Kerry was asked what he would do if sanctions in Iran didn't work. He responded that he would get tough then pointed out all the *flaws* George Bush has done in Iraq and North Korea. Why is it that this guy never says anything specific, its all general statements. I can do it better? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :lol: You guys, worried about North Korea. Do realize Bill Clinton gave Nuclear fuel to North Korea for a good gesture. Thats the same thing Kerry wants to do for Iran! :rofl:
he actually said that if the things he pointed out didn't work he would get tough which didn't really answer the womans question. i find that the iran situation is really a strong point for kerry in defense to his global test that the bush team keeps slamming him on. the white house has said they would go to the un security council about resolutions. what is that? isn't the threat of the weapons real and danger the us? why would we care what the un council thinks. the solution is really simple, all we have to do is give israel the ok to take the whole complex out.
nor did bush answer the question what were his mistakes that he realized then corrected.... he should have said his mistake was trusting the U.S. intelligence and that he has attempted its reform.
He said his mistakes were in some of the appointments he made to minor positions but he wasn't going to mention any names so as not to embarrass anybody on national TV.
he said that as filler since his main answer was iraq and whether historians would deem it a mistake in the future. that didnt answer 3 things they told he realized were a mistake that he had corrected. iraq is something he made a choice on not something he changed after deciding.
he would never say that the war in iraq was a mistake because it wasn't. the talking points will point out all this stuff about no wmds found and everything but the real reason we went into irag wasn't because of wmds, it wasn't because of oil and it also wasn't because of sadam trying to kill his dad. the war in iraq was a bigger step in the war on terror than the war in afganistan, most will say its all about obl but the war on terror isn't just about him. the war on terror is about protecting america from terrorist from any group or country, its actually a shame it took 9/11 to finally get our government to really act against them. i would really like to see people talking about why we really went into iraq than using all these bs talking points.
i totally agree....but was saying it shouldnt have been any part of the answer to begin with. and of course, the war is largely about establishing a working point for a democratic society in that region and its relevance may be generations away. Its outcome will weigh heavily on our successes of limiting terrorist attacks on our homeland.
thats exactly it but you just don't hear anyone saying it. our best weapon against the terrorist isn't our army, its creating democracy around the world. we could never go to all these countries and just try to kill all those people because there are thousands born each day that would fight against us if we don't change their way of thinking. it really gets me when i hear someone say they don't want to be free, how they hell do they know if they will want it if they've never tasted freedom? history will show that iraq will be a success not because of any terrorist that was killed there, not because sadam was captured but because of what a democratic iraq will change the middle east in terms of peace. this isn't something thats just gonna happen after the elections in december, its gonna take a change of culture in future generations. i also don't see us removing our troops completely for a long time regardless of who is president, at least i hope not.
i read an old article I found on the web about a year ago that was written before this war which I just happened to stumble upon. I hope I saved it and if so will post it. I think it is a great read.... lemme dig it up...hope i have it.
