Kerry: Many U.S. Military Back Him as Their Commander

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: boran
the problem is that bush has broken so many agreements made between the US and other countries that he just has no creddibility, he stepped out of kyoto, the nuclear treaty for his missle shield, he ignored the UN, etc ... despite what you may or may not think of those treaties and/or their validity the point still remains that bush has burned many bridges between the US and europe.

This is a 2-way road. Europe has done much to cause political tensions, too. The systematic elimination of human rights for minorities in Europe is a pretty big problem and causing a lot of concern and is probably affecting political ties.

However, economic ties have actually grown, and that would probably eventually affect political ties.

 

[boran]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: boran
the problem is that bush has broken so many agreements made between the US and other countries that he just has no creddibility, he stepped out of kyoto, the nuclear treaty for his missle shield, he ignored the UN, etc ... despite what you may or may not think of those treaties and/or their validity the point still remains that bush has burned many bridges between the US and europe.

This is a 2-way road. Europe has done much to cause political tensions, too. The systematic elimination of human rights for minorities in Europe is a pretty big problem and causing a lot of concern and is probably affecting political ties.

However, economic ties have actually grown, and that would probably eventually affect political ties.

here we go again with this minorities being oppressed in europe stuff ... yes there are extreme right paries, and yes they can get into the gouvernment (that's democracy, the ugly part, but still democracy) and I dont really agree with some of the choices the gouvernment of my country makes concerning illegal immigrants, but lets state ONE thing clear, here the illegal immigrants are targetted by law, if you're neturalised (this means just getting a belgium passport, or a temporary one untill your case has been handled) they have just as much rights and obligations as everyone else (one political party here want to change that, but thank god those havent gotten into the gouvernment yet. the day that happens I'll move outta here)

so I cannot speak for any other european countries but belgium, but the minorities here are not oppressed or deprived from their rights, illegal immigrants (which all want to get to great brittain by the way, cous the brits dont have any law concerning a system of personal identification) get sent back. I know it's sad, and I wish we could keep them, but then they just better ask for asile instead of staying in illegality by choice. also you have to realise, europe, unlike the US is simply running out of space, definetly a small country like belgium, last I tought we're with 10,000,000 ppls on this small piece of land which I think is smaller than any single US state (dont quote me on this, my knowledge of US states is very limited)

anyways, this is getting way off topic.
and since we have discussed this before I know this rant was once again useless.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: boran

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: boran
the problem is that bush has broken so many agreements made between the US and other countries that he just has no creddibility, he stepped out of kyoto, the nuclear treaty for his missle shield, he ignored the UN, etc ... despite what you may or may not think of those treaties and/or their validity the point still remains that bush has burned many bridges between the US and europe.

This is a 2-way road. Europe has done much to cause political tensions, too. The systematic elimination of human rights for minorities in Europe is a pretty big problem and causing a lot of concern and is probably affecting political ties.

However, economic ties have actually grown, and that would probably eventually affect political ties.

here we go again with this minorities being oppressed in europe stuff ... yes there are extreme right paries, and yes they can get into the gouvernment (that's democracy, the ugly part, but still democracy) and I dont really agree with some of the choices the gouvernment of my country makes concerning illegal immigrants, but lets state ONE thing clear, here the illegal immigrants are targetted by law, if you're neturalised (this means just getting a belgium passport, or a temporary one untill your case has been handled) they have just as much rights and obligations as everyone else (one political party here want to change that, but thank god those havent gotten into the gouvernment yet. the day that happens I'll move outta here)

so I cannot speak for any other european countries but belgium, but the minorities here are not oppressed or deprived from their rights, illegal immigrants (which all want to get to great brittain by the way, cous the brits dont have any law concerning a system of personal identification) get sent back. I know it's sad, and I wish we could keep them, but then they just better ask for asile instead of staying in illegality by choice. also you have to realise, europe, unlike the US is simply running out of space, definetly a small country like belgium, last I tought we're with 10,000,000 ppls on this small piece of land which I think is smaller than any single US state (dont quote me on this, my knowledge of US states is very limited)

anyways, this is getting way off topic.
and since we have discussed this before I know this rant was once again useless.

Well, I'm not really talking about illegal immigrants. Also, I'm talking about Europe as a whole since that's what it seems you were talking about.

Belgium does have a pretty hostile environment though.

I'm just saying that it's a 2 way street and the European governments as well as American are both responsible. I really think that the oppression of minorities in Europe is a big negative for Europe all over the world just like some of the actions the US is doing.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Sternfan
The fact that Kerry states foreign leaders want him is enough reason alone to vote against him. Do we want foreign leaders playing politics in our Country? This is why the Libs are trying to open up our voting booths to anyone with a pulse. After all H. Clinton is trying to give anyone with just a green card the right to vote and why so many Libs are apposed to showing an ID before you vote. There are already many states that don't require you to show an ID or proof that you are even registered to vote.

I completely disagree with you. I don't see this as Kerry bending over and doing what foreign leaders want him to do, but yet he will be open to their input and ideas. Whether people want to beleive it or not, it's not a good thing to have foreign nations, especially European nations against us. The whole world will never support us as once, but if we play the bully and agressor like we have the past few years, we're slowly going to dwindle our look to everyone else.

 

[Shad0hawK]

after reading that most here at Fort Hood have gone from thinking of kerry as a poser to thinking of him as a delusional poser.

 

[AndrewR]

Regarding the support of Europe for the current administration policies: Keep in mind that many (most?) in Europe regarded President Reagan's policies on the Soviet Union ludicrous as well, and history has proven that opposition to be completely misplaced.

I'm active duty, and I firmly support my CINC. The majority of the people I know do also. Anyone in uniform who supports a Democrat need only look at the last two Democratic administrations for reasons not to. Regardless of politics, the neglect under Carter and Clinton was bordering on criminal.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Regarding the support of Europe for the current administration policies: Keep in mind that many (most?) in Europe regarded President Reagan's policies on the Soviet Union ludicrous as well, and history has proven that opposition to be completely misplaced.

I'm active duty, and I firmly support my CINC. The majority of the people I know do also. Anyone in uniform who supports a Democrat need only look at the last two Democratic administrations for reasons not to. Regardless of politics, the neglect under Carter and Clinton was bordering on criminal.

And the activities under Nixon and Reagan WERE criminal. Since 1968 we've had four years of Carter and eight of Clinton that seems to be twelve out of thirty six or one third. But, that is really too far back to go... Reagan through Bush the Younger is more appropriate, I think and that would still be one third of the period under Democratic Executives, Clinton. During Clinton's term we recognized diminishing National Debt, A military more suited for the absence of Cold War demands, and a foreign policy consistent with world agreement - We are not the World's Policeman, the UN is. The military budget as approved by Congress provided technological innovation as well as Standard of Living improvements for the participants.
I guess I disagree with the notion that the Foreign Policy of the current Administration ought to be carried on for another four years neither should the domestic policy... however, until January 21, 2005 we all support the CINC. His is the President. But, come November it is my hope that he is not reelected. If he is well, then he'll get my support for another four years... and my voice in opposition to policy specifics, if I don't agree with them.

 

[AndrewR]

During Clinton's term we recognized diminishing National Debt, A military more suited for the absence of Cold War demands, and a foreign policy consistent with world agreement - We are not the World's Policeman, the UN is.

Cold War demands have been replaced by more widely varied and complicated demands which require a larger, more capable military than Clinton ever thought to maintain. At BEST, Clinton maintained a status quo in weapons capabilities while slashing numbers of people and equipment. At worst, he allowed the military infrastructure to wither and included meager military pay raises which barely kept pace with inflation (in fact, DIDN'T keep pace in one year, amounting to a wage decrease in real terms).

Foreign policy consistent with world agreement? God help us if you're ever in a position to make foreign policy or influence it in any way. Foreign policy must be conducted in a nation's interest, which sometimes but not always incorporates the needs and wants of the international community or at least allies and friends. However, basing foreign policy on the agreement of the world at large is stupid, naive, and ultimately doomed to failure. The "world" is not some altruistic place -- every country, just like the U.S., is out for their own advantage. Praying that someone else will keep your interests in mind is asinine.

Then there's the UN. The UN has proven time and time again that they are incapable of being any sort of enforcement body. There are simply too many voices and too many competing political goals to form any coherent policies, especially with the use of force. That's like having the public safety in your neighborhood in the hands of someone in a coma. Anyone who relies solely on the capabilities of the UN for decisive action is delusional. Europe? Ha, remember Bosnia?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

During Clinton's term we recognized diminishing National Debt, A military more suited for the absence of Cold War demands, and a foreign policy consistent with world agreement - We are not the World's Policeman, the UN is.

Cold War demands have been replaced by more widely varied and complicated demands which require a larger, more capable military than Clinton ever thought to maintain. At BEST, Clinton maintained a status quo in weapons capabilities while slashing numbers of people and equipment. At worst, he allowed the military infrastructure to wither and included meager military pay raises which barely kept pace with inflation (in fact, DIDN'T keep pace in one year, amounting to a wage decrease in real terms).

Foreign policy consistent with world agreement? God help us if you're ever in a position to make foreign policy or influence it in any way. Foreign policy must be conducted in a nation's interest, which sometimes but not always incorporates the needs and wants of the international community or at least allies and friends. However, basing foreign policy on the agreement of the world at large is stupid, naive, and ultimately doomed to failure. The "world" is not some altruistic place -- every country, just like the U.S., is out for their own advantage. Praying that someone else will keep your interests in mind is asinine.

Then there's the UN. The UN has proven time and time again that they are incapable of being any sort of enforcement body. There are simply too many voices and too many competing political goals to form any coherent policies, especially with the use of force. That's like having the public safety in your neighborhood in the hands of someone in a coma. Anyone who relies solely on the capabilities of the UN for decisive action is delusional. Europe? Ha, remember Bosnia?

Thank God the US has appointed itself Leader of the World.

Who else is fit to lead? France, Russia, China? Meh. USA ÜBER ALLES! WIR MÜSSEN DIE GANZE WELT UMFASSEN! It's our way or the highway, Buster. Do you feel lucky, well do you, Punk? You are either with us or against us etc. ad nauseam.

The name of the Game is FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
after reading that most here at Fort Hood have gone from thinking of kerry as a poser to thinking of him as a delusional poser.

Dude, I laughed so hard my wife had to come see what was so funny, no shes trying to catch her breath after having tea shoot out of her nose .

 

[conjur]

You're married?!?!

Oh, please don't reproduce!!!

 

[SgtBuddy]

I am AD Mil and I am not voting for Bush. Mil People say they don't want pay cuts under Kerry. hmmm...sounds like a big dose of ignorance to me.

 

[datrada]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Foreign leaders back him for president (he mets them in restaurants, remember?),
active military back him for president (but they do it "quietly"), what next..

space aliens back Kerry for President?


linky

no just the public

 

[SilentZero]

Im a medically retired veteran, and my wife is Active-duty, and we both give Kerry our support. Our reason? Anything or one is better than keeping Bush in for another term. Plus of course Kerry actually served this country during wartime, where as bush was dodging reserve duty.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
You're married?!?!

Oh, please don't reproduce!!!

Can Stepford wives produce children?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur
You're married?!?!

Oh, please don't reproduce!!!

Can Stepford wives produce children?

Im married and have children and comments about my wife are off limits, as they should be for all people here. Or should we discuss people who cannot keep a wife also?