unhappy about it. That certainly in no way makes any of this fascist, and the war on Iraq enjoyed strong popular support in the USA.

Saddam could have ended all this years ago. Go blame him for jerking the process around, not Bush.

 

[PatPatriot]

Your one tough cookie X...but with that logic why dosen't Kerry run against himself?...How can Sybil...err Kerry lose??...He for the war,he against the war,hes for NAFTA he against NAFTA etc.....There is a clear choice you vote for Kerry or vote for Kerry.Real leadership like watching a dog chase his tail,I never feel alone.

 

[KMAN]

xpanda - Bush is all for defending the free world. He is willing to defend those people who can't. He is willing to rid the world of evil when other countries aren't. Don't you believe that the world is/will be a better place without Saddam, and some of these other cruel dictators.


You do realize that Clinton, the UN and Bush all agreed that Saddam had these weapons right?

 

[JudgeWapner]

I think the Patriot act is a question for the supreme court.The sooner it gets there the better.If they feel its constitutional,so be it.

 

[KMAN]

With the way the courts have been taking law into their own hands lately, I'm sure every liberal would love that.

 

[JudgeWapner]

BTW,many Republicans who initially voted for the bill are also having second thoughts.I belive its called common sense.

 

[xpanda]

Interesting position Tablarasa, but negated by Powell's own words in February of 2001:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. "

The 'resolutions' that Saddam defied were his refusal to disclose the paper trail of dumping the WMDs. Why make this an issue suddenly when it is clear that twelve months earlier it was not? (I buy into the theory that Saddam was worried about neighbouring countries and insurgents in his own country establishing a coup, separately or independently, and would be given a 'green light' so to speak if they knew he truly had no WMDs. You may not agree with me, but it may give you an indication of how my logic works in this case.)

I will, however, retract my use of the word fascist.

K: seriously, you think Bush is 'willing to defend those who can't'????? I mean, really, you believe that your government (Bush, Clinton, Kerry, whomever) is just following the yellow brick road on down to Oz and the land of pretty coloured horsies?? Bush is Dorothy, Iraq is the Scarecrow ...

Pat: you lost me.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I will, however, retract my use of the word fascist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
X:You found me.

 

[Tablarasa]

Saddam was unable to project his weapons because he did not have any more Scud missles, any air force, and was not allowed to put any more to use. All of this, due to the Gulf War, which resulted in the sanctions.

That did not, however, relieve anxieties that remaining stockpiles could be used as terrorist weapons.

Had Iraq fully complied with the UN resolutions after the Gulf War, not only would this invasion not have happened, I believe the sanctions would have ended also some time ago.

Whatever the reasons ( and you may be right as to those), their refusal DID bring this issue up over and over, and their refusal to comply is why something was done, when other concerns were added in.

 

[xpanda]

Tab: what inflames me more than anything is a two-fold issue: 1. people insist that Iraq was attacked because he had weapons, when in fact it was because he refused to prove that he didn't, and 2. we all know that if the tables were reversed, the US would tell any international organisation to go **** itself.

I don't compare Bush to Saddam, and I don't pretend that Saddam was some charming fellow who was just misunderstood. I simply don't like the way in which the situation was handled (I happen to believe in the UN and its importance for global order) and the hypocrisy of the nation behind it. That is all.

However, I still think Kerry is an ass.

 

[KMAN]

The UN is useless.....Especially when they don't enforce their own rules.

I mean think about it. If you got a warning instead of a ticket everytime you ran a red light, are you going to care if you run a red light or not. If you are not going to get punished you'll do what ever you want.

 

[KMAN]

xpanda - Another thing. My Mom is in Canada and rented a car for a few days. The cost for renting the car was $200, after taxes her whole bill came to $340.....WTF is that?