-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What is kerry actually bringing to the table
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Bowfinger
Lifer
What a crock, especially the "Give Up his Commander and Cheif Duties to Koffi Anon" sheep-dip chanted mindlessly by the Bush fanboys. Good sheep. Bleat some more, little sheep. BAA. BAA.
:roll: Give it a rest, already.
What Kerry would do is one of those nuanced things called "diplomacy". You might want to look into it. It was all the rage among leaders of both parties until your feckless leader crawled into office. While I'm sure King George's Rambo-esque "I can kick the world's ass" routine is quite exciting to those suffering from a testosterone overdose or stunted intellectual development, it is the wrong approach to securing the United States' long-term security and prosperity. You see, even though we're the world's only remaining superpower -- for now -- we are still greatly outnumbered, outgunned, out-GDPed, and generally outclassed if the rest of the world comes together. They're getting tired of George kicking sand in their faces.
Furthermore, we need the rest of the world's help to fight terrorism (as opposed to pretending to fight terrorism by invading Iraq). Bush and his loyal syncophants need give their egos a rest and acknowledge we need the world on our side. We've lost this with Bush. Kerry will help restore it.
If elected president, John F Kerry would...
''I think there is a fundamental difference here in terms of their approach to the world," said Samuel L. Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, who now advises Kerry. ''I think this administration believes you go it alone and you use allies when necessary, and I think John believes that you use allies whenever possible and go it alone when necessary."
''I think there is a fundamental difference here in terms of their approach to the world," said Samuel L. Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, who now advises Kerry. ''I think this administration believes you go it alone and you use allies when necessary, and I think John believes that you use allies whenever possible and go it alone when necessary."
EXman
Lifer
Sorry Bowfinger the UN is a bunch of corrupt power hungry pussies with a Fvck the US attitude ever realize that.
Do you think the Iraq Oil for food deal wasn't corrupt?
Did the Iraqis get screwed by the same UN policy?
Did the UN turn Tail in Iraq when they lost a few people?
answer the questions with out posing another question or some piece of liberal drivel.
Do you think the Iraq Oil for food deal wasn't corrupt?
Did the Iraqis get screwed by the same UN policy?
Did the UN turn Tail in Iraq when they lost a few people?
answer the questions with out posing another question or some piece of liberal drivel.
xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Banned
"Hell, I like you; you can come over to my house a fck my sister." 🙂 What movie is that from...escapes me this morning.
biostud
Lifer
.....Because he wasn't able to gather all western countries against Saddam.
AFAIK know he might wanna make it illegal to get an abortion, it's not who's paying that concerns me. When I said 'free' it was not the cost, but the right for a woman to choose for herself.
Basically I'm against weapons for civil persons. And I know that this cannot be achieved in US, but personally I would think that a tighter control, and banning of full automatic weapons would be a good idea. I know it can be discussed for hours wether you should or shouldn't or if it can be done. I just state why I wouldn't vote for Bush, beacuse I think differently of him in this case.
Politics and religion shouldn't be mixed and, I think that his visions about how a society based on his interpretations of the Bible sounds pretty scary. I don't have problems with people believing in god, and getting their values from religion, I just don't share GWBs version of what these values are. I would fear for my right to live differently.
Denmark, our economy is ofcourse not as strong as the Finnish (most competetive in the world, US 2nd), but we're doing far better than Germany and France.
I really like your comment about civil war. It's one of those bitter comments which just make me laugh, except that you might actually belive it. Also you seem to forget that the everything in the world (The Industrialized at least) is global, so if it goes awry in Europe it's going to hit US and the rest of the wolrd aswell.
I'm just glad I'm not paying for it. 🙂
J Heartless Slick
Golden Member
I am going to vote for Kerry because of:
1. His choices for the two or three Supreme Court justices.
2. His domestic policies.
3. His foreign policies.
4. His economic policies.
1. Because all the western countries were either dealing arms with Iraq or in cahoots with the UN with oil for food
2. Abortion is a personal opinion thing no one can be happy with this one, i see the choice stopping at consensual sex (rape excluded of course)
3. Countries that allow citizens to carry guns see a decrease in crime.
"Between April and November 2001, the number of murders in the Metopolitan Police area [of london] committed with a firearm soard by almost 90 percet over the same period a year earlier... Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld. No one knows how many ullegal firearms there are in Britain, although estimates range from between 200,000 to several million. Whatever the true figure, it is said to be growing daily" - A country in the crosshairs BBC News
At least in American law abiding citizens can fight back
3. A president who doesn't Belive in God scares me more
4. Us dollar really has the most buying power, and our economy was in a depression, now thanks to the current administratio we are recovering.
5. In US security is job number 1 for our government. I am more upset about my taxes going to some bum who refuses to find a job.
As a side not the UN is corrupt, all the nations like the UN because it gives them control over us.
No, but we haven't killed that many terrorists anyway.
tnitsuj was referring, I'm sure, to the deceptive war on Iraq and the fact that our unilateral move (along with some bribed members of a coalition of the "willing") has destroyed our foreign relations and shed our credibility to the rest of the world. Oh, and throw in the ill-written Patriot Act, too.
PingSpike
Lifer
Actually, its more like killing Iraqis, nation building and letting the terrorists run around and regroup. Last time I checked, bin laden was alive, well, and threatening the United States. The United States is a powerful nation, if Bush had made finding bin laden a priority like he said he was going too, we shouldn't have had any problem in finding him by now.
But that would have disrupted our expensive little detour to iraq.
Al Qaeda is still going strong. They've attacked Madrid, Spain pretty harshly and cells and plots are being found almost weekly now. It's not going away.
Also, you think we've made progress in Afghanistan? Then why is Afghanistan pleading for billions in aid? Why are people still being killed by the Taliban? Why do warlords still control large sections of the country?
xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Banned
Though I am not sure if you have ever been to Iraq and took a 'head-count' of the dead, let's assume your statistics are correct and, as I often like to say, extend your argument to its logical absurdity (not a long trip, per usual). How many lives, then, have been saved by killing X-number of terrorists and x*100 innocent Iraqis? I am not sure what methodologies you employed, but nevertheless, let?s assume 10 terrorists have the potential to kill, say, 3,000 innocent Americans. If we were to kill 10 terrorists in Iraq who have this potential, using your formula, this would result in the death of 1,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, correct? Is it not the case, therefore, that we are actually saving more lives than we are taking, all else constant?
we are actually saving more lives than we are taking
Yup, we have to kill to save. Take the Palestinians and Israelis. If we killed them all right now with say a neutron bomb, we would prevent them from killing many more over say the next thousand years. A stitch in time saves nine.
Yup, we have to kill to save. Take the Palestinians and Israelis. If we killed them all right now with say a neutron bomb, we would prevent them from killing many more over say the next thousand years. A stitch in time saves nine.
Bowfinger
Lifer
That is so wrong on so many levels. You are really a vile person. :disgust: Aside from your callous disregard for human life -- did you ever figure out Iraqis are human too, Mr. "300 dead"? -- your analysis skills suck. If you truly are a government economist, I can see why you worship the Bush-lite administration. They also excel at taking bits of facts out of context to create absurd deceptions, e.g., aluminum tubes becomes "Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program."
xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Banned
Judging from your comments directed toward me, am I to assume that you want to revise your methodologies for calculating the aforementioned statistics?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
