YA: Bush Kerry Thread

[Gamingphreek]

Everyone has their different opinions about who should be president and i respect that. However, there is one thing i do not understand. Kerry continues to say under him the world will be a better place, and that he would have gotten a bunch of Nations together before attacking IRAQ, etc.

Just out of curiositywhat does he think is going to happen when he comes into office. Is he just going to look around and say "Its allright guys, its me, im president now, im going to fix EVERYTHING".

What are your guys take on this. Later on i have a passage that my dad sent me right after 9-11 that i thought was really good, i will post it but i want other peoples opinions on this first.

-Kevin

 

[chess9]

Kerry will have a January surprise. Obi Wan Kenobi will appear on Kerry's left shoulder and lead us into the millenium. Didn't you get the memo?

Uh, yeah, Bush should be re-elected for no other reason than he should be made to clean up his own mess. If Bush hadn't run, what would you expect some other Republican to do with this mess? Just carry on like it's a big friggin' success in Iraq?

-Robert

 

[DanJ]

This argument makes it sound like no one will ever be able to fix the international mess that Bush has created with the U.S. and the world.

Just because Bush can't do it doesn't mean Kerry can't start the process. Its called new credibility and a new way of looking at things. Two things that wouldn't happen under Bush's 2nd term. Just more of the same crap.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I see where you are coming from but, its not like Bush doesn't care about the situation. He is trying... John Keery acts like when he comes to office.. BAM everything is right and good, it almost appears as if he doesn't realize that isn't going to happen.

I would call Iraq a mess, but having the UN backing us wouldn't make much difference. I mean we have plenty of forces its just its not a real "war" it is small arms, and heavy crime. REALLY heavy.

-Kevin

 

[chess9]

So, if the guy who cuts your lawn cut it to 1/64 of an inch every week for 6 months would you rehire him?

Do you think competence matters? Or, are you willing to keep the devil you know because you don't have any reason to trust a democrat or are you a blind party loyalist?

I'm not sure you are making the case for Kerry being worse than Bush simply because he can't give you the magic words that will make the "BOO-BOO" that is Iraq all better.

-Robert

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I see where you are coming from but, its not like Bush doesn't care about the situation. He is trying... John Keery acts like when he comes to office.. BAM everything is right and good, it almost appears as if he doesn't realize that isn't going to happen.

I would call Iraq a mess, but having the UN backing us wouldn't make much difference. I mean we have plenty of forces its just its not a real "war" it is small arms, and heavy crime. REALLY heavy.

-Kevin

He's trying? Based on what exactly? And how would I know if he wasn't trying. This "hard work" argument is so played out. He's the President of the United States for Christ's sake. Start thinking of him as more then just an average Joe supposedly doing his best out there.

We have plenty of forces? Is that why our national guard and reserves are on their 3rd and 4th tours of duty? If we had an international coalition where we didn't have 90% of the cost and the casualties I think that make "much difference"

Its not going to be like BAM; that's not how things work. I'd imagine everyone can understand that. But Kerry would bring new credibility and a new way of looking at things, and he'd most likely take a better stance on getting countries involved in all facets, including reconstruction.

 

[umbrella39]

that he would have gotten a bunch of Nations together before attacking IRAQ

He never said he would have attacked Iraq (coalition or not). He only voted to give the President (any President) the due authority to use invasion as a last resort. Not a first resort. As for what will happen in January if Kerry should win? Who knows what state Iraq will be by then.

 

[TravisT]

Well, I have a few other reasons why I won't be voting for Kerry and this is one of them. He told us in debates that he wanted to get France and Germany involved. Now, giving countries something offer, meaning paying countries to get involved might be one thing. But France and Germany, these countries that carry has stressed so much about getting involved, I was reading somewhere, that they would not be helping out in Iraq anytime soon regardless of who is President.

So people that are saying the two things combined, as Kerry is..

"We have spent way to much in Iraq"

and

"We need to get other countries involved in Iraq"

They are simply kidding themselves and conflict with eachother. Kerry criticized Bush for not letting other countries that have not assisted with the war bid on contracts to help rebuild the country. Well, guess what, us, the American citizen paid for a huge portion of the war. The only way to relieve some of that debt is to get the money coming back into the country by having American companies win most of the contracts to rebuild there.

So, in reality, countries don't want anything to do with Iraq, and they won't probably for the next 10 years. And the only way to get them involved is the number 1 resource that drives people to do things that they may not want to do, money. Which means a large portion of Kerry's ideas isn't going to keep us out of debt as he mentions, he is either going to send us further in debt, or we'll continue fighting the war alone.... most likely a mixture of both if Kerry is in office.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Just out of curiositywhat does he think is going to happen when he comes into office. Is he just going to look around and say "Its allright guys, its me, im president now, im going to fix EVERYTHING".

No. But he's going to try. Where are you trying to go with this?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, I have a few other reasons why I won't be voting for Kerry and this is one of them. He told us in debates that he wanted to get France and Germany involved. Now, giving countries something offer, meaning paying countries to get involved might be one thing. But France and Germany, these countries that carry has stressed so much about getting involved, I was reading somewhere, that they would not be helping out in Iraq anytime soon regardless of who is President.

They are simply kidding themselves and conflict with eachother. Kerry criticized Bush for not letting other countries that have not assisted with the war bid on contracts to help rebuild the country. Well, guess what, us, the American citizen paid for a huge portion of the war. The only way to relieve some of that debt is to get the money coming back into the country by having American companies win most of the contracts to rebuild there.

So, in reality, countries don't want anything to do with Iraq, and they won't probably for the next 10 years. And the only way to get them involved is the number 1 resource that drives people to do things that they may not want to do, money. Which means a large portion of Kerry's ideas isn't going to keep us out of debt as he mentions, he is either going to send us further in debt, or we'll continue fighting the war alone.... most likely a mixture of both if Kerry is in office.

Actually, Germany recently suggested they'd be more open to the idea under Kerry.

As for the reconstruction. You make it sound like Haliburton's CEOs are out on the front lines fighting in Falujah and thus they should be given the bounty of cash to be made, even while they overcharge U.S. tax payers and make a tremendous amount more then do American soldiers for doing far easier tasks. Its a ridiculous rule; they're just lining their pockets.

Surrounding countries do have a stake in a successful Iraq; a failed Iraq could bring about a lot of things, none of which are good. Countries can be brought to see that, and offered incentives to help them on that path, but unfortunately not through this leader, thus continuing to increase the American strain both in lives and in money.

 

[nakedfrog]

Do you think other countries would be more likely to trust someone who avoided a war and then started one, or someone who fought in a war and wants to end one?

 

[TravisT]

Well, considering Kerry hasn't made it very clear on which side of the fence he sits on, I tend to believe that they will trust a guy who has one stance on the war.

Not to mention, Kerry is beginning to sound just like he did when he came back from Vietnam... surely we don't want or need a relapse of that....

Also, I don't feel this is a matter of trust. Undoubtedly Iraq has gotten nasty and nearly all countries that were not for the war when it began, still remain against it. So the thought that we can get them involved with a nice 'please' is ridiculous. We have to give them something in return to get them involved, and that will come at a very high PRICE for the American people.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, considering Kerry hasn't made it very clear on which side of the fence he sits on, I tend to believe that they will trust a guy who has one stance on the war.

Not to mention, Kerry is beginning to sound just like he did when he came back from Vietnam... surely we don't want or need a relapse of that....

Also, I don't feel this is a matter of trust. Undoubtedly Iraq has gotten nasty and nearly all countries that were not for the war when it began, still remain against it. So the thought that we can get them involved with a nice 'please' is ridiculous. We have to give them something in return to get them involved, and that will come at a very high PRICE for the American people.

Oh please with the GOP talking points. Perhaps you didn't get the memo but the Flip-Flop thing died with George Bush's failure in 3 debates. And surely we don't need someone who fought against the Vietnam war. We all know what a success that was. Are you serious?

A higher price then 1100+ American's dead and countless injured?

I'd like to see the figures you don't have.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, I have a few other reasons why I won't be voting for Kerry and this is one of them. He told us in debates that he wanted to get France and Germany involved. Now, giving countries something offer, meaning paying countries to get involved might be one thing. But France and Germany, these countries that carry has stressed so much about getting involved, I was reading somewhere, that they would not be helping out in Iraq anytime soon regardless of who is President.

They are simply kidding themselves and conflict with eachother. Kerry criticized Bush for not letting other countries that have not assisted with the war bid on contracts to help rebuild the country. Well, guess what, us, the American citizen paid for a huge portion of the war. The only way to relieve some of that debt is to get the money coming back into the country by having American companies win most of the contracts to rebuild there.

So, in reality, countries don't want anything to do with Iraq, and they won't probably for the next 10 years. And the only way to get them involved is the number 1 resource that drives people to do things that they may not want to do, money. Which means a large portion of Kerry's ideas isn't going to keep us out of debt as he mentions, he is either going to send us further in debt, or we'll continue fighting the war alone.... most likely a mixture of both if Kerry is in office.

Actually, Germany recently suggested they'd be more open to the idea under Kerry.

" Germany would certainly attend, Mr. Struck said. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference." "

Countries are only going to get involved if there are financial benefits.

As for the reconstruction. You make it sound like Haliburton's CEOs are out on the front lines fighting in Falujah and thus they should be given the bounty of cash to be made, even while they overcharge U.S. tax payers and make a tremendous amount more then do American soldiers for doing far easier tasks. Its a ridiculous rule; they're just lining their pockets.

Why is it that everytime contracts comes up Haliburton becomes the primary focus. Iraq has taken a lot of money to tear down and we're now in progress to rebuild it. Why should we pay more money out to foreign countries that have had no other interest in playing a factor there previously.

I'm sorry, but I can not see giving money to anyone involved with France or Germany to help rebuild a country that needed a regime change.... which mind you, they were 110% against until financial issues came out.

Surrounding countries do have a stake in a successful Iraq; a failed Iraq could bring about a lot of things, none of which are good. Countries can be brought to see that, and offered incentives to help them on that path, but unfortunately not through this leader, thus continuing to increase the American strain both in lives and in money.[/quote]

There is undoubtedly issues with having Iraq become successful. It'll probably take several years for the full effects of this war, whether negative or positive, to rise up. But right now, our American troops, the troops that belong to England and Poland, and a few other countries are over there paying the ultimate sacrifice to see the country succeed. Where is France or Germany when we need them?

There is no incentive in my opinion to get them involved when we're done fighting a brutal war. There is absolutely no incentive to pay them billions of dollars to come help rebuild, pushing us further in debt. There is incentive in the money coming back into our govermental contractors, not just Haliburton, but the many that will likely get involved in it.

Kerry's plan is flawed in the means that he feels he can pay off these other countries to get them involved while minimizing the debt we have already caused from being there.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see other countries get involved, but not at the expense of us, the tax payers. And personally, i don't care whether France or Germany gets involved anyway. They have not helped us keep any decent reputation in the world through this tough times and have not portraid us as friends at all throughout this whole war... why should I trust them when they change their attitude when we have a dollar in front of their face?

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, considering Kerry hasn't made it very clear on which side of the fence he sits on, I tend to believe that they will trust a guy who has one stance on the war.

Not to mention, Kerry is beginning to sound just like he did when he came back from Vietnam... surely we don't want or need a relapse of that....

Also, I don't feel this is a matter of trust. Undoubtedly Iraq has gotten nasty and nearly all countries that were not for the war when it began, still remain against it. So the thought that we can get them involved with a nice 'please' is ridiculous. We have to give them something in return to get them involved, and that will come at a very high PRICE for the American people.

Oh please with the GOP talking points. Perhaps you didn't get the memo but the Flip-Flop thing died with George Bush's failure in 3 debates. And surely we don't need someone who fought against the Vietnam war. We all know what a success that was. Are you serious?

Why must you assume i'm using any reference of talking points? You have to be kidding me if you believe what he has been saying the last month lines up with the way he has voted in the Senate. Also, nearly everything he says he contradicts himself with.

He voted against giving more money to fund our troops and get new equipment in Iraq.

But then talks and refers about the armor and things in Iraq.

And stop kidding yourself, there are many more just like it. Including his stance on reducing the national debt, which I just brought up.

A higher price then 1100+ American's dead and countless injured?

I'd like to see the figures you don't have.

You seem to have something there. Getting other countries involved by Kerry's ideas means a more price than we have already paid... so i'm not sure where you are going with that.... Isn't that something Kerry said he wanted to reduce?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, I have a few other reasons why I won't be voting for Kerry and this is one of them. He told us in debates that he wanted to get France and Germany involved. Now, giving countries something offer, meaning paying countries to get involved might be one thing. But France and Germany, these countries that carry has stressed so much about getting involved, I was reading somewhere, that they would not be helping out in Iraq anytime soon regardless of who is President.

They are simply kidding themselves and conflict with eachother. Kerry criticized Bush for not letting other countries that have not assisted with the war bid on contracts to help rebuild the country. Well, guess what, us, the American citizen paid for a huge portion of the war. The only way to relieve some of that debt is to get the money coming back into the country by having American companies win most of the contracts to rebuild there.

So, in reality, countries don't want anything to do with Iraq, and they won't probably for the next 10 years. And the only way to get them involved is the number 1 resource that drives people to do things that they may not want to do, money. Which means a large portion of Kerry's ideas isn't going to keep us out of debt as he mentions, he is either going to send us further in debt, or we'll continue fighting the war alone.... most likely a mixture of both if Kerry is in office.

Actually, Germany recently suggested they'd be more open to the idea under Kerry.

" Germany would certainly attend, Mr. Struck said. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference." "

Countries are only going to get involved if there are financial benefits.

As for the reconstruction. You make it sound like Haliburton's CEOs are out on the front lines fighting in Falujah and thus they should be given the bounty of cash to be made, even while they overcharge U.S. tax payers and make a tremendous amount more then do American soldiers for doing far easier tasks. Its a ridiculous rule; they're just lining their pockets.

Why is it that everytime contracts comes up Haliburton becomes the primary focus. Iraq has taken a lot of money to tear down and we're now in progress to rebuild it. Why should we pay more money out to foreign countries that have had no other interest in playing a factor there previously.

I'm sorry, but I can not see giving money to anyone involved with France or Germany to help rebuild a country that needed a regime change.... which mind you, they were 110% against until financial issues came out.

Surrounding countries do have a stake in a successful Iraq; a failed Iraq could bring about a lot of things, none of which are good. Countries can be brought to see that, and offered incentives to help them on that path, but unfortunately not through this leader, thus continuing to increase the American strain both in lives and in money.

There is undoubtedly issues with having Iraq become successful. It'll probably take several years for the full effects of this war, whether negative or positive, to rise up. But right now, our American troops, the troops that belong to England and Poland, and a few other countries are over there paying the ultimate sacrifice to see the country succeed. Where is France or Germany when we need them?

There is no incentive in my opinion to get them involved when we're done fighting a brutal war. There is absolutely no incentive to pay them billions of dollars to come help rebuild, pushing us further in debt. There is incentive in the money coming back into our govermental contractors, not just Haliburton, but the many that will likely get involved in it.

Kerry's plan is flawed in the means that he feels he can pay off these other countries to get them involved while minimizing the debt we have already caused from being there.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see other countries get involved, but not at the expense of us, the tax payers. And personally, i don't care whether France or Germany gets involved anyway. They have not helped us keep any decent reputation in the world through this tough times and have not portraid us as friends at all throughout this whole war... why should I trust them when they change their attitude when we have a dollar in front of their face?
[/quote]

First off you took the Germany quote out of context. They said since they have a financial stake in the Iraq war they'd be interested in meeting up at the conference, not that they'd only meet up at the conference if they were given money.

So let me get this straight. This is "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and basically the only basis we have for war left is that we want to do what's best for the Iraqi people. But now, when it comes to reconstruction, we should only be concerned in what's best for those that bombed the hell out of their country, and that's American CEOs lining their pockets and over-charging American taxpayers.

And Germany and France haven't helped us keep a good reputation in the world? Isn't one's reputation based on one's actions? Did Freedom Fries improve our reputation? Did you're with us or with the terrorists improve our reputation? No?

What is your exchange rate for American soldiers to American dollars. If we can get Germany or other countries involved in the reconstruction and get them involved in supplying troops to take the burden off American soldiers, what price are you willing to pay?

How much does 1100+ dead and $140 billion spent cost to you?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, considering Kerry hasn't made it very clear on which side of the fence he sits on, I tend to believe that they will trust a guy who has one stance on the war.

Not to mention, Kerry is beginning to sound just like he did when he came back from Vietnam... surely we don't want or need a relapse of that....

Also, I don't feel this is a matter of trust. Undoubtedly Iraq has gotten nasty and nearly all countries that were not for the war when it began, still remain against it. So the thought that we can get them involved with a nice 'please' is ridiculous. We have to give them something in return to get them involved, and that will come at a very high PRICE for the American people.

Oh please with the GOP talking points. Perhaps you didn't get the memo but the Flip-Flop thing died with George Bush's failure in 3 debates. And surely we don't need someone who fought against the Vietnam war. We all know what a success that was. Are you serious?

Why must you assume i'm using any reference of talking points? You have to be kidding me if you believe what he has been saying the last month lines up with the way he has voted in the Senate. Also, nearly everything he says he contradicts himself with.

He voted against giving more money to fund our troops and get new equipment in Iraq.

But then talks and refers about the armor and things in Iraq.

And stop kidding yourself, there are many more just like it. Including his stance on reducing the national debt, which I just brought up.

A higher price then 1100+ American's dead and countless injured?

I'd like to see the figures you don't have.

You seem to have something there. Getting other countries involved by Kerry's ideas means a more price than we have already paid... so i'm not sure where you are going with that.... Isn't that something Kerry said he wanted to reduce?

Last thing first, you're missing what I'm saying on the 1100+ dead. I'm saying, people here are saying getting other countries involved will cost this ridiculous amount of money that they can't quite quantify nor provide basis for; i'm saying is this imaginary cost more expensive then the 1100+ dead America has and will continue to have without an international force.

As for the $87 billion. Your fearless leader threatened to veto the bill if the reconstruction money was loans, not grants like he wanted, so I guess the same charge can be brought against him. Kerry wanted the top 1% to give up some taxes to actually actively fund the war. You know, fiscal responsibility. Hence he voted for that version before voted against the pay off the next generation philosophy.

The way he voted in the Senate, you mean this, from your fearless leader's own mouth:

Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?
BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

So please, tell me where Kerry flip-flopped. Give me 2 examples of his and I'll give you 10 examples for Bush. We'll then argue which one has a better basis. Here's a hint at a couple, it starts with 9-11 and ends with Commission. And it starts with Dept. of, and ends with Homeland Security.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TravisT
Well, I have a few other reasons why I won't be voting for Kerry and this is one of them. He told us in debates that he wanted to get France and Germany involved. Now, giving countries something offer, meaning paying countries to get involved might be one thing. But France and Germany, these countries that carry has stressed so much about getting involved, I was reading somewhere, that they would not be helping out in Iraq anytime soon regardless of who is President.

They are simply kidding themselves and conflict with eachother. Kerry criticized Bush for not letting other countries that have not assisted with the war bid on contracts to help rebuild the country. Well, guess what, us, the American citizen paid for a huge portion of the war. The only way to relieve some of that debt is to get the money coming back into the country by having American companies win most of the contracts to rebuild there.

So, in reality, countries don't want anything to do with Iraq, and they won't probably for the next 10 years. And the only way to get them involved is the number 1 resource that drives people to do things that they may not want to do, money. Which means a large portion of Kerry's ideas isn't going to keep us out of debt as he mentions, he is either going to send us further in debt, or we'll continue fighting the war alone.... most likely a mixture of both if Kerry is in office.

Actually, Germany recently suggested they'd be more open to the idea under Kerry.

" Germany would certainly attend, Mr. Struck said. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference." "

Countries are only going to get involved if there are financial benefits.

As for the reconstruction. You make it sound like Haliburton's CEOs are out on the front lines fighting in Falujah and thus they should be given the bounty of cash to be made, even while they overcharge U.S. tax payers and make a tremendous amount more then do American soldiers for doing far easier tasks. Its a ridiculous rule; they're just lining their pockets.

Why is it that everytime contracts comes up Haliburton becomes the primary focus. Iraq has taken a lot of money to tear down and we're now in progress to rebuild it. Why should we pay more money out to foreign countries that have had no other interest in playing a factor there previously.

I'm sorry, but I can not see giving money to anyone involved with France or Germany to help rebuild a country that needed a regime change.... which mind you, they were 110% against until financial issues came out.

Surrounding countries do have a stake in a successful Iraq; a failed Iraq could bring about a lot of things, none of which are good. Countries can be brought to see that, and offered incentives to help them on that path, but unfortunately not through this leader, thus continuing to increase the American strain both in lives and in money.

There is undoubtedly issues with having Iraq become successful. It'll probably take several years for the full effects of this war, whether negative or positive, to rise up. But right now, our American troops, the troops that belong to England and Poland, and a few other countries are over there paying the ultimate sacrifice to see the country succeed. Where is France or Germany when we need them?

There is no incentive in my opinion to get them involved when we're done fighting a brutal war. There is absolutely no incentive to pay them billions of dollars to come help rebuild, pushing us further in debt. There is incentive in the money coming back into our govermental contractors, not just Haliburton, but the many that will likely get involved in it.

Kerry's plan is flawed in the means that he feels he can pay off these other countries to get them involved while minimizing the debt we have already caused from being there.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see other countries get involved, but not at the expense of us, the tax payers. And personally, i don't care whether France or Germany gets involved anyway. They have not helped us keep any decent reputation in the world through this tough times and have not portraid us as friends at all throughout this whole war... why should I trust them when they change their attitude when we have a dollar in front of their face?

First off you took the Germany quote out of context. They said since they have a financial stake in the Iraq war they'd be interested in meeting up at the conference, not that they'd only meet up at the conference if they were given money.[/quote]

I wasn't saying it was in Kerry's plan to pay them to come to the meeting. My reference was showing that they will only be getting involved if they see a financial benefit to it.

So let me get this straight. This is "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and basically the only basis we have for war left is that we want to do what's best for the Iraqi people. But now, when it comes to reconstruction, we should only be concerned in what's best for those that bombed the hell out of their country, and that's American CEOs lining their pockets and over-charging American taxpayers.

I have never disputed that Iraq went as smoothly as we all thought it may have went when we first went there. But now that we are there, we not only have to do whats best for the Iraqi people, but we have to do whats best for America too. This falls in line with the "Global test" in the way you are referring to this.

Your references to the contractors is absurd. What would you rather do, give it to CEO's from France who will pay French people to do the jobs? Or would you rather give it to the American CEO's who in return will create more jobs for the American people and the money will be pushed back into the American taxpayers hands?

Let me sum this up:

Your method:

Me and You pay Taxes -> Government Pays France company to rebuild Iraq -> French Company pays French people and we get pushed more in debt.

My thought:

Me and You pay Taxes -> Government Pays Harris, an American contractor, to rebuild Iraq -> Harris pays Americans to do the jobs.

How is your method any better at all in terms of keeping us more out of debt?

And Germany and France haven't helped us keep a good reputation in the world? Isn't one's reputation based on one's actions? Did Freedom Fries improve our reputation? Did you're with us or with the terrorists improve our reputation? No?

It is. We still would have a fairly bad reputation. But certainly moral support is the least they could have offered. They definitely didn't refer to us as that when they chose to say that we wanted a "one-man show".

What is your exchange rate for American soldiers to American dollars. If we can get Germany or other countries involved in the reconstruction and get them involved in supplying troops to take the burden off American soldiers, what price are you willing to pay?

How much does 1100+ dead and $140 billion spent cost to you?

You are missing my point. I am not putting a price on the American lives. But I am putting a price on helping a countries economy by pushing money there if they chose not to assist us while being over there for the past year. I see no benefit from an American standpoint in giving a country that has stood against a war so much the economic benefits of participating in it.

In my opinion, this thing should have been a 2 way street the whole time if they want it that way now. I feel we'll get the raw end of the deal if we have them get involved right now.

 

[DanJ]

My point Travis, is that we offer new incentives to countries in return for them offering new resources and boots to the war we will reduce the burden on American soldiers and American taxpayers, while removing the American occupation look it has now from the Iraqi people and the world. By totally restricting this right to go in and help reconstruct their broken country we're slowing the process of Iraqi's getting back to normality, opening contractors up to exploit the system, and giving countries absolutely no benefit of sending troops and resources in.

And I really don't think Bush has anything to stand on when we start talking about debt.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Last thing first, you're missing what I'm saying on the 1100+ dead. I'm saying, people here are saying getting other countries involved will cost this ridiculous amount of money that they can't quite quantify nor provide basis for; i'm saying is this imaginary cost more expensive then the 1100+ dead America has and will continue to have without an international force.

Okay, I believe I did miss your point with this. But to respond to it, why were they not willing to share the 1100+ dead American responsibility and shed blood a year and a half ago when we were asking for their help?

Why would they now be willing to help there or join a 'international force' after opposing the war for so long. I want their help, but if i'm President, i'm not willing to give my money to the French people who have laughed in our face for the last year and half and have badmouthed us to the world.

Quite frankly, we need the Iraqi's to begin taking up for themselves more than we need French troops there. And I think Bush has that motive.

As for the $87 billion. Your fearless leader threatened to veto the bill if the reconstruction money was loans, not grants like he wanted, so I guess the same charge can be brought against him. Kerry wanted the top 1% to give up some taxes to actually actively fund the war. You know, fiscal responsibility. Hence he voted for that version before voted against the pay off the next generation philosophy.

The way he voted in the Senate, you mean this, from your fearless leader's own mouth:

Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?
BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

So please, tell me where Kerry flip-flopped. Give me 2 examples of his and I'll give you 10 examples for Bush. We'll then argue which one has a better basis. Here's a hint at a couple, it starts with 9-11 and ends with Commission. And it starts with Dept. of, and ends with Homeland Security.

lol, you honestly need examples. They are all over the net.

Even though this is definitely a bias source, it is your candidate, Kerry speaking:

http://www.johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

There is no denying he's got all sorts of conflicts. There is a good quote about Kerry, "He is a great debater, such a good one, that he can take 2 sides to each issue and defend them both all at once."

Come on, you can honestly believe that Kerry has been consistent in his views.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TravisT
[You are missing my point. I am not putting a price on the American lives. But I am putting a price on helping a countries economy by pushing money there if they chose not to assist us while being over there for the past year. I see no benefit from an American standpoint in giving a country that has stood against a war so much the economic benefits of participating in it.

American lives saved , that's they only benefit we should look at, not Haliburtons profits!

In my opinion, this thing should have been a 2 way street the whole time if they want it that way now. I feel we'll get the raw end of the deal if we have them get involved right now.

How can it be anymore raw than it already is?

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TravisT
[You are missing my point. I am not putting a price on the American lives. But I am putting a price on helping a countries economy by pushing money there if they chose not to assist us while being over there for the past year. I see no benefit from an American standpoint in giving a country that has stood against a war so much the economic benefits of participating in it.

American lives saved , that's they only benefit we should look at, not Haliburtons profits!

Agreed, but atleast Haliburton hasn't been having anti-American rally's and referring to our country as only wanting a "One-man show"

In my opinion, this thing should have been a 2 way street the whole time if they want it that way now. I feel we'll get the raw end of the deal if we have them get involved right now.

How can it be anymore raw than it already is?

By not only tolerating an anti-American country in Iraq, but giving them money also.... ??

 

[assemblage]

What Kerry is most likely to do is go with the flow and avoid making any difficult decisions that might make him look bad or jeopardize his political career. I think more nations will want to work with him because he shows lack of backbone and chooses the path of least resistence. They'll be able to get their way more often edit: serves as their patsy.

He will set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq. Within 6 months he will turn Iraq over to the UN and wash his hands of it. He will then continue to place blame on Bush as he is doing now and avoid any blame himself nor place any on our enemies or our allies that have betrayed us if things do not go well. However if they do, it will be his accomplishment because he got a mess and fixed it.

It will all be very slick and two faced that fits his character.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TravisT
[You are missing my point. I am not putting a price on the American lives. But I am putting a price on helping a countries economy by pushing money there if they chose not to assist us while being over there for the past year. I see no benefit from an American standpoint in giving a country that has stood against a war so much the economic benefits of participating in it.

American lives saved , that's they only benefit we should look at, not Haliburtons profits!

Agreed, but atleast Haliburton hasn't been having anti-American rally's and referring to our country as only wanting a "One-man show"

Why should they, they are making a killing out of this war

In my opinion, this thing should have been a 2 way street the whole time if they want it that way now. I feel we'll get the raw end of the deal if we have them get involved right now.

How can it be anymore raw than it already is?

By not only tolerating an anti-American country in Iraq, but giving them money also.... ??[/quote] They aren't Anti American though they are probably Anti George Bush Foriegn Policies..as are a large percentage of Americans !

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: assemblage
What Kerry is most likely to do is go with the flow and avoid making any difficult decisions that might make him look bad or jeopardize his political career. I think more nations will want to work with him because he shows lack of backbone and chooses the path of least resistence. They'll be able to get their way more often edit: serves as their patsy.

He will set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq. Within 6 months he will turn Iraq over to the UN and wash his hands of it. He will then continue to place blame on Bush as he is doing now and avoid any blame himself nor place any on our enemies or our allies that have betrayed us if things do not go well. However if they do, it will be his accomplishment because he got a mess and fixed it.

It will all be very slick and two faced that fits his character.

Sean Hannity, is that you?