Reasons why I am not voting for Kerry
-
Based on intelligence that the Bush administration gave to congress (which we later found out was flawed and there was a very good chance that they knew it was flawed....some of the photos used in the intelligence briefings were from 1992... We have also found the Cheney & Rumsfeld were pushing to get damning info on Iraq that they could to push us to war) yes, John Kerry did vote to "Give President Bush the power, as a last resort, to go to war in Iraq....after all other options had been exhausted. And to build a coalition of Nations to go in with us so we don't have to bear the load alone." I guess it only takes 2 months or so to exhaust all your options. As for the Grand Coalition that we allegedly have: Great Brittain (actually, they did do a fairly good job of at least attempting to help us), Australia...and....ummm....oh yeah, who can forget that fearsome fighting force, known around the world as the innovators of fear and destruction....POLAND!!! Yay! Also, I ask, why did we go in without a plan to win the peace, shit anyone w/ our weaponry can win a fricken war...doesn't mean that peace will follow.
The same arguments keep going round and round here. The Duelfer report said flat-out that saddam didn't have the means to build WMD's and hasn't since 1992...also that the information that Bush gave congress was factually incorrect or outdated about the reasons to go to war. Hmmm...if he lied to congress, don't you think its just a little bit likely he lied to us?
PS. I won't be able to respond to these until friday, I will be out of town working...hmmm....maybe I should go AWOL from my job and campaign for Kerry instead....
-
tjamz wrote:
Based on intelligence that the Bush administration gave to congress (which we later found out was flawed and there was a very good chance that they knew it was flawed....some of the photos used in the intelligence briefings were from 1992... We have also found the Cheney & Rumsfeld were pushing to get damning info on Iraq that they could to push us to war) yes, John Kerry did vote to "Give President Bush the power, as a last resort, to go to war in Iraq....after all other options had been exhausted. And to build a coalition of Nations to go in with us so we don't have to bear the load alone." I guess it only takes 2 months or so to exhaust all your options. As for the Grand Coalition that we allegedly have: Great Brittain (actually, they did do a fairly good job of at least attempting to help us), Australia...and....ummm....oh yeah, who can forget that fearsome fighting force, known around the world as the innovators of fear and destruction....POLAND!!! Yay! Also, I ask, why did we go in without a plan to win the peace, shit anyone w/ our weaponry can win a fricken war...doesn't mean that peace will follow.The same arguments keep going round and round here. The Duelfer report said flat-out that saddam didn't have the means to build WMD's and hasn't since 1992...also that the information that Bush gave congress was factually incorrect or outdated about the reasons to go to war. Hmmm...if he lied to congress, don't you think its just a little bit likely he lied to us?
PS. I won't be able to respond to these until friday, I will be out of town working...hmmm....maybe I should go AWOL from my job and campaign for Kerry instead....
Actually you should reword your comment about Poland, considering that 65% of the special ops forces in the UN designed to combat terrorism are from Poland.
-
tjamz wrote:
PS. I won't be able to respond to these until friday, I will be out of town working...hmmm....maybe I should go AWOL from my job and campaign for Kerry instead....Your fingers need a break from all your rebuttals. sheesh Who's gonna take his Kerry lovin place for the next few days so that those of us who back Bush are gonna have someone to argue with?
-
Don't matter - time and time again, general public may want Kerry if so, just seems to be they have a problem showing up and voting. People who stick to the issues and regard the issues, and in no offense, more upper class, have a higher percentage of presence in voting. Funny how that happens. Bush & Cheney in 04 - no doubt about it, and I'd put money down ESPECIALLY after viewing the polls. Plus Missouri is now a loss, Kerry planned on visiting but now after viewing the polls he refused. Doesn't matter if he takes Florida, it's a downhill battle for Kerry - GOD BLESS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM!
-
tjamz wrote:
The same arguments keep going round and round here. The Duelfer report said flat-out that saddam didn't have the means to build WMD's and hasn't since 1992Thats not really what the report said. In fact, if you read the very first line of the Key Findings Summary you would see that the report said: (sorry, I gotta use cut-n-paste).
"Saddam so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
Farther into the report it says:
"Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with the UN inspections — to gain support for lifting the sanctions — with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face."
DaveH talking here -> So he plays along with some inspections, and gets some of the sanctions lifted... which was the Oil for Food Program.
"which Saddam immediately saw could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development."
Anyway, you get the general idea. The findings of the report have been manipulated by the left to suit their goals. If you read the report you can see what it really says. It's a very well written report, not sure how much I believe. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_a.pdf
-
Doesn't matter, Bush is gonna beat Kerry soundly in the popular vote also.
2k3WRXND wrote:
Don't matter - time and time again, general public may want Kerry if so, just seems to be they have a problem showing up and voting. People who stick to the issues and regard the issues, and in no offense, more upper class, have a higher percentage of presence in voting. Funny how that happens. Bush & Cheney in 04 - no doubt about it, and I'd put money down ESPECIALLY after viewing the polls. Plus Missouri is now a loss, Kerry planned on visiting but now after viewing the polls he refused. Doesn't matter if he takes Florida, it's a downhill battle for Kerry - GOD BLESS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM! -
DaveH wrote:
Thats not really what the report said. In fact, if you read the very first line of the Key Findings Summary you would see that the report said: (sorry, I gotta use cut-n-paste)."Saddam so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
Farther into the report it says:
"Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with the UN inspections — to gain support for lifting the sanctions — with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face."
DaveH talking here -> So he plays along with some inspections, and gets some of the sanctions lifted... which was the Oil for Food Program.
"which Saddam immediately saw could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development."
Anyway, you get the general idea. The findings of the report have been manipulated by the left to suit their goals. If you read the report you can see what it really says. It's a very well written report, not sure how much I believe. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_a.pdf
Soo....you are saying the sanctions were working...as long as we kept them on then the WMD's wouldn't be produced. I'm not saying he never intended to make/use WMD's, I fully believe he wanted to...but I think he wanted to wait until the heat was off him for a while, and 9/11 (even though not related to him and it happened w/o his involvement or support) but a lot of heat/tension on the middle east.
-
Oh, and I agree the Oil for Food program needed a serious revamping, there were a few loopholes for sure. I don't think they were big enough loopholes to fit a WMD through, but loopholes none-the-less
-
tjamz wrote:
Soo....you are saying the sanctions were working...as long as we kept them on then the WMD's wouldn't be produced.No, I just quoted the report. I interpret it to say that Sadom was walking a balance beam. He was trying to show the inspectors just enough to keep us off his back, while developing as much weapons material as he could get away with.
The more interesting quote is in my sig file, where Kerry basically says that just the fact that Sadom is a bad guy and is working towards WMD ("consistant grasp") is enough justification to disarm him. NOW he is saying that because wmd weren't found that the war was not justified... hmmm...
Which of these two positions do you think Kerry really believes? I sure don't know. I'd guess he actually believes the original statement.
-
Wasn't a soldier from the 3rd Infantry division just on the media under oath telling the world that his division just defused like 200 tons worth of explosives?
-
tjamz wrote:
Oh, and I agree the Oil for Food program needed a serious revamping, there were a few loopholes for sure. I don't think they were big enough loopholes to fit a WMD through, but loopholes none-the-less
Loopholes might be a bit of a understatement. You could fit the countries of France, China and Russia through the loopholes.
edit Ahhh, I feel a lot better now that Chuck is back
-
Kerry wants to ban guns and Hunting..FUCK HIM!
-
nvsgsx wrote:
Kerry wants to ban guns and Hunting..FUCK HIM!
Then what are you going to do? NOt vote at all If you dont vote you lose your oportunity to change this world thats why im voteing not for the presedent elction vote on laws when they come up you know what im talking about.
And yes I agree with you FUCK KERRY AND Fuck George W< The walking monkey> Its Just like Jesse Ventura Said ON a news report "These Guys Want you to go sign up for somthing That they didn't even sign up for, when it was their turn" jesse Ventura He should be presedent Have you seen his new look? He looks Like a 55 year old stoner now...LOL 
-
STiSchucky wrote:
Wasn't a soldier from the 3rd Infantry division just on the media under oath telling the world that his division just defused like 200 tons worth of explosives?
Yes, they removed 200 tons of "ammunition", when asked if it was the explosives that are thought missing, he said "I do not know" then the pentagon spokesperson said "we don't know". Its still up in the air AND the Kerry camp may have jumped to conclusions on this. Either way, when an AIEA seal is broken, the people that break the seal are required to report why it was broken, if something was removed, how much was removed, where it was moved, etc... Apparently that was not done as the AIEA and UN knew nothing about this. -
DaveH wrote:
Ahhh, I feel a lot better now that Chuck is back
You're just saying that cuz I promised you a cabinet position when I'm governor. -
nvsgsx wrote:
Kerry wants to ban guns and Hunting..FUCK HIM!
Again, POST YOUR SOURCE!!!!! Kerry is an avid hunter and fisherman, has several guns of his own. Field & Stream has stated that both candidates are good for the sportsman based on their research. Do some research of your own before posting crap you know nothing about. -
2k3WRXND wrote:
Actually you should reword your comment about Poland, considering that 65% of the special ops forces in the UN designed to combat terrorism are from Poland.
I still don't think of Poland as a fearsome army. They may very well have an excellent special ops team that works w/ the UN to combat terrorism, that doesn't mean that they are actually doing the grunt work. The could be doing things like compiling intelligence. I don't know, don't take what I am saying here as fact, I haven't researched it enough. It still doesn't change the fact that this is mostly a US war in Iraq. Great Britain is a significant player in the number of forces they put in, but they are still just (off the top of my head) like 10% of the forces in Iraq. Poland has a whopping 2500 soldiers there. That number alone should inspire "shock & awe" amongst Iraqi insurgents....afterall the insurgents only outnumber the Polish army like 10 to 1....
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login