Kerry will never send troops overseas for oil...

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Ogie, Kerry fully supported armed intervention in Iraq when Clinton was president. Then he did an about face when a Republican became president. Similarly, he supported the Vietnam war when Johnson was president, then turned against it when Nixon was president.

His thinking on these issues couldn't be clearer.

Clinton wasn't going to war, and Vietnam only slowly became a huge and obvious quagmire (and also Kerry was young at the time of Vietnam, and clearly he has changed some of his positions since then).

-Drachasor

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

To Ned,

Agreed and likewise just as for political expedience he voted for authorizing the Pres to use force and then in reaction to Dean's momentum used the funding bill as a protest vote.

Kerry Adviser On Vote Against The $87 Billion Appropriation: "Off The Record, He Did It Because Of Howard Dean. On The Record, He Has An Elaborate Explanation." (Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04)

[Drachasor]

Kerry's fellow senators agree that he is a man of conviction. Therefore I think it is more likely that Howard Dean made it clear that he could make some of his real reasons public, rather than not mention them. Dean demonstrated that the voters were willing to listen to that.

-Drachasor

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor
I did explain that. It wasn't a coalition issue. Kerry thought we could handle the situation without a war, or at least give a more reasonable deadline so there wasn't a guarantee of war. It was one of his concerns this time around too, although the vote for force if necessary came much earlier in the overall process.

Again, it is a reasonable position; you shouldn't go to war unless you must. It is a position of last resort.

-Drachasor

Here's my problem, he is either a consumate politician without an internal compass to guide him that simply goes where most expedient or....


He is so out of touch and naive that he actually beleived that diplomacy would allow a solution to the Sadaam equation circa Gulf War 1. Given that complete lack of insight into the nature of our enemies are we to beleive he knows the nature of current ones.

[obligatory cheap shot]
Perhaps we should all aspire to the days of old when terrorism was simply a nuisance.

Today marks the 4th anniversay of just such a nuisance.

"REMEMBERING

This is the fourth anniversary of what John Kerry would describe as the "nuisance bombing" of the USS Cole. Seventeen Americans lost their lives in this nuisance attack. "
[/obligatory cheap shot]

[Drachasor]

He might well have thought diplomacy probably wouldn't have worked.

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean just because you *think* it won't work that you should go straight to war. It is important to give the opposition the chance to consider a peaceful means, and even you are pretty darn certain they will refuse. It is what seperates the civilized from the uncivilized.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, referring to 1991, just what was it that Kerry thought would pursuade Saddam to voluntarily leave Iraq that justified further delay, a delay that would endager our troops due to hot weather? Saddam had been given a deadline by the UN -- withdraw by Jan. 15 or else be expelled. Why did Kerry vote no in face of such a UN deadline?

Did he have a plan? Was there something real behind his no vote?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Negotiations just like jello, there is always more room for it.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ned
Which is of course why you oppose the war.

BTW, just for the sake of argument, suppose that Saddam had every WMD we thought he had and also had ties to terrorists as alleged, would your opinion still hold?

Hmm.

Let's backtrack a bit.

I seriously disliked everything Bush did in his first year.

Then, stuff happenned in New York. Bush started saying that it was the doing of Al-Qaeda even though Al-Qaeda had not claimed responsobility. He didn't provide proof.

Then, Bush started saying that the Taliban was hiding Al-Qaeda. The Taliban insisted that it had no idea where Al-Qaeda was. It was a he-said-she-said situation -- I hated both parties, though I probably hated the Taliban more.

So, anyways, all of a sudden Bush invaded Afghanistan. WTF? How about some proof first? Powell promised proof linking Al-Qaeda with the WTC attack in December of 2001. None has been released even now.

Anyways, I sorta warmed up to the Afghanistan war. The Taliban had an atrocious human rights record. The ony means to remove them would be a war in any case, so the ends-justified-the-means in this case. The excuse for the war was utterly moronic, but at least they were getting rid of the Taliban (of course, it turned out that the Northern Alliance is just as bad, but I didn't know it then).

Suddenly, Bush started talking about Iraq in terms of terrorism. WTF? What's Iraq got to do with it? Saddam was a secular westernized dictator. We knew that Osama hated his guts and that the hate was mutual.

Heck, Saddam had been behaving himself. He wasn't sword-rattling. No spectacular human rights violations in the last twenty years (whereas the Taliban was actively violating the rights and freedoms of 50%+ of Afghanis).

Okay, fine, could have been co-operating more with the UN weapons inspectors, but they were, in effect, ruffling through his basement on a random basis. That leaves a person grumpy.

And, as far as human rights go, Iraq was a much nicer place than Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran. Heck, the Saudi Arabia is also actively violating the rights and freedoms of 50% of Saudis. Iraq was secular. No sharia laws. Etc.

Fundamentally, I don't give a rats ass about WoMDs and the idea that Saddam was supporting Al-Qaeda was as ludicrous then as it is now.

Bush started massing troops along Iraq's border. Boom. UN weapons inspectors declared Iraq WoMD-free. Boom. Bush didn't care. He invaded anyways even though his official Casus Belli had been invalidated.

So, yes, even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I would have opposed the war. The idea that Iraq was supporting terrorists of a dangerous stripe requires changing far too many things in my model of the universe to be easily analysed.

[DinoDoc]

You're a moron, St Leo.

[chequita guevara]

Oh who cares. Bush has been a near complete failure as President. We couldn't do any worse with even Sonny Bono as President, and he's dead.

[Ned]

St Leo, two points:

1) Saddam and his boys were continuously violating human rights. In addition, he slaughtered the Kurds in '88, and the Shi'ites in '91 by the tens of thousands. If this is what you call Westernized, then it is Westernization in the tradition of Hitler, Stalin and Milosovic.

2) You too easily dismiss Saddam's links with OBL. They after all had a mutual enemy and this has in the past made strange bedfellows.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
2) You too easily dismiss Saddam's links with OBL. They after all had a mutual enemy and this has in the past made strange bedfellows.

There are no links with Saddam and OBL. There are the rare links between an Iraqi official and some member of Al Qaeda, but there is nothing that suggests anything but one-time affairs (no permanent or semi-permanent arrangements between Iraq and Al Qaeda).

A lot of stuff gets put in the wrong context though. For instance, the Al Qaeda camps that were in Iraq were in regions outside of Saddam's control.

-Drachasor

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by St Leo


Heck, Saddam had been behaving himself. He wasn't sword-rattling. No spectacular human rights violations in the last twenty years ---

Make that ten, and I would believe you.

Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're a moron, St Leo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


There are no links with Saddam and OBL. There are the rare links between an Iraqi official and some member of Al Qaeda, but there is nothing that suggests anything but one-time affairs (no permanent or semi-permanent arrangements between Iraq and Al Qaeda).

A lot of stuff gets put in the wrong context though. For instance, the Al Qaeda camps that were in Iraq were in regions outside of Saddam's control.

-Drachasor

Wow. There are a lot more links and arrangements than you credit. There is that whole arrangement with Zarqawi that stank of an alliance.

As well, there is evidence that Oil for Food was being used to finance OBL.