Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Watching the debate last week, I was starting to get a little curious about Kerry's 'Four Point Plan' that he talked about, but didn't elaborate on. So I decided to check it out:
New alliances? With whom? Fiji? Lichtenstein? France and Germany have said that they'd tell Kerry to stick it if he won in November and asked for troops in Iraq, so there's one point that's shot to Hell.Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.
We're already in the process of doing this - re-configuring the military to deal with new threats. Besides, Kerry isn't known for promoting military spending during his 20+ years in the Senate. Quite the contrary, he's done all he could to gut the military. Another one heads south....
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.
Another idea that's already being done. Nice try John. Maybe you could use some of those 'human shields' that went to Iraq right before the war?? Three down....
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
Now this would be something, if only he could pull it off. But how.....Oh! I know - we could start drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But - ooooohhhhh, those darn environmentalists would be screaching about all the moose that would be 'displaced'.
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.
That's a clean sweep John: ALL of your ideas are crap.
Interesting post, Mad One... long response here...
It is indeed a sad statement of Bush's
Read more in Four Points of John
Comments on Four Points of John
Interesting post, Mad One... long response here...
It is indeed a sad statement of Bush's sad attempt at failed diplomacy that France and Germany state they won't send troops to Iraq, but that doesn't mean the US can't repair the ties that still remain for national security purposes. If we expect them to help in the so-called Global War on Terror, we can't go around making comments like this "The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France." That will ensure they'll never help. I'm willing to give Kerry a shot at diplomacy with "old Europe". He has stated in the debate he will never give another country veto power over the US in matters of self defense, that's common sense and goes for any country, not just the US, but to make a statement like Bush did is not the way to repair the damage.
" Quite the contrary, he's done all he could to gut the military. Another one heads south.... "
Who said this?
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."
George Herbert Walker Bush 1992
Cheney said;
"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."
and
"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
Bush's diplomatic skills are questionable at best, and the entire country and the world knows that he only goes begging to the UN when he needs to save his ass, not for any real diplomacy. We're in the mess we're in now thanks to the Bush administration's "diplomacy". Our values and ideals are absent in the invasion of Iraq, replaced by a might makes right swagger that appeals mostly to people who like to compare the size of their "guns". There is no democracy in Iraq and, with the current plan there won't be, just a government installed by the US. I can't see the US as it is now, allowing someone like Sistani or Moqtada Sadr to be elected to office. In Afghanistan, the installed ruler is the former middle east adviser to Unocal. Whodathhunk.
Dependence on Middle East oil is a big problem, and it can't be fixed in four years, but an administration that isn't beholding to big oil would be better situated to begin investment in alternative energy sources and fuel conservation, like, for example, an mpg standard that auto makers have to meet. An administration that isn't beholding to big oil can begin to look at other ways of providing energy than petroleum and can begin to subsidize industries that do.
Neither candidate is the perfect candidate, but for the next four years I'll go with Kerry. One reason is that with Bush you get the same old tired deck of cards... Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Powell, and all the minions of darkness that I'd like to see gone. Another reason is I think we need someone who thinks before he acts, someone who is at least as smart, if not smarter than his advisors. Hell, even Tucker Carlson isn't sure if he's voting for Bush, why should I?
|| Posted by scroff, October 6, 2004 09:20 AM ||