Why I am frustrated on the lack of KO's...

Fellow conservatives on this board, if they think like me, would and should be frustrated on the KO waiting to be dropped concerning the U.N... here's my reasoning on why it will never come...

The whole talking point that there was no active recruitment of allies in Enduring Freedom that the Kerry campaign is yammering about.It is easily seen now in the Oil; for Food program, as well as the simple idea of passing on 16 resolutions, and the 11 month plea by the Bush Administration (which boggles the mind that someone can state that their was no effort for ally making) shows why other countries did not join the coalition. I think that President Bush will not say anything demeaning about the U.N., and the countries under suspect because He knows that when he wins he will have to work with those same bodies.

Kerry, on the other hand will demean and insult the world leaders supporting the Bush Administration; all in order to grasp at any point to get him in office. I think this shows a major flaw in his though process: his whole goal is to get in the oval office, thinking nothing on what he will do when he gets there...

This means that we and conservative leaders will have to make this point for him... ;)

What’s even more alarming is that he continues to downplay the losses by other nations and Iraqi’s in the fight in Iraq.

How does he plan to build a bigger coalition when all he ever does is disrespect and disregard the nations that are bravely and proudly serving there now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

What’s even more alarming is that he continues to downplay the losses by other nations and Iraqi’s in the fight in Iraq.

How does he plan to build a bigger coalition when all he ever does is disrespect and disregard the nations that are bravely and proudly serving there now?

---

I agree somewhat. Sometimes he acts as if there is no coalition . :dry:

He is correct however in that the coalition doesn't involve many big contributions of soldiers from other countries even close to being on par with us. Nevertheless it is a contribution and should not downplayed.

My question here is what is the populations of these countries that are involved in the coalition? If they are sending the same percentage of the population to Iraq as the US I would say they are just as involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSeeder

My question here is what is the populations of these countries that are involved in the coalition? If they are sending the same percentage of the population to Iraq as the US I would say they are just as involved.

---

Again I must agree but that's that country's sacrifice.

In sheer number, it helps but not that much.

Example..

Let's say Italy sends 20 troops, Togo sends 5, France :lol: 10, America 1000.

It helps but we would also like the UK with 1000. If we have them involved (a much more powerful ally than the others, the burden is less on us.

I don't know if it's true but Kerry said our soldiers have 90% of the casualties.

I can't accept that at face value but I can't ignore it either. Must research. ;)

Here's my logic. Kerry sounds like an idiot saying he would get other countries involved and also say that we get 90% of the casualties.

It's like saying, "Come on down and lose some of your troops so our troops can go home."

Unless there is something in it for that country then I can see a big

:angry: :01: STFU!!! and GTFO!!! :01: :angry:

of my face headed to whoever is Prez.

If this was Iran, which is known for harboring terrorists, then this would be more unlikely.....but damn, Iraq was picked. :dry:

It seems to me that Kerry's tactics have changed quite a bit.

Busyman, on the one hand he says/said we need to get out of Iraq. But now he is saying we need to send more support for our troops there, actually increase our troops. And not only that, he is criticizing Bush for not doing more about Iran and North Korea. While at the same time, he is trashing Bush for spreading our troops too thin as it is.

I can't get a handle on what he really wants to do here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

It seems to me that Kerry's tactics have changed quite a bit.

Busyman, on the one hand he says/said we need to get out of Iraq. But now he is saying we need to send more support for our troops there, actually increase our troops. And not only that, he is criticizing Bush for not doing more about Iran and North Korea. While at the same time, he is trashing Bush for spreading our troops too thin as it is.

I can't get a handle on what he really wants to do here.

---

That's pretty easy.

He never said we should send more troops.
His point was that if we are going to invade Iraq we should have sent more troops to secure the peace and have a post war plan. Bush did not have a post war plan.
Kerry wants to bring more troops home which is why he throws up the lofty idea of getting more allies.

Regarding North Korea and Iran, his point is Bush picked Iraq which was not an iminent threat while the NK and Iran were becoming iminent threats.
All Bush can up with now is, "Well Saddam wanted to revive his WMD program."
Well Mr. Bush that's called bullshit.

I must have misheard, I guess. I sure thought he said we need about forty thousand more troops in Iraq both the first debate and this one. But yet he said he would not use the national guard or enforce the draft. He will pay soldiers more, benefits, etc., and get them this way. Did I just imagine all that?

No, I remember it clearly now. Because when he said that, Bush remarked about his voting down the bill for more money for our troops.



Edited to add second paragraph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

I must have misheard, I guess. I sure thought he said we need about forty thousand more troops in Iraq both the first debate and this one. But yet he said he would not use the national guard or enforce the draft. He will pay soldiers more, benefits, etc., and get them this way. Did I just imagine all that?

No, I remember it clearly now. Because when he said that, Bush remarked about his voting down the bill for more money for our troops.



Edited to add second paragraph

---

You didn't hear wrong rose, that is exactly what was said. More troops in Iraq, no National Guard, and no draft.

Okay, Mr. Cloud. But I really have a problem with your signature. I can't help it. I don't mean to criticize. But I be listening to my sig these days. :D

Not all Liberals dislike guns.

Not all Republicans like them. They scare me. Bring on the rust. :ph34r:


Damn that felt good. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Okay, Mr. Cloud. But I really have a problem with your signature. I can't help it. I don't mean to criticize. But I be listening to my sig these days. :D

Not all Liberals dislike guns.

Not all Republicans like them. They scare me. Bring on the rust. :ph34r:


Damn that felt good. :lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Make-up sex can be fiercely satisfiying.

Not sure why I said that, carrry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

I must have misheard, I guess. I sure thought he said we need about forty thousand more troops in Iraq both the first debate and this one. But yet he said he would not use the national guard or enforce the draft. He will pay soldiers more, benefits, etc., and get them this way. Did I just imagine all that?

No, I remember it clearly now. Because when he said that, Bush remarked about his voting down the bill for more money for our troops.



Edited to add second paragraph

---

More of our troops?

That might sense if he's really talking about securing the peace however he talked about getting other countries' troops.

I'm amazed at what people remember clearly. No offense Everose but your memory is a little cloudy and with that I'm also amazed at the folks who back up cloudy memories (cue in Cloudseeder) when it goes along with there little agenda.

Kerry said during his administration he wanted to add 40,000 more troops to active duty military. He also said our National Guard and reservists are treated like active duty military currently and that there are now stop-loss measures implemented so one must add 3 more years to active duty.

Bush talked about Kerry cutting down the intelligence budget by like 70 (or was it 7) billion dollars on a whole other question.

Now I'm going on memory too but I'm pretty sure about this since I heard something similar before about stop-loss measurements in the military.

I know folks that lost their sons in Iraq and the dislike (to put it mildly) they have for Bush.

Please folks get your facts straight before you are so sure of something.

Busyman

I think the 90% casualties is correct. As the US has upwards of 85% of the forces out there and AQ etc., have a preference for killing US soldiers, the 90% figure is not really out of kilter with the situation on the ground.

I'm amazed at what people remember clearly. No offense Everose but your memory is a little cloudy and with that I'm also amazed at the folks who back up cloudy memories (cue in Cloudseeder) when it goes along with there little agenda.

Busyman, this surprises me about you. Notice I pulled this little paragraph out and separated it from the rest of your post. I hate to say it, but when remarks are made in these threads like this, I don't even read the rest of the post.

I guess my first question would be what 'little agenda' are you accusing me, (or was it Cloudseeder) of having? I have no agenda. I do have a lot of questions, and I will repeat what I hear in a debate. If you would kindly tell me what you heard, I am open to that. We are humans, and our perceptions are often different. I would be the last to think my perceptions are the right ones. Am I wrong in bringing what I perceive to this board for discussion? Have you not, in other posts encouraged people to listen, question and think? It is remembering that which makes me really surprised that all of a sudden you think I have an agenda.

And let me make one thing clear here. If you think I have any control over Mr. Cloud, or would "use' him to back up a non existant agenda, you don't know Mr. Cloud or myself. I don't use people, Busyman. It is pretty rare that he and I agree on issues. I will not tell him not to agree with me on the rare occassion he does. :D

Okay.........now that I have that said, I will read the rest of your post. ..... :lol:

firstly folks if you are going to state "facts" try to actually use facts and not spin that either candidate has said. Remember a bill has many components and both parties add unacceptable components to bills as well as acceptable components and a no vote for a bill untill the unacceptable component is removed isn't the same as voting against the acceptable component. don't fall for political games.

to the thread:

firstly on the resolution point. the sanctions were working...yes they were breaking down but then the job is to strengthen them...that was not attempted...now we have the information that saddam wasn't an imminet threat somehow the focus must shift to say we were right but not for the reasons we said....but the fact remains that's goalpost changing for the reasons we did it.

Bush did use the oil for food but to justify his own actions, not against Kerry because it will be seen as trying to deflect the fact of his flawed reasons for war...and kerry and the rest of the world will throw that back in his face.
As to Kerry ignoring the "coilition" yes he could use a bit better turn of phrase but his job isn't to show Bush in a positive light...it's to show his mess ups.

Quote:

---

New rule: Everyone has to stop pretending that George Bush is so macho
Because, plainly, he acts like a girl. Not a woman -- a girl. Not a week goes by when John Kerry isn’t attacked because he said something that hurt someone’s feelings. According to Bush spokesmen, Kerry lost the first debate because of his "new insult" to our allies when he said the coalition wasn’t genuine. Poland had Lithuania over for a debate party that night, and now they can’t look at each other without crying.

---

Bill Maher

the full quote when i can find it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

More of our troops?

That might sense if he's really talking about securing the peace however he talked about getting other countries' troops.

I realize he is for getting more help from other countries. But I understood him to say that in order to get these troops and keep them, we need to pay them more, better benefits,etc. And it was at this point Bush was taken aback and said that Kerry himself had help vote down a bill which would do just that.

I'm amazed at what people remember clearly. No offense Everose but your memory is a little cloudy and with that I'm also amazed at the folks who back up cloudy memories (cue in Cloudseeder) when it goes along with there little agenda.

Kerry said during his administration he wanted to add 40,000 more troops to active duty military. He also said our National Guard and reservists are treated like active duty military currently and that there are now stop-loss measures implemented so one must add 3 more years to active duty.

But how is he going to do this, Busyman, while at the same time voting against a bill that would accomplish this?

Bush talked about Kerry cutting down the intelligence budget by like 70 (or was it 7) billion dollars on a whole other question.

That is a big difference, as you say below, you are going on memory.

Now I'm going on memory too but I'm pretty sure about this since I heard something similar before about stop-loss measurements in the military.

I know folks that lost their sons in Iraq and the dislike (to put it mildly) they have for Bush.

I detest war. But I also realize that when going through any grief process, there is a tendency to be angry at the loss of a loved one and to strike out to try to place blame at the loss. But when all is said and done, I hope that I would realize my son enlisted in the armed services and he knew the risks. (and one of those risks would be the possibility that all branches of government would send him into a very questionable war.)

Please folks get your facts straight before you are so sure of something.

---

I am surprised that you perceive me of being so sure of something, Busyman. :) But I do think I need to review the debate after reading your response, and I will.

Remember a bill has many components and both parties add unacceptable components to bills as well as acceptable components and a no vote for a bill untill the unacceptable component is removed isn't the same as voting against the acceptable component. don't fall for political games.


:D I am aware of this Vid. Although I have much more hands on experience with it in the local political arena. A bill, or an ordinance are often amended to no resemblence of the original intention. I am dissappointed that Kerry didn't rebut on this if that was the case. But I imagine he will, and hope he does.


Bill Maher

the full quote when i can find it[/QUOTE]


:lol: I will look for it in the funny section, Vid. First I read that Bush has no feelings and is a cold fish. Now I read that he is a girlie, way too 'feely' :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

:lol: I will look for it in the funny section, Vid. First I read that Bush has no feelings and is a cold fish. Now I read that he is a girlie, way too 'feely' :D

---

Real time with bill maher..it's repeated on HBO tonight and probably every night for the rest of the week. I only watch it occasionally and caught the end last night where i saw the quoted skit......last 5 mins of the show.:lol:

How big a "Contribution" each nation is putting in is Relative.

In shear numbers, the USA is far in front.

However, the UK has a much higher % of its entire Armed Forces there than any other nation.

We do have other responsibilities, including Defence not only of ourselves, but the British Dependancies and Colonies... of which there are still a few.

My God I hate bill maher :o and I love dennis miller....


wonder why? :)

Everose I don't think you have an agenda. You don't come off as a, "Republican no matter what" types that litter the board (not that you are even Republican or American for that matter). I was referring to Cloudseeder's little agenda.

I was amazed about what people remember clearly, not to same I'm infallable or anything.
It goes to show, however, how a swing voter and people in general, can possible make a votiing decision based on a false recollection.

It's funny I just got my haircut and I was talking with the guy who was ahead of me to get in chair. He told he was in Iraq when they first went in (I think Shock and Awe :lol: ) and he was supposed to be getting out soon.

He said he isn't holding his breath because they will probably call him back over there. He also told me about the "back door draft" that is now going on and expects to be part of. He doesn't like Bush by the way and has said that he not alone....on a grand scale of soldiers.
They are severely pissed and of course morale is super low.

I asked him early in the conversation was he injured or something since he already told me he was in the Army. Once he said that he wasn't I thought, "Uh oh, you are going back."

Back door draft :rolleyes:

I'm sure that their are some patriotic people in the national guard that would be offended by calling their voluntary service a "draft".

As many as the "volunteers" that cant leave?


Oh yeah.... and why did he call Kerry "Kennedy"?

I know his Geography isnt hot... but i mean, you'd think he'd at least recognise his opponent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

My God I hate bill maher :o and I love dennis miller....


wonder why? :)

---

Dennis is about as dry as a chapped lip in winter. He doesn't speak to people in way that people "get it" most of the time. His show was not a must see although I did watch on occasion.
He'll say (in Dennis Miller fashion):

"Michael Hazal is so tight that you'd think he was squeezed between Jay Moore's ass."

Then you'd go, "Who the fuck is he talking about?"
Even when you do know the names you go :blink:
Nevertheless he sounds funny saying it. I remember when he had Dana Carney on the show (the last season) he alluded to what I'm saying.

Bill is definitely funnier probably even to most Republicans. I didn't like that shitty joke he made though about having this metal thing around your neck to stop beheadings.

Think if a family of a beheaded person saw that shit.