Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Kerry slams Bush

  1. -1
    Nzone's Avatar
    Old School

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    2,232
    vCash:
    1000
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Kerry slams Bush

    "JOHN Kerry yesterday launched his strongest attack yet against George Bush’s handling of Iraq, saying the invasion had created a crisis that could lead to unending war.

    The Democrat contender for the White House said Mr Bush’s actions raised questions about whether his judgment is up to presidential standards.

    Mr Kerry, who had backed the president’s decision to go to war, said no responsible commander-in-chief would have waged the war knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and was not an imminent threat to the United States.

    "Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" the Democratic presidential candidate said at New York University.

    "Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no because a commander-in-chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe," Mr Kerry said."

    "Iraq was a profound diversion from [the threat of further terrorist attacks] and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists," Mr Kerry said. "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

    "He added: "By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded."



    http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1105572004


    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    PhinPhan1227's Avatar
    Why is there a watermelon there?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2002
    Posts:
    15,647
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    No matter where I go, there I am.
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzone
    [size=4][color=#000033][color=teal][size=2]"
    Mr Kerry, who had backed the president’s decision to go to war, said no responsible commander-in-chief would have waged the war knowing that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and was not an imminent threat to the United States.

    But knowing what he now knows, he would still support the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry should change his first name to Janus (those who know Greek mythology kindly help those who don't).
    - "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means -- either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . ."-Carl von Clausewitz-
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Nzone's Avatar
    Old School

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    2,232
    vCash:
    1000
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I totally agree with this..

    "Iraq was a profound diversion from [the threat of further terrorist attacks] and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists,"

    UBL is who we wanted to get. The oil companys wanted Saddam.. North Korea was a much greater threat, but guess what.. NO OIL... NK has proliferated WMD, fired missiles over Japan, made all kinds of threats of WMD.. but guess what.. NO OIL... If they ever get oil, they be a hugh danger to the world..
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    DeDolfan's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2003
    Posts:
    7,311
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Rehoboth Beach
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by PhinPhan1227
    But knowing what he now knows, he would still support the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry should change his first name to Janus (those who know Greek mythology kindly help those who don't).
    No he wouldn't. That's not what he said.
    DD..................the #1 Delaware Dolfan !!!



    Doing things you don't have to do today will help to determine where you'll be tomorrow when you can't do anything about it!
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    BigFinFan's Avatar
    The Only Fin Fan in SD

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2003
    Posts:
    4,597
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    San Diego
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzone
    I totally agree with this..

    "Iraq was a profound diversion from [the threat of further terrorist attacks] and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists,"

    UBL is who we wanted to get. The oil companys wanted Saddam.. North Korea was a much greater threat, but guess what.. NO OIL... NK has proliferated WMD, fired missiles over Japan, made all kinds of threats of WMD.. but guess what.. NO OIL... If they ever get oil, they be a hugh danger to the world..
    So, you would have supported President Bush if he had ordered us to invade/attack North Korea?

    North Korea made threats - UBL committed terrorist acts, Sadaam violated UN sanctions and murdered his own people.

    Who is the bigger threat?

    "And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: I served in the United States Navy" John F. Kennedy :navy:
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    PhinPhan1227's Avatar
    Why is there a watermelon there?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2002
    Posts:
    15,647
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    No matter where I go, there I am.
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by DeDolfan
    No he wouldn't. That's not what he said.

    That's EXACTLY what he said!! Where have you been?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Nzone's Avatar
    Old School

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    2,232
    vCash:
    1000
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by BigFinFan
    So, you would have supported President Bush if he had ordered us to invade/attack North Korea?
    North Korea made threats - UBL committed terrorist acts, Sadaam violated UN sanctions and murdered his own people.

    Who is the bigger threat?
    North Korea starves more people to death in one year than Saddam killed in ten. They have tons of WMD and have proliferated WMD to anybody with the bucks. But thats not the issue either. They have no OIL!

    We've seen genocide all over Africa.. Who are we removing? If they get oil, we're coming to the rescue!

    UBL committed terrorist acts, we put 20,000 troops in country the size Texas and what?.. scared them off? PhinPhan1227 said it takes roughly 20 support troops to put one combat soldier on the lines.. hmmmm.. So we have 1000 Infantry trying to catch the REAL badguys in a place the size of Texas. Not enough effort for what the scumbags did!

    Invade North Korea? Why, they have no Oil..
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    PhinPhan1227's Avatar
    Why is there a watermelon there?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2002
    Posts:
    15,647
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    No matter where I go, there I am.
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzone
    North Korea starves more people to death in one year than Saddam killed in ten. They have tons of WMD and have proliferated WMD to anybody with the bucks. But thats not the issue either. They have no OIL!

    We've seen genocide all over Africa.. Who are we removing? If they get oil, we're coming to the rescue!

    UBL committed terrorist acts, we put 20,000 troops in country the size Texas and what?.. scared them off? PhinPhan1227 said it takes roughly 20 support troops to put one combat soldier on the lines.. hmmmm.. So we have 1000 Infantry trying to catch the REAL badguys in a place the size of Texas. Not enough effort for what the scumbags did!

    Invade North Korea? Why, they have no Oil..

    Caveat...Spec Ops troops don't share that 20-1 ratio. Spec Ops units are more the reverse, probably 1-10. Ranger units operate almost autonimously. Even the medic in a Ranger battalion has an M-16 strapped to his back when he's working. Once again...either do some research, or ask before making a declaration. As for the rest...N. Korea is not an option for military intervention. The terrain is horrible, and the people, despite his treatment of them, support Kim religiously. Africa? Same thing. Lastly, neither region is a threat in the near, or far future to world oil supplies.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Nzone's Avatar
    Old School

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    2,232
    vCash:
    1000
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by PhinPhan1227
    Caveat...Spec Ops troops don't share that 20-1 ratio. Spec Ops units are more the reverse, probably 1-10. Ranger units operate almost autonimously. Even the medic in a Ranger battalion has an M-16 strapped to his back when he's working. Once again...either do some research, or ask before making a declaration. As for the rest...N. Korea is not an option for military intervention. The terrain is horrible, and the people, despite his treatment of them, support Kim religiously. Africa? Same thing. Lastly, neither region is a threat in the near, or far future to world oil supplies.
    Are you suggesting we have 20,000 Spec Ops troops in Afghanistan? See, I'm a little researched out, today...
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    PhinPhan1227's Avatar
    Why is there a watermelon there?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2002
    Posts:
    15,647
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    No matter where I go, there I am.
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzone
    Are you suggesting we have 20,000 Spec Ops troops in Afghanistan? See, I'm a little researched out, today...

    Last time I checked the 87th Airborne, and 10th Mountain are both in Afghanistan. I haven't looked up whether all of both units, or just portions of them are in Afghanistan, but I do know they are deployed there. The 87th is a Spec Op unit, and 10th Mountain is a Light Infantry unit. Still a much higher ratio of combat to support troops than a Mech Inf or straight Inf unit. And to my knowledge there are no artillery, engineering, or administrative units in Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, which have no ground combat personell.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Reggie Bush slams Buffalo women
    By number1fin in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-14-2012, 09:49 PM
  2. Obama Slams Bush's War Strategy
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-10-2008, 11:23 AM
  3. Bush slams Syria, Iran over Hezbollah
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2006, 09:38 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 06:59 AM
  5. Edwards Slams Bush Campaign's Ad 'Lies'
    By Nzone in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 07:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •