Saddam paid off French leaders

[GWB]

Saddam paid off French leaders (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm)

Still want to submit to a "Global Test" under the French?

[jdl22]

The global test has nothing to do with whether or not France or any other country approves. By global test Kerry simply meant that we should follow a reasonable plan that meets a most basic set of criteria.

Here is the way he used global test in the debate:
[ QUOTE ]

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Still want to submit to a "Global Test" under the French?"

Yes. If the President of the United States is going to send some of my friends and brother in law into a sovereign nation in a preemptive attack I would want him to explain to the American people in an understandable way why we are doing so. He also should be able to prove to foreign leaders that he did so for legitimate reasons. If he is not able to do so then our reasons for going are shaky and war should be avoided.

[GWB]

French connection armed Saddam (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm)

How low can the French go?

[tek]

They drink lattes, pea on the sidewalks, don't take showers very often and love Jerry Lewis--does that answer your question /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Non_Comformist]

I can't stand John Kerry and truly believe that he is more of a internationalist when it come to the US military but it does seem that he meant more of a "reasonable person" test much like we use for domestic laws and courts. I bet he wishes he would have used a different phrase.

BTW care to explain why the first gulf war did not meeet the "global test?" Anyone?

[MaxPower]

"The global test is the awareness of a decent respect for mankind and getting them on board."

- John McLaughlin

[texaspimp]

I was hoping to add something to this thread. Unfortunately, tek said it all!!!

Nice job tek!!

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW care to explain why the first gulf war did not meeet the "global test?" Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

That really is important when evaluating Kerry's "global test" comment. Some might argue that the first gulf war was not a preemptive action by the U.S. maybe even Kerry would.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
French connection armed Saddam (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm)

How low can the French go?

[/ QUOTE ]

My question is

A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

Were the French selling Saddam weapons when we had troops on the border? In a court of law that would be described as .....

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't stand John Kerry and truly believe that he is more of a internationalist when it come to the US military but it does seem that he meant more of a "reasonable person" test much like we use for domestic laws and courts. I bet he wishes he would have used a different phrase.

BTW care to explain why the first gulf war did not meeet the "global test?" Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed, also why does Iraq require a gloabal test but North Korea doesn't? I don't get it.

[Non_Comformist]

I guess my point was that given a scenerio in which Iraq had invaded his neighbors, we had put together a large coalition, and before weapons inspectors the Senator still found a reason to not support the use ofmilitary force. He also has voted against countless weapon systems. But now I am suppossed to believe him when he says that he would use militry force, even preemptively? I don't see it and that is why I am feel so strongly that he should not be president.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point was that given a scenerio in which Iraq had invaded his neighbors, we had put together a large coalition, and before weapons inspectors the Senator still found a reason to not support the use ofmilitary force. He also has voted against countless weapon systems. But now I am suppossed to believe him when he says that he would use militry force, even preemptively? I don't see it and that is why I am feel so strongly that he should not be president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki will tell you that Kerry is even more hawkish than Bush. He's all about pre-emptive unilateral action. Just watch the GOP "Kerry on Iraq" Video - that proves it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point was that given a scenerio in which Iraq had invaded his neighbors, we had put together a large coalition, and before weapons inspectors the Senator still found a reason to not support the use ofmilitary force. He also has voted against countless weapon systems. But now I am suppossed to believe him when he says that he would use militry force, even preemptively? I don't see it and that is why I am feel so strongly that he should not be president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki will tell you that Kerry is even more hawkish than Bush. He's all about pre-emptive unilateral action. Just watch the GOP "Kerry on Iraq" Video - that proves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya I know that sounds stupid. But what Kerry says at times is more Hawkish than bush. Just look at what he said about North Korea.

I'm totally confused about Kerry, and I still think he doesn't have solid footing either way. I posted that thread to start a debate. You had good points Maxpower, and I honestly don't know what to think about Kerry anymore. I know what I was saying sounded dumb, but I was simply repeating the New York times. And with what kerry has said about North Korea, and Iraq in 98, as well as his civil liberties voting history...... I am just more confused everyday.

Kerry, Newest Neocon
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04safire.html?oref=login
http://www.bugmenot.com

Maxpower sorry about calling you blind, you had a point with the video. I'm not convinced either way, and I'm about to stop caring, there is too much bull to sift through.


I still think this movie is worth watching, I wish I had all the transcripts to each and every interview shown in the movie. If anyone has them, please post.

The movie
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv
or goto http://kerryoniraq.com/

[wacki]

After transcribing parts of the video.

In the video:

Hardball 2/5/02
===============================================
Kerry:"Saddam is buying time and playing a game"
Kerry:"He can rebuild both chemical and biological" "Every indication is because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that"
when Kerry was asked if it is possible to "get past a possible war"
he responded "outside chance"


This week 2/22/98
"I am way ahead of the commander in chief and proudly way ahead of my colleagues and most of the country"
Kerry: "we have to be prepared to go the full distance and do everything possible to disrupt his regime and encourage the forces of democracy."
Interviewer: "Does that mean ground troops in Iraq"
Kerry:"If that's what it meant"

Watch the video and read the article. I can't tell if he is a dove or a hawk, but there are obvious reasons why. His voting record doesn't make sense to me. Why he would vote against the first gulf war, but campaign against Saddam in 1998 makes no sense to me. Why would he want UN in Iraq now, but not with North Korea.

Maxpower, again sorry for calling you blind, but do you see my point? Again I think your right that we need full transcritps, but I that video is 14 minutes of Kerry that has left me totally bewildered. I don't see how you can take some of the things Kerry says out of context. Yes he doesn't use the words "pre-emptive strike", but he is using the same language bush used in O'reilly's video against Iran.
And I believe with Iraq too, preinvasion. He might be all hot air, and I'm sure that is probably the case. But he talks strong at times. His voting record is what counts the most, and that is very very soft on war. Hard on civil liberties, but soft on war.

You tell me, am I delusional?

[MaxPower]

No problem Wacki. I was just having a little fun with you. I like arguing with you.

The point of my post was not to try to convice anyone that Kerry was a better candidate or would make a better president than Bush. I'm not even trying to say that his position is correct. Bush and Kerry both have their faults. You have obviously decided that you cannot go 4 years dealing with Kerry's faults, while I have decided that I cannot go 4 years with Bush's.

My point was that Bush's campaign is trying to convince the public that Kerry's position on Iraq has gone through some kind of major shift and that I didn't believe that this was true when you look at the situation objectively. The GOP video is the equivalent of Farenheit 911.

I think it makes sense to question the rhetoric of both sides. For example, I think that the whole Dick Cheney-Haliburton controversy is much ado about nothing.

I don't have a lot of respect for people who just parrot the party lines without any kind skepticism (I never considered you one of these people).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem Wacki. I was just having a little fun with you. I like arguing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The feeling is mutual.


[ QUOTE ]
You have obviously decided that you cannot go 4 years dealing with Kerry's faults, while I have decided that I cannot go 4 years with Bush's.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can respect that. And as much of an enviro-nut I am, it's not a pleasant decision.


[ QUOTE ]
My point was that Bush's campaign is trying to convince the public that Kerry's position on Iraq has gone through some kind of major shift and that I didn't believe that this was true when you look at the situation objectively. The GOP video is the equivalent of Farenheit 911.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can easily pick out the lies in Farenheit 9/11. If what you are saying about the video is true, then it is very very well done. I'm suprised that there aren't any articles about it tearing the video apart. Do you have any links? Proof?


[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a lot of respect for people who just parrot the party lines without any kind skepticism (I never considered you one of these people).

[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts exactly.

[MaxPower]

I don't think you are delusional. If we looked at the voting records and public statements of any Senator who has been in office for a long time, we would be equally confused.

What Kerry was talking about in all those clips was disarming Saddam Hussein of WMD. That was his main goal. He was not ruling out any means to acheive that goal.

I don't feel like reiterating his position because it is al in the link I post the other day. You can read it and make your own determiniation.

One does not have to be either a dove or a hawk. There are many ways to realize our goals. If we can realize them without military action we should make every attempt to do so. If we can't than war is justifiable. If we had let the inspections continue we would have found that Saddam was disarmed and the war was not necessary. If the inspectors did not get full cooperation then we might have been able to get more allies on board with the right kind of diplomacy and a little more time.

I did find the GOP video to be quite powerfull and naturally I was skeptical just as I was when watching Farenheit 911. I was confused, so I looked for more info on Kerry's position. If someone can give me something not taken out of context that refutes my beliefs, I will re-consider my opinion.

That said, Kerry is a politician and he is shading his message for different audiences. But I still think it is consitent.

[cardcounter0]

still want this guy running your country?

[wacki]

OK, I will drop the GOP video until I get transcripts.

But what is the deal with his bilateral view of North Korea? That is not consistent with Iraq at all. It's not consistent ideologically, and definitelly not a pragmatic decision.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

I can easily pick out the lies in Farenheit 9/11. If what you are saying about the video is true, then it is very very well done. I'm suprised that there aren't any articles about it tearing the video apart. Do you have any links? Proof?



[/ QUOTE ]

I never really looked before, but I just found this:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105096/

This is not about the video, but about one of Bush's ads that uses many of the same clips

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=269

[tolbiny]

Who knows what the politicians think?

But i would venture a guess and say that the difference between iraq and N Korea is the fact that Kim Jong Il has asked for bi lateral talks, and that they already have Nuclear capabilities. Kerry might feel that it is nessecary to meet some of Kim's cursory demands so that Kim will feel he gains "face" (whatever that is nowadays) in the international community, and sets up for better nogotiations.
Basically if a guy held nukes and said to me "I wanna hold talks with you and only you" he would get me in the room untill i was convinced it was a waste of time or some progress was made.
I personally would try to involve other powers in the region if i could, but maybe in a covert manner (ie haveing meetings to determine their desires on the situation/keeping them apprised). There are lots of possibilities-
of course the biggest one might just be to differentiate himself from bush knowing that once in the white house he could use either bilateral or unilateral and no one would give a [censored] as long as we got those bombs from him.

[lastchance]

Yeah, no one should care as long as we get the bombs for a reasonable price, and are able to keep him pinned for a long time. It's not like other countries in the area care if it's a unilateral or multilateral talk. We probably even have their permission to do so. It's a difference of degrees compared to the Saddam thing.

Here, it's about picking between multilateral and bilateral talks to disarm N. Korea's nuclear capability vs. taking out Saddam in Iraq.

Much more important thing that needs to get done, (well, Saddam may have had WMD, but we KNOW N. Korea has WMD), for far less of a price.

Again, details. They're important, y'know.

Though, if what Bush said was true in the debate (about N. Korea wanting them and about multilateral talks breaking down), then clearly, we should not have bilateral talks.