|
Post by Face it on Oct 20, 2004 5:56:34 GMT -5
John Kerry voted against the use of force against Saddam Hussein in 1991 when Iraqi troops were invading Kuwait! And scud missiles fired into Israel. Some teens and 20 somethings may not remember 1991, But Kerry has a 20 year liberal Senate record to defend.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Oct 21, 2004 20:16:33 GMT -5
Soooooo...?
|
|
|
Post by huh on Oct 23, 2004 13:39:44 GMT -5
If Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry didn't think it was right to go after Saddam when he invaded Kuwait and shot scud missiles at Israel, can you trust him to be president of the USA? Think about that. Kerry would have given Kuwait to Saddam Hussein's Baathist thugs.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Oct 27, 2004 10:54:22 GMT -5
What was the U.S. doing meddling with Kuwait to begin with? Did Kuwait have a specific alliance with the U.S. that required our intervention? Or were we just being the selective good samaritan? Instead of giving Kuwait over to Baathist thugs, we decided to be the good guys and save the day. Well, here's a Hero Award to the wonderful government of the U.S. of A. You are genuinely my hero. Way to go. 2 thumbs up. Whoo-hoo! Hip, hip, hooray! There are a lot of countries that have other people invading, or civil wars with incredibly inhumane atrocities going on, but the U.S. doesn't go in and invade to "bring peace". Selective good samaritism. Yes, I trust John Kerry to be President of the U.S. In retrospect, being that I was only in 6th or 7th grade at the of Gulf War I, I question the validity of going to war with Saddam then, as I question it now. Kerry obviously had reservations about going after Saddam. I certainly don't feel that the U.S. is the world's police, and I'll support a candidate who would feel the same way. andy
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 27, 2004 14:52:13 GMT -5
What was the U.S. doing meddling with Kuwait to begin with? Did Kuwait have a specific alliance with the U.S. that required our intervention? Or were we just being the selective good samaritan? Instead of giving Kuwait over to Baathist thugs, we decided to be the good guys and save the day. Well, here's a Hero Award to the wonderful government of the U.S. of A. You are genuinely my hero. Way to go. 2 thumbs up. Whoo-hoo! Hip, hip, hooray! There are a lot of countries that have other people invading, or civil wars with incredibly inhumane atrocities going on, but the U.S. doesn't go in and invade to "bring peace". Selective good samaritism. You need a history lesson..
|
|
|
Post by botany on Oct 27, 2004 16:04:10 GMT -5
You need a history lesson.. Please educate me with a history lesson. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 27, 2004 17:01:50 GMT -5
Andy,
Are you familiar with the term "UN resolution"?
Do you support the UN?
Do you support the UN resolutions (specifically concerning Iraq and Saddam)?
Do you support enforcing the UN resolutions?
Answers to these questions are fundimental to this discussion. Many people do not support the UN, or its resolutions and therefore oppose the war. This is a very consistant and admirable position. Some people support the UN, its resolutions concerning Iraq, yet oppose the enforcement of them. This is obviously a very contradictory position. Where do you stand?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 28, 2004 7:59:55 GMT -5
Andy, Are you familiar with the term "UN resolution"? Do you support the UN? Do you support the UN resolutions (specifically concerning Iraq and Saddam)? Do you support enforcing the UN resolutions? Answers to these questions are fundimental to this discussion. Many people do not support the UN, or its resolutions and therefore oppose the war. This is a very consistant and admirable position. Some people support the UN, its resolutions concerning Iraq, yet oppose the enforcement of them. This is obviously a very contradictory position. Where do you stand? Robb I do not recall the UN being behind the decision to invade Iraq (the second time). If you support the UN and are citing enforcing the resolutions as the reason for the most recent Bush invasion then you have to ask why the invasion took place over the objections of the UN. If you do not support the UN then the resolutions are a moot point and there must have been another reason for the invasion.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 28, 2004 8:05:35 GMT -5
Actually, you have to ask what is the point of making a resolution that you will not enforce. The UN obviously lacks the ability to enforce much of anything apart from the military might of the US.
Robb
|
|