Twin Speeches

[arsbanned]

John Kerry and VP Cheney gave speeches today regarding Iraq.

Here's a snippet from Kerry's:

"We're still bogged down in Iraq, and the administration stubbornly holds to failed, unilateral policies that drive potential, significant, important, long-standing allies away from us," Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in a speech at George Washington University here. "What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting cost in dollars to the American taxpayer, with no end in sight."

Here
Nobody can dispute anything he said there. Are we not bogged down in Iraq? Are we not seeing a steady loss of lives and ever mounting costs? Go ahead, dispute this with facts. I'd love to see where I've gone wrong with the available information.

And Cheney's:

"American policy must be clear and consistent in its purposes," Mr. Cheney continued. "And American leaders ? above all the commander in chief ? must be confident in our nation's cause, and unwavering until the danger to our people is fully and finally removed."

Huh? Without first capturing Bin Ladin and finishing up Afghanistan, this admin rushes to war with another unrelated country under false pretenses, alienating nearly the rest of the World in the process, and we should rely on them to keep us safe? They're making us less safe if anything.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

the long-term goal of creating a stable democracy in the middle east, in hops of spreading economic and personal freedoms that will eliminate base desires of those that join the terrorists, is kind of hard to get into a sound-byte speech.

in the long-run we can only hope that there was anything to do about terrorism, but if their was, this was it.

 

[arsbanned]

the long-term goal of creating a stable democracy in the middle east

And we should do this why? It shouldn't be up to the U.S. to "create democracy blah blah" though I would dispute that's what we're doing over there. We're killing people. INnocent people are getting killed. If that is what creating democracy means, then I want no part of it.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

And we should do this why?

because it will stem the tide of new terrorists, we hope.

Innocent people are getting killed. If that is what creating democracy means, then I want no part of it.

i feel your pain on this bro; but i believe that we are honestly trying to serve the greater good and that the innocents that die aren't because of our intent, but often because of the intent of those we are trying to put an end to.

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: arsbanned If that is what creating democracy means, then I want no part of it.

then leave it

 

[arsbanned]

Yeah, I've thought about it. I may.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

And we should do this why?

because it will stem the tide of new terrorists, we hope.

Innocent people are getting killed. If that is what creating democracy means, then I want no part of it.

i feel your pain on this bro; but i believe that we are honestly trying to serve the greater good and that the innocents that die aren't because of our intent, but often because of the intent of those we are trying to put an end to.

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

Who are you referring to that we liberating from "religious tyranny"?

 

[arsbanned]

Yeah, exactly. They don't know. Just..ya know..anyone who isn't...free...that thing..Bush says, ya know, Democracy....

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

And we should do this why?

because it will stem the tide of new terrorists, we hope.

Innocent people are getting killed. If that is what creating democracy means, then I want no part of it.

i feel your pain on this bro; but i believe that we are honestly trying to serve the greater good and that the innocents that die aren't because of our intent, but often because of the intent of those we are trying to put an end to.

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

Last I checked Saddam was a secular ruler.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

When did we invade Israel to bring liberty to the Palestinians?!?!?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

When did we invade Israel to bring liberty to the Palestinians?!?!?

that doesn't change our self-serving but noble intent in this.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

When did we invade Israel to bring liberty to the Palestinians?!?!?

that doesn't change our self-serving but noble intent in this.

Whaa? I have no idea what you mean. What's "that" and what's "this"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

And we should do this why?

because it will stem the tide of new terrorists, we hope.

You're kidding, right? We cannot force democracy upon the Arab world. It has to come from them. Bush's pre-emptive move into Iraq has only raised the level of hatred of the U.S. amongst the Arabs.

Innocent people are getting killed. If that is what creating democracy means, then I want no part of it.

i feel your pain on this bro; but i believe that we are honestly trying to serve the greater good and that the innocents that die aren't because of our intent, but often because of the intent of those we are trying to put an end to.

in the end we can only hope that our best efforts to bring liberty to those repressed by religious tyranny will make the world a safer place.

What religious tyranny? Saddam was a secular leader. Iraq will now most likely *have* a theocracy.

Or, are you saying we're going to purge the ultra-fundamentalist Christians from our own nation?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You're kidding, right? We cannot force democracy upon the Arab world. It has come from them. Bush's preemptive move into Iraq has only raised the level of hatred of the U.S. amongst the Arabs.

the intent is to bring representative democracy and an open market civilizing the place and brining better standards of living and education. Less wahbism.

Last I checked Saddam was a secular ruler

but he was an oppressor of the religious majority in his country, a mass murderer of those with faith that disagreed with his own. He didn't need his own religion as reason for this, just that they had a religion that wasn't compatible w/ him.

The real problem with the middle east is Iran, which if we get d divergent views to work in Iraq we can help allow the non mu-la-run majority take it's rational role in iran, then we'll not need worry about nuclear attacks or proliferation from them.

Or, are you saying we're going to purge the ultra-fundamentalist Christians from our own nation?

why the constant hate of those with faith? feel like a big man picking on people because of their convictions? Make you feel Superior to them? or do you know that God loves you and need constant verification of why you hate Him?

honestly, that's between you and your soul; but I'd appreciate you not constantly insulting people of faith because of the faith, instead of the people's actions;