A quote from JFK that would never fly now

[Mile High Shack]

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." (John F. Kennedy)

we'd have to check with the global community first

[Rohirrim]

He was able to LEAD the UN. I wonder why Bush isn't?

[Mile High Shack]

america wasn't hated and envied like it is now

the 60's were a different time man, peace out

the UN wasn't as corrupt as it is now either.......that's a HUGE difference.

[bendog]

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/kennedy.htm

[TailgateNut]

[QUOTE=Mile High Shack]america wasn't hated and envied like it is now

QUOTE]

I wonder why? Could it have something to do with arrogance.

[Mile High Shack]

why do we need approval from corrupt governments (german, france and russia) to act for our own safety as a country?

does it need to pass a global test as kerry so eloquently stated?

[Rascal]

No.

[baja]

america wasn't hated and envied like it is now

the 60's were a different time man, peace out

the UN wasn't as corrupt as it is now either.......that's a HUGE difference.

Post 9/11 we had the sympathy of the world, they were completely ready to help eradicate the terror that carried out that attack since those days we have become the most despised nation on earth. Tell me why that is?

[bendog]

we don't, but 1. France and Germany are no more corrupt than anyother democracy and 2. Iraq had no abliltiy to attack us, so your presupposition that we rightfully acted in self-defense is faulty. And you're quote of JFK was out of context, because he was talking about INTERNATIONALISM

[Mile High Shack]

I can already tell you what the B.H. crew is going to say

Iraq wasn't a threat

then the argument starts in a circle again

this is tiresome, Nov 2nd can't come soon enough

[Mile High Shack]

Post 9/11 we had the sympathy of the world, they were completely ready to help eradicate the terror that carried out that attack since those days we have become the most despised nation on earth. Tell me why that is?

b/c France, German and Russia lost money b/c they didn't have their oil cash cow in Iraq anymore for one

[bendog]

It's not a circle. Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. Kaye has told us that. Blix told us that. The 9-11 Commission told us there was no link to 9-11. The only circle is your refusal to believe the facts.

And Nov2nd won't mean **** to the Americans who will die in this bs 'war.'

[Mile High Shack]

It's not a circle. Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. Kaye has told us that. Blix told us that. The 9-11 Commission told us there was no link to 9-11. The only circle is your refusal to believe the facts.

your right the 9-11 report stated that Iraq wasn't directly connected......Iraq wasn't about 9-11, it was about getting those that want to get us first.

9/11 changed how we look at terroism forever, we can't sit back and react, we have to move in motion before it's too late.

but it also stated that Sadaam wanted to get us to (not exact words obviously)

[Mile High Shack]

It's not a circle. Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. Kaye has told us that. Blix told us that. The 9-11 Commission told us there was no link to 9-11. The only circle is your refusal to believe the facts.

And Nov2nd won't mean **** to the Americans who will die in this bs 'war.'

so you propse just to leave Iraq now?

hmm..interesting

[bendog]

your right the 9-11 report stated that Iraq wasn't directly connected......Iraq wasn't about 9-11, it was about getting those that want to get us first.

9/11 changed how we look at terroism forever, we can't sit back and react, we have to move in motion before it's too late.

but it also stated that Sadaam wanted to get us to (not exact words obviously)

yet, Saddam lacked the means to attack us in a year (actually 3 at best) and even that was forestalled with inspections .... so again, why did JR invade?

Just be honest. It was about nation building in the ME. that was a good idea, but his failure to abide JFK's caution about multinationalism has put our troops in a bad spot.

[TailgateNut]

we'd have to check with the global community first!!

No, we can just go and attack anyone as we please, without a reasonable plan, using any excuses to justifiy our decisions.
I watched the debate last night with an open but slightly biased mind, but now I'm truly emmbarrased to have that idiot as my president!
One more month of this Bu****!

[Mile High Shack]

Just be honest. It was about nation building in the ME. that was a good idea, but his failure to abide JFK's caution about multinationalism has put our troops in a bad spot.

Plain and unadulterated Bull ****

it's not nation building

this is tiresome, I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me

what is the point of this?

[Rohirrim]

Shack, you're so spun around on this one I'm surprised you're not vomiting from the dizziness.

Bush's "go it alone" strategy has already put nukes in NKorea and Iran. Just think what else he could accomplish? ;D

[bendog]

I'm not sure what the pt is, but damned if I'll just give you a pass on misquoting JFK for support in BushII's nation building exercise, or give you a pass on posting that Saddam posed some credible near term threat to America.

And, for a hairbringer of the future for us in Iraq, you can't successfully nation build without disraming the populace first:

The American refusal to face up to the consequences of its intervention
was especially damaging to the critical issue of disarmament. Roughly 30,000
in number when they arrived, U.S. troops had more power than anyone and
therefore the greatest capability to disarm the belligerent forces. However,
U.S. officials told the Somali warlords that they could keep their weapons
if they moved the arms out of Mogadishu or into their respective cantonments.
The failure to disarm the warlords was a tragic mistake because a concentrated
effort to remove and destroy the Somalis' heavy arms was possible and would
have sent an early and strong message that the United States and United
Nations were serious about restoring order. Many Somalis fully expected
to be disarmed and were surprised at the inaction of the U.S.-led intervention
force. Ironically, all the Somali factions subsequently agreed to disarm
themselves in the Addis Ababa accords of March 1993. The United States
could have argued that, as an impartial force, it was helping to enforce
an accord among Somalis themselves.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR773/MR773

[Taco John]

If what we're doing in Iraq isn't nation-building... It's certainly the opposite.

[Mile High Shack]

I'm not sure what the pt is, but damned if I'll just give you a pass on misquoting JFK for support in BushII's nation building exercise, or give you a pass on posting that Saddam posed some credible near term threat to America.

And, for a hairbringer of the future for us in Iraq, you can't successfully nation build without disraming the populace first:

The American refusal to face up to the consequences of its intervention
was especially damaging to the critical issue of disarmament. Roughly 30,000
in number when they arrived, U.S. troops had more power than anyone and
therefore the greatest capability to disarm the belligerent forces. However,
U.S. officials told the Somali warlords that they could keep their weapons
if they moved the arms out of Mogadishu or into their respective cantonments.
The failure to disarm the warlords was a tragic mistake because a concentrated
effort to remove and destroy the Somalis' heavy arms was possible and would
have sent an early and strong message that the United States and United
Nations were serious about restoring order. Many Somalis fully expected
to be disarmed and were surprised at the inaction of the U.S.-led intervention
force. Ironically, all the Somali factions subsequently agreed to disarm
themselves in the Addis Ababa accords of March 1993. The United States
could have argued that, as an impartial force, it was helping to enforce
an accord among Somalis themselves.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR773/MR773

my quote had nothing to do with it

the place where I work...the home page has a quote a day from various sources...I just found it interesting....that's all.

I just thought the quote could be some interesting discussion, but of course the B.H. crowd turns it around to make me look evil.

whatever..........

[Captain_Poncho]

He was able to LEAD the UN. I wonder why Bush isn't?

Because the UN isn't in the business of following the U.S. lead – a strong USA isn't in their best interests. The UN is interested in getting the USA away from being independent from the UN, so the EU can become a greater global influence.

The UN, in short, does not, nor will they ever, have the best interests of the US in mind. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[DrFate]

Bush's "go it alone" strategy has already put nukes in NKorea and Iran. Just think what else he could accomplish? ;D

Silliest thing I have ever read on the Mane (including all the talk from the KC fans). I didn't realize that North Korea and Iran started their nuclear ambitions hours after the the Iraqi war started...

:kiddingme

[RaiderH8r]

Hell yes we're nation building. Two words, Marshall Plan.

[orangeatheist]

Saddam lacked the means to attack us in a year (actually 3 at best) and even that was forestalled with inspections .... so again, why did JR invade?

Saddam monetarily compensated families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Who was to say he couldn't or wouldn't (or wasn't) fund an attack on the US? Bush stated, to the applause of the country following 9-11, that we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored terrorists. It wasn't stated that only Osama was on our list. Many different threads of intelligence stated that Saddam was harboring not only ill-will toward the US but also a means by which to carry out one of his own attacks.

While the 9-11 Commission did not find any links between Saddam and 9-11 it is an indisputable fact that terrorists were in Iraq and trained there. I think Bush made his case against Iraq by simply stating that we'd go after terrorists and the countries that harbor them (regardless of their link with Osama). I think he sold the WMD a bit hard (politicans tend to do that) based upon faulty intel but there was enough reason beside that point to take Saddam out.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

I am the OrangeAtheist and I approve this message.

[Rohirrim]

Because the UN isn't in the business of following the U.S. lead – a strong USA isn't in their best interests. The UN is interested in getting the USA away from being independent from the UN, so the EU can become a greater global influence.

The UN, in short, does not, nor will they ever, have the best interests of the US in mind. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Funny. Clinton didn't seem to have too many problems leading the agenda. Neither did Bush I or Reagan. I guess this is a recent conspiracy? ???

[bendog]

Orangeathiest, I agree. However, by saying Saddam posed such a vital and immediate threat to AMERICA that unilateral action without Sec. Council approval was legal, bushII lied. I recall in late 02, when the senate authorized force, I thought it was necessary because the though of Saddam having smallpox scared me more than I've ever been scared. I finally got to the position where if I died, my Kid wouldn't be destitute or fall back to the working poor, and THEN the notion of her experiencing, and likely being killed or maimed, by some despot was unnerving. But, we knew befor ethe invasion there was no bug in Iraq. And, Saddam didn't pose a threat to Israel's existence either - he did when they took out his nuke program, but not in 2003 - hamas is getting ass kicked. We went in to build a democracy in the ME. That is the wolfowitz agenda.

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. In fact, I think its a good aim, and prolly necessary for the 'war on terror.' But, it's a risky venture. Most people say the chance of failure is greater than success. And, BushII has downplayed the cost. 1050 dead and counting. 4Billion is prolly lowball. Moreover, by going unilaterally without muslim allies, our chances of success are lower. And, the decision to invade in 2003 was political, not a matter of national survival. The French offered 20K troops to enforce inspections. We've overthrown a multitude of dictators without committing the bulk of our troops. BushII gambled that 'we'd be welcomed with flowers' (rumsfeld) and he'd cruise for reelction.

I really couldn't care whether he or Kerry is potus. I don't see much difference on intl affairs, and frankly I'd be better off financially with BushII, though I'd prefer shifting taxes from the working poor. But, a potus can't lie about why he decides to take the country on some rather dicey fundamental shift in polciy. We may come out ok in this. But, so long as we aren't told the truth about the aims and objectives AND the cost, I think our already slim chances get worse.

[RaiderH8r]

Funny. Clinton didn't seem to have too many problems leading the agenda. Neither did Bush I or Reagan. I guess this is a recent conspiracy? ???
It's Rove. He's the puppet master.

[TexanBob]

Imagine if another country invaded California and, in 18 months, had secured everywhere in the state but Berkeley, Eureka and a section of Los Angeles. And that army lost a tad over 1,000 soldiers in the process. They had a provisional government in place and promised elections within another six months.

Would you say the invaders had failed? That they were stuck in a costly quagmire with no exit strategy? Would you compare it to Vietnam?

No, you wouldn't. But this is the lie the American media and the Bush-haters want you to believe is the case in Iraq because a few pockets of resistence have yet to be extinguished.

The only way the mission will fail is if the coalition loses their will because folks back home with their own political agendas force an early withdrawal before the work is finished. That's exactly what will happen if Kerry becomes president. All his mixed signals are to disguise the conclusion, based on his Senate track record, that he is one who can talk tough but bugs out as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Bush's "go it alone" strategy has already put nukes in NKorea and Iran. Just think what else he could accomplish? ;D

Really? So who was the President who sold the nuclear reactors to North Korea that are now being used to get the fuel for those weapons? Sure wasn't Bush, I think that was Bill Clinton. Seemed last night that Bush was for multilateral talks with the North Koreans, doesn't seem like he's going at it alone and that's always been his policy with North Korea. I belive it was John Kerry who wants bilateral talks with North Korea, seems like he's the one that wants to "go it alone". I know you watched the debate Ro, you might want to actually listen to what both candidates said. Of course Bush has allowed the IAEA (you know, a mulitnational NGO) to do its job, seems to be pretty impotent, kind of like the UN.

The sale of nuclear reactors to Iran by Russia occurred in '98. Who was President then? Maybe he should have done more to stop that from occuring since it was pretty obvious what they would be used for.

So I guess Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions started the day the US invaded Iraq? Seems to me you sound a lot like John Kerry, and simply take the opposing view to George Bush's, period.

[TexanBob]

Orangeathiest, I agree. However, by saying Saddam posed such a vital and immediate threat to AMERICA that unilateral action without Sec. Council approval was legal, bushII lied.

First, it's a lie that Bush ever called Iraq an "immediate threat". In fact, he said the purpose was to invade now BEFORE it became an immediate threat.

Secondly, it's a lie that America invaded Iraq unilaterally. The left conveniently forgets all the countries that joined us in this effort, including Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, etc. Just because the smelly French aren't there (as if it would go any better because they were) is no reason to denigrate those who are.

So, now you've lied twice just in your first two sentences. Good thing you aren't president.

[RaiderH8r]

Really? So who was the President who sold the nuclear reactors to North Korea that are now being used to get the fuel for those weapons? Sure wasn't Bush, I think that was Bill Clinton. Seemed last night that Bush was for multilateral talks with the North Koreans, doesn't seem like he's going at it alone and that's always been his policy with North Korea. I belive it was John Kerry who wants bilateral talks with North Korea, seems like he's the one that wants to "go it alone". I know you watched the debate Ro, you might want to actually listen to what both candidates said. Of course Bush has allowed the IAEA (you know, a mulitnational NGO) to do its job, seems to be pretty impotent, kind of like the UN.

The sale of nuclear reactors to Iran by Russia occurred in '98. Who was President then? Maybe he should have done more to stop that from occuring since it was pretty obvious what they would be used for.

So I guess Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions started the day the US invaded Iraq? Seems to me you sound a lot like John Kerry, and simply take the opposing view to George Bush's, period.
Maybe if they had some viagra they could go from impotent to important. HA. Sorry, it was just too good of a typo to pass up. :militia:

[Hercules Rockefeller]

that wasn't a type, the IAEA is impotent in its ability to do its job and monitor nations. They were monitoring both Iranian and North Korean nuclear facilities and one now has the Bomb and the other is probably very close.

[RaiderH8r]

that wasn't a type, the IAEA is impotent in its ability to do its job and monitor nations. They were monitoring both Iranian and North Korean nuclear facilities and one now has the Bomb and the other is probably very close.
Very well then..Viagra it is. :pimp:

[bendog]

First, it's a lie that Bush ever called Iraq an "immediate threat". In fact, he said the purpose was to invade now BEFORE it became an immediate threat.

Secondly, it's a lie that America invaded Iraq unilaterally. The left conveniently forgets all the countries that joined us in this effort, including Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, etc. Just because the smelly French aren't there (as if it would go any better because they were) is no reason to denigrate those who are.

So, now you've lied twice just in your first two sentences. Good thing you aren't president.
he said 'mushroom cloud.' The irony is that since Truman, and prolly before, we consistently said that if we knew an enemy had womd and planned to attack us we'd attack first. BushII has no new policy, except that he now announces he will attack countries with no ability to attack us

And it's unilateral cause its a coalition of the "billing"

[Maximus]

why do we need approval from corrupt governments (german, france and russia) to act for our own safety as a country?

does it need to pass a global test as kerry so eloquently stated?

Do you know how Cowboys used to catch Buffalo on the plains... They would get them to stampeed off of a cliff... This is what the GOP is doing to people like you Mile High... It's something like a lemming...

Here's what Kerry said verbatim:

"The President always has the right and will always have the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine through out the cold war. And It was always one of the things we always argued about with respect to arms control. No President through all American history has ever ceeded and nor would I the right to preempt in anyway necessary to protect the United States Of America. But, if and when you do it Jim... you've got to do it in a way THAT PASSES THE TEST... PASSES THE GLOBAL TEST WHERE YOUR COUNTRYMEN YOUR PEOPLE UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY YOU'RE DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. And you can prove to the world... That you did it for a legitimate reason."

( My Source is the cspan broadcast which I recorded on Tivo and quoted verbatim using my pause button LOL )

When Kerry said this it was in reference to the American People. He wasn't talking about any outside country. If you have any communication skills you would readily be able to understand the fact that Kerry would explain his preemption to other countries but, he didn't in anyway shape or form say that he was looking for their approval. He would look for Americas approval!

[Mile High Shack]

screw you buddy

I didnt' ask your opinion I didn't listen to any spin afterwards

I listened to the debates myself

passes the global test fits what kerry believes, he believes that america needs permission

so screw you

[Maximus]

Silliest thing I have ever read on the Mane (including all the talk from the KC fans). I didn't realize that North Korea and Iran started their nuclear ambitions hours after the the Iraqi war started...

:kiddingme

North Korea started after Bush abandoned all of the agreements that were made by the Clinton Administration... Madeline Albright had a deal on the table and was totally shocked by Kim Jhong Il's complete agreement to disarm. Bush comes into the office and breaks off all talks... and calls North Korea part of the "EVIL AXIS"

[Maximus]

screw you buddy

I didnt' ask your opinion I didn't listen to any spin afterwards

I listened to the debates myself

passes the global test fits what kerry believes, he believes that america needs permission

so screw you

You obviously didn't listen to the debate without spinning then because that quote came directly from the Debate!

And Furthermore I don't care if you asked for my opinion. The problem is... My opinion holds the truth your opinion is nothing more than Republican Party Rhetoric!

[W*GS]

North Korea started after Bush abandoned all of the agreements that were made by the Clinton Administration...

Baloney. North Korea began breaking the agreements they made with us before the ink was dry on 'em. It's not at all the case that they went "bad" as soon as Bush was sworn in.

Sheesh. Get yer facts and recent history right.

[watermock]

The Global Test?

You have to be kidding me.

What are you people buying?

We need a "Global Test" before acting according to Kerry?

Holy Moses

It's incredible. Now we have to ask permission of the "world body" before we can defend our own national security?

Listen to what Kerry said. Spin it all you want. He said that we need mother's permission to defend our national security interests. Do you think in one second that other countries have our own national security interests in mind when they give their opinions?

You idiots, they will all give their own interests first priority. Jesus Christ.