DescentBB

Kerrys suite of proposed "Plans" includes coalition building as a major qualification in his resume for president. How is he going to do that? First indication that Kerry strike that particular ability is Australia. For those who don't know, Kerry sent his sister to Australia to help campaign against incumbent John Howard. The Australian voters have spoken and Howard is re-elected. Now if Kerry becomes president do you think Howard will be real quick to suck up to Kerry and join any "coalition" Kerry may propose? Yup, Kerry has the making of a fine leader.

Yay for bribed and coerced allies!

Don't forget Poland!

Obviously Kerry is overpromising (A politician...overpromise?? NO!!) but it really can't get worse than Bush in terms of alliance building.

Brian wrote:it really can't get worse than Bush in terms of alliance building.

So you're saying 30 countries with us in Iraq and 40 with us in Afghanistan is the absolute worst we could've done? LOL. No wonder so many people seem confused about what "unilateral" means :P

What we've seen so far is that Kerry has managed to alienate a large number of our CURRENT allies -- he sent his sister to insult and fearmonger the Aussies, he's continually insulted the Iraqis, ignored the Polish, etc. And there's no indication he can bring anyone else to the table -- except, possibly, he may extend some contracts to the French company Total (you know, the ones who were taking bribes from Saddam.)

Oh, by the way:

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians... We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

That was John Kerry on Crossfire in 1997.

woodchip wrote:Kerrys suite of proposed "Plans" includes coalition building as a major qualification in his resume for president. How is he going to do that? First indication that Kerry strike that particular ability is Australia. For those who don't know, Kerry sent his sister to Australia to help campaign against incumbent John Howard. The Australian voters have spoken and Howard is re-elected. Now if Kerry becomes president do you think Howard will be real quick to suck up to Kerry and join any "coalition" Kerry may propose? Yup, Kerry has the making of a fine leader.

i'm not sure what was sarcasm and what wasn't.
but yes, Howard would suck up to Kerry just as fast as he does to Bush. what would you seriously expect?
Howard is all about US ties. not Bush ties.

i actually don't remember seeing anything about Kerry's sister comming here to do um, something (help?). what exactly did she do here? i must've missed it.

Howard won the election, because australia has had a long period of economic growth that doesn't look to be stopping (his lie being: that he caused it! um, Howard, australian interest rates tend to follow global interest rates, not your party's leadership. horray for yet another election re-won on lies.)

it's hard to dislodge a ruling party during good economic times.

i'm not sure what was sarcasm and what wasn't.

With woodchip, everything that supports Kerry is sarcasm.

He is one of those guys that e-mails Bill O'reilly telling him that he is too liberal.

He is one of those guys that e-mails Bill O'reilly telling him that he is too liberal.

LOL

I would really like to know which 30 countries are in Iraq helping us, considering what were the figures, America is shouldering 90% of the financial burden and roughly 98% of all military casualties...so please Lothar, let me know what assistance any other country besides Britian has actually done anything at all.

Zuruck wrote:I would really like to know which 30 countries are in Iraq helping us, considering what were the figures, America is shouldering 90% of the financial burden and roughly 98% of all military casualties...\

Well Zuruck your statement is proof that Kerry's repeated lie is working and the press' refusal to call him on it is proof of their interest in the debate.

Your question of 'who is in the fight with us' is best answered by not listing all of them, although I have no doubt you could get the list if you really wanted it. No, the proper answer to your loaded, ignorant question is to only mention the most important ally in the fight. Because only by pretending they don't count can you and Kerry make our 50% caualty rate add up to 98%!

The freedom seeking Iraqi's are in the fight with us and they are taking close to *half* of the casualties!

So you and Kerry can continue to spout off the 98% casualties are american" crap but it doesn't make it true.

You see Zuruck, we don't get to leave Iraq until the freedom seeking Iraqi's gain control so the fact that they are already taking half the hits is an important one.

If you, Kerry, or the press had even a small bit of integrity in you the big question would be:
How many coalition soldiers and freedom seeking Iraqi's have died because the French, the Russians and the Chinese were taking bribes from Saddam?

If Saddam thought we were really going to invade him he most likely would have given in and there would be no war and there would have been *real* inspections...removal of the remaining WMD's....exposure of the long range missiles and other military hardware he was recieving from our *allies* that you and Kerry pretend to care so much about!

Tell me master of ignorance, how many countries on the security council opposed us other than those that were taking bribes from Saddam?

Your selfish, ignorant position is actually one that enables our enemies to survive and kill your fellow countrymen in the process. It's a prime example of how one can put their political party above the security of our nation and the lives of our brave soldiers, and on their behalf I'd just like to say F you!

God look at that venom.

Yeah Kuffy, it's depressing that Will is right on the money.

Yah, Will has been a little feisty in his posts as we near the election.

$5 says that if Kerry takes the lead he wont have the Cajones to vote for Nader.

<3

Gooberman wrote:Yah, Will has been a little feisty in his posts as we near the election.

$5 says that if Kerry takes the lead he wont have the Cajones to vote for Nader.

<3

Nope, I stand by my word. I promised to vote third party for the next two presidential cycles...8 years, because I'm in S.C. and Bush will win here without my vote so I'm not really offering to put my money where my mouth is if I only go third party for one cycle. I'll probably vote Libertarian instead of Nader...still not sure.

Watch me sweat in 2008 when it's Hillary versus whoever, then we'll see if I'm for real

****************

As to my attitude towards the democrat robots disguised as a anti-war voters...
Hell yes I'm just about done trying to give them the benefit of the doubt because we aren't talking about a difference of opinion of how to best budget the domestic policy crap etc. etc.
We're talking about the future safety of my children being put at risk by a bunch of idiots who think getting a guy with a "D" beside his name in the White House is more important than dealing with the rising tide of terrorism in a proper fashion!

I refuse to pretend it's merely a disagreement on policy, it's more like they are arguing that we should re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of man the life boats.
F them all, from now on if you're a dumbass I'm going to tell you so!