Cost of War (page 13)

I really don't know where this turned into you gumming Kerry "as he's a fault too". I thought I was providing evidence showing that the cost of war is NOT worth it, especially as it is a war manufactured to meet the agendas of a group of neo-conservatives. I provided evidence.

Not one statement I have made in this respect has even been examined, let alone refuted. Instead you divert the discussion into one about them BOTH being at fault.

Even if this is the case you are ignoring the evidence that Bush could be part of an intentional deception, which is far far more serious. Of course, it's understandable you feel better gumming Kerry than attacking Bush...

I find it unlikely that there was no intent to decieve; essentially the same group of neo-conservatives who asserted the USSR was a threat (using overstated or inaccurate claims) when it wasn't, but who gained support for their policies by making such claims, then assert Iraq is a threat (using overstated or inaccurate claims) when it was not, and thus gain support for their policies.

Given the forefather of neo-conservatism actually supported the use of deciet as a tool of political control I think cynical manipulation of public opinion is a more likely explanation than a massive coincidence or utter incompetence.

But you're obviously not willing to discuss it so your gumming of Kerry is just a sad and ineffectual distraction from the issue.

The issue is that the USA's government is out of control of the people of the USA. Yes, you may feel in control as you are voting next week, but if what you base your votes upon is not just a tissue but an entire policy of lies, any control you feel is illusory as your decisions are based upon deception.

Sadly we expect politicinas to lie, but if what seems likely is fact, then the Reagan-Bush-Bush reigemes have hit a new low.

dubla

abaddon-

I really don't know where this turned into you gumming Kerry "as he's a fault too". I thought I was providing evidence showing that the cost of war is NOT worth it, especially as it is a war manufactured to meet the agendas of a group of neo-conservatives. I provided evidence.
Not one statement I have made in this respect has even been examined, let alone refuted. Instead you divert the discussion into one about them BOTH being at fault.
Even if this is the case you are ignoring the evidence that Bush could be part of an intentional deception, which is far far more serious.

obviously you dont get it. i dont think they are both at fault, i think they both believed there were wmds in iraq......BUT, for those of you who believe bush intentionally deceived (as your bold sentence here implies is your main point), then based on kerrys statements, logically youd have to believe he also intentionally deceived. my point was, from the beginning, that regardless of what you think you are proving about bush, you arent differentiating between the two candidates when it comes to this issue. how is that changing the subject? it appears that bushs "deception" is the center of your thesis here....so if kerry deceived in the same manner, how should your points affect voters?

aa

dubla

abaddon-

perhaps kerry is part of this neo-conservative agenda you speak of.?. maybe he was trying to exaggerate the threat posed by iraq in order to advance this empire.?. heres some kerry quotes on iraq:

Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Jan 23, 2003: "without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that."

in that last quote he even, *gasp*, tied iraq to the war on terror!

aa

teejay

Dubla,

Do you have a link to the Kerry quotes?

dubla

teejay-

i edited the post with links, except for the last quote which is from the fox news special report on the date given. im not sure if fox news archives would have it or not, since is was a quote on television. as far as linking iraq to terrorism is concerned, this is another interesting quote from his speech on october 9, 2002 (link in previous post....bold/italics mine):

"He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

aa

Abaddon

dubla, Bush is part of it. Kerry may have gone along with it. And I'd rather have someone who went along with it than someone who was part of it.

If you are happy voting for someone who took part in the deliberate deception of the American public, or ignoring the evidence pointing to this, go ahead. You don't even skirt round this issue, you just ignore it.

The Kerry is just as bad horse has been flogged to death; you know I think the entire American political system need over-hauling and that you should have more than two credible choices (even if you HAD two credible choices... ).

But if 'he smells' results in 'he smells too', rather than moving away from that which smells... oh deary deary me...

Abaddon

dubla, Bush is part of it. Kerry may have gone along with it. And I'd rather have someone who went along with it than someone who was part of it.

If you are happy voting for someone who took part in the deliberate deception of the American public, or ignoring the evidence pointing to this, go ahead. You don't even skirt round this issue, you just ignore it.

The Kerry is just as bad horse has been flogged to death; you know I think the entire American political system need over-hauling and that you should have more than two credible choices (even if you HAD two credible choices... ).

But if 'he smells' results in 'he smells too', rather than moving away from that which smells... oh deary deary me...

dubla

abaddon-

But if 'he smells' results in 'he smells too', rather than moving away from that which smells...

its one issue (wmds) that doesnt seperate the two candidates, thats all. there are plenty of other issues (that DO seperate them) to base judgements on.

aa

Cost of War

teejay

Realist

Abaddon

dubla

dubla

teejay

dubla

Abaddon

Abaddon

dubla

Share this