I really don't think that just throwing an accusation back at Bush's face is a productive rhetorical tactic. It just amounts to the old school-yard taunt, "I know you are but what am I."<br><br>If you want to make your point and make it well, challenge the accusation. Force the accuser to prove their case. More often than not, they'll back down or pick someone else to argue with because they know you won't let them get away with throwing crap around without backing it up.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
He had the eyes of the world on him for far more than 10 seconds. He didn't make use of that to lay out his plan.<br><br>I haven't heard Kerry once talk about what steps he's going to do in office. But I'll take a look at one of his web site plans. How about peace for Iraq. <br>* Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions <br>*Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq<br>*Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces <br>*Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs... WHAT? Hold on a second. WHAT? What planet does Kerry live on? <br>First of all, Iraq doesn't have a minority. Everyone is fricken poor. Secondly, what the heck is a pledge of respect? It's not a treaty or they would have said that. Does Kerry have the slightest clue about the history and culture of the middle east? People make and break agreements faster then we change socks. It isn't that they're bad or good. It's culture and it's been going on for hundred of years. <br><br>Okay, sorry. I was really trying to make this a 'not for or against' post, but after reading about the dream world this man lives in, all I can say is 'Oh hell no!' This guy isn't just a fool, he's a stupid fool. <br><br>Sure, lets give up the debt they owe us. Lets pour international resources into Iraq but ignore going after the source of the terrorists threat. <br>Lets all join hands and sing, "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony."<br><br>
Lets take a look at another well laid out plan of Kerry's. Going after terrorists. <br>From his web site:<br>Directing Military Action to Destroy and Disrupt Terrorist Networks. Under John Kerry’s leadership, American military operations will be precise and deadly.<br><br>I know, I know. The details are staggering and insightful.<br><br>Or this one.<br>Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction Out of Terrorist Hands. John Kerry and John Edwards will launch a new initiative to prevent the world's deadliest weapons from falling into the world's most dangerous hands. They have a plan to secure vulnerable bomb-making materials, prevent the production of new materials for nuclear weapons, and work to end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran.<br><br>What's the plan? The web site header, under 'Plans' reads Defeating Global Terrorism. So they're telling us their plan is to have a plan?<br><br>What you're seeing in my post isn't anger. it's alarm. You can't honestly want this guy in office. <br><br>
First of all, I'm not convinced that you ever tried to avoid making this discussion an "anti-Kerry" thread. That's fine and it's a good idea to ask questions and challenge Kerry, but doing it under the thin veil of objectivity while parroting a few of the current RNC talking points is more than a little disingenuous. Don't deny your opinions. Share them. Challenge them. Back them up. For God's sake, do them justice!<br><br>Anyway...<br><br>I take issue with the whole argument that those people are incapable of doing anything other than fighting with one another, mainly because it is not supported by any kind of historical basis or rational explanation as to why stable government is impossible. Iraq is also sitting on top of a huge natural resource and has tremendous education assets. Once the security situation is taken care of (which has been Bush's largest failure excluding the intelligence failure) there is no telling what they can string together.<br><br>What do you mean by the whole "Iraq doesn't have a minority" comment? Minority in the context of constitutional law means that the government structures are set up so that smaller groups of people have their needs addressed and don't fall to what Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority." Iraq has three main separate, self-identified ethic groups: Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Just to give you one example, John Kerry has previously spoken about using treaty negotiations to buy the Russian weapons stocks to secure them. The Russian weapons stocks are currently the most insecure nuclear material available and a real threat to make it into terrorist hands.<br><br>Now, you can't really work that into a speech... John Kerry tried earlier, but people complained that he was too wordy and being too specific.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
I don't care if you believe my intent or not. Yes, I'm in favor of Bush, but I'm also an adult capable of looking at something objectively. <br><br>Allow your own bias to get in the way of your judgement, but don't paint me with the same brush.<br><br>You highlight my use of the 'those people' making it taste of something bad. So now what? I can't use plain English without soaking it in political correctness. If you have a knee jerk reaction to anything you want to take offence to, then you better get used to having tired and jerky knees. My meaning to 'those people' meant those people living in the middle east. Would you rather I should have said, 'not the Dutch, not the Swiss, not the Icelanders...' until there was only one country left?<br><br>Personally, if Kerry has a valid plan, I'd like to know why he's waiting until he's in office. If his plan is so good, why isn't he doing something now? Why is Kerry allowing people to die instead of saving lives by moving forward his plan?<br><br>Kerry has all these great plans, right? Yet the country is suffering and will continue to do so until he gets what he wants, is that it? What if Kerry isn't elected? Will he take his plans and go home? Will he tell the country that we can continue without the benifit of his plans?<br><br>All everyone can complain about is how the US shoudln't be involving itself in the politics of Iraq. Then Kerry says he wants to jump into it with both feet and that's okay?<br><br>
I apologize for patronizing you, but I saw in some of your sentiments some things I've seen coming from much less savory perspectives, if you know what I mean. Let's move along here.<br><br>The Constitution and the history of American government doesn't delegate diplomacy to the legislative branch. While the Senate and House do have committees on foreign relations and such, their power is relegated to advising their respective bodies in terms of defense authorizations and treaty ratification. It's the president's job to steer the country's direction. All a senator can do is suggest a different agenda and give the voting public a clear choice.<br><br>It's a constitutional matter. All Kerry can do is make his case and hope the American voters give him the mandate to carry out his plans. That's what the democratic process is all about.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Agreed, yet wouldn't you agree that any person in a position of representing the people, mayor, senator, congressmen, should take his plan to the people? <br>I wouldn't care if it was the city dog catcher. If the had a plan to solve the terrorist threat, I believe he'd have a following of supporters in very little time.<br><br>On the other side of the coin, if Kerry is limited by a ceiling that restricts what he can do or where he goes, then I don't understand how he could have a workable plan, since he has no resources to intelligence, or anything. <br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.