Iraq made payments to the US, too. See my previous post on this. Iraq oil went not to the French or Russian governments, but to companies and individuals in France and Russia. What makes those countries different from the US, where payments in excess of those made to France or Russia were made?
[quote]Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of
Kerry criticizes Bush for withdrawing the US from the Kyoto Protocol. However, Kerry himself as a senator voted for Senate Resolution 98, which stipulates that the US should not ratify Kyoto if: 1) Kyoto does not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) Kyoto “would result in serious harm to the [US] economy. …”
Kyoto STILL fails both of these tests. Moreover, Kyoto is binding on only 36 nations, and Kyoto would result in extreme harm to the US economy.
Notwithstanding the above, Kerry now supports Kyoto. Kerry’s flip-flop on this issue illustrates his willingness to sell out the US in order to meet his “global test” of international approval.
Kerry will subject US energy policy to the control of the UN.
If I recall the debate on Saturday correctly Kerry said he would have wanted changes to be made to the Kyoto agreement and criticized Bush for walking away from it without even trying.
[quote]Benon Sevan, director of the UN oil-for-food programme, received 9.3m barrels of oil from the regime which he is estimated to have sold for a profit of
Kyoto is such a horrible agreement, that if kerry says some changes should be made, he ought to tell us what changes he has in mind.
He does, after all, want us to vote for him.
He’s illustrated a complete lack of creativeness and or novelty with regard to Iraq… why should I accept simply that he thinks “some changes” should be made without detailing the same?
Shouldn’t those that signed Kyoto actually live up to its commitments before demanding that others join. Germany benefited disproportionately when it took over all the factories in East Germany and shut them down. West Germany would not have met such targets and the French Interior Minister (previous) admitted that his country was no where near meeting the targets nor did it intend to. So words speak louder than actions huh?
So, the same data set is viewed by both the Washington Post and ABC, but they say Bush 50, Kerry 46 and Bush 46, Kerry 50 respectively. There’s a big difference in these two polls especially since they asked the exact same people the exact same questions.
The Oct. 11 Reuters poll shows Kerry’s lead expanding mildly to 49 vs. 44 in a very tight race.
I mean its good the make light of the situation. But we must not forget wel killed Saddam son.
I wonder what any father’s reaction might be to find out the instigator of a war had his child killed over a mistake. Or to find one’s child portray on a deck of cards over a mistake.
I believe Kerry has a better chance of extracting the USA out of Iraq with less diplomatic mistakes.
If Bill Clinton had conducted this war, it would not have been a blunder it is today.
If George W Bush was in office in 1996 Taiwan Missle Crisis. I’m pretty sure Taipei would be a nuclear hole in the ground as well.
Whether or not Iraq made payments to any US citizens, officials or entities is irrelevant, because if any such payments were made, they did not result in handcuffing the US Government with rspect to policy options to be used against Iraq.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]I mean its good the make light of the situation. But we must not forget wel killed Saddam son.
I wonder what any father’s reaction might be to find out the instigator of a war had his child killed over a mistake. Or to find one’s child portray on a deck of cards over a mistake.[/quote]
T’wasn’t a mistake.
He certainly knew how to get himself extracted from Vietnam, so you could be right about this.
We’d still be at the UN attempting in vain to get the corrupt French, Russians and Chinese to agree with us.
[quote]ac_dropout wrote:
If Bill Clinton had conducted this war, it would not have been a blunder it is today.
We’d still be at the UN attempting in vain to get the corrupt French, Russians and Chinese to agree with us.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Clinton was prepared to go to war without UN approval as he did in Kosavo. The doctrine of the US going to war without UN approval but with a ‘coalition of the willing’ only existed in writing before Clinton put it into real practice. Interestingly enough around the time that Clinton did go to war in the Balkins people like Powell thought it was a crazy idea, because they wouldn’t have gone in hard enough or have a plan to win the peace. He was wrong on both accounts. Around that same time or later really 1997, Wolfowhitz also thought going after Iraq would have been a bad idea. In fact, he must have been divining the Kahbalah when he said of the Gulf War and not taking out Saddam, “A new regime in Iraq would have become the United State’s responsibility. Conceivably, this could have led the US into a more or less permanent occupation of a country that could not govern itself, but where the rule of the foreign occupier would be increasingly resented.”
He certainly knew how to get himself extracted from Vietnam, so you could be right about this.[/quote]
Excellent point, Tigerman! I’m sure you’ve seen “Saving Private Ryan”, in which Tom Hanks’ character gives a short but eloquent speech on doing one’s duty in order to earn their right to go home. Kerry knew this well, and I’m glad to see you acknowledge this.
Kerry knew that the best way to be able to go home and be able to look his fellow Americans in the eye was to go back after serving. He didn’t “have to” go back into enemy fire to save that green beret. He didn’t “have to” send his boat right at the shore to nail the guy with the RPG. It’s just that Kerry did what servicemen are supposed to do – put 100% into what they’re doing because it’s for their country.
It’s still impressive that after serving a year off the Vietnam coast on a destroyer, Kerry chose to stick himself into a swift boat for another tour of duty there. When the swift boats were stuck into the rivers where they were getting shot at all the time, Kerry didn’t get bummed out – he embraced his duty, killed enemies, saved comrades-in-arms, and got himself wounded. If you consider his later testimony, this was a guy who put his 100% into fighting a war whose rationale he didn’t believe in. Why? It was his duty to do so. It’s not some trite bullshit that most wars are fought by men looking to do the right thing by the guys on their right and on their left, and it’s not passe to fight for your country.
Compare against Bush, where you have a man who pulled every string possible to get into a cushy stateside pilot assignment and couldn’t even fulfill his duty there. At the very least, he could have maintained his flight readiness considering we were at the height of the Cold War era, but I guess some guys just don’t understand duty. A man like Kerry who truly loves America would not have allowed less than 100% effort on America’s behalf.
Based on your previous posts, I’d had you pegged for a chickenhawk armchair warrior who hasn’t put a day of service in for your country. While I haven’t changed my basic assessment, I do appreciate that you’re trying to understand what duty and service entail.
And based on your previous posts, I have you pegged as an idiot. But, that’s neither here nor there, as you are not running for office. So, who cares that you’re an idiot? Your being an idiot isn’t relevant to our discussion of the candidates for the US presidency, is it? It isn’t. Thus, I do not raise your idiocy as an issue in this discussion.
But, you’re right. I never served. Was not accepted, due to the fact that I had colon cancer when I was 15 and have had several surgeries since then to remove portions of my colon. The US Government does not want to be responsible for my medical insurance.
Now, so what? Do you have a point?
Care to address any of Kerry’s shortcomings? After all, its Kerry, not I, who is running for office…
Whether or not Iraq made payments to any US citizens, officials or entities is irrelevant, because if any such payments were made, they did not result in handcuffing the US government with rspect to policy options to be used against Iraq.
As such, your point is moot.[/quote]
The position of the UN including France and Russia was to wait for further arms inspections, and a few million euros in bribes wasn’t the reason why. The UN had arms inspectors on the ground in Iraq, paid for by years of oil-for-food money. It was a mistake to shift from UN oversight in that case to a war without many allies.
But that mistake put money into the pockets of close associates of the president and vice-president of the US that would not have gone there if there had been a UN coalition.
How do you know that wasn’t the reason? I think it was a big part, if not the only part, of the reason.
They were never going to find anything… and we would never have known for certain the actual status of Saddam’s WMD stores or programs. Thus, eventually the sanctions would have been dropped and the UN would have declared Saddam in compliance with the UN resolutions and cease fire… then, Saddam would have re-started his programs. I don’t see how that is a good result.
Why was it a mistake?
The same companies made money when Clinton went into Bosnia without UN approval. Why is this only a problem now when Bush does it?
