John Kerry's position as of late is that as president he would first seek the U.N.'s approval and that of our "allies" before taking military action. So in theory if we needed to use military force for something - like the fight against worldwide Islamo-fascist terrorism - and France or Germany or Russia said "no" for whatever reason, then that might limit our prospects of preventing future attacks in the U.S. or abroad. In other words Kerry could quickly become the U.N's bitch. And the fact that Kim Jhong Il supports Kerry as president is just creepy.
Is getting approval from a coalition of countries formed to prevent a future world war bad. I applaude him for seeking approval from the UN, when Bush didnt do that is when I started to dislike him. Is iraq linked to terrorism as much as other countries like Iran...no Did the CIA lie about iraqs ties to Al-quedda...yes. Did they admit they stretched the truth...yes. Did it force George Tenet to quit...yes Iran let prisoners free when Reagan became president, does that make him bad? I like Reagan, I dont know about you.
Yes the U.N.'s job is to protect the world from "evil". So where was the U.N. in the Sudan when in a three month period 10 million innocents were slaughtered in genocide? What did the brilliant head of the U.N. Kofi Annan do then? Nothing. What about the oil-for-food scandal, top U.N. officials guilty of taking billions from dictaors, namely Saddam Hussein. Relying on the U.N. to do anything after 9-11 is absurd. Yeah it just so happens the Islamic-fascist blowing themselves up around the world are brown. What does that have to do with anything? Hitler was white as were his SS troops but we had to stop him too. So don't even fucking try that "We're doing it because they're not white bullshit." As a side note, it is interesting to hear people discredit Bush for not going to the U.N. He actually did, and tried to convince them that Saddam must go. Given that Bush, John Kerry and John Edwards believed Saddam had nuclear capability and could easily sell that to terrorists how can you blame them (Kerry and Edwards did vote for the war resolution passed in the senate) for acting on the CIA info that they had. Oh yea, and where was the outrage when Clinton rejected the U.N. and sent the U.S. to war - alone - to fight another country's civil war in Serbia? It was a just cause to do so then as it is a just cause to finally rid the Middle East of Saddam Hussein and give the most oppressed men, and especially women, in the world to have a start at democracy. What's happened since 9-11? I'll tell you. For the first time ever Afghanistan will be holding democratic elections. Already almost 50% of the population there is registered to vote, about 46% of those registered are women. Since 9-11 Mommar Quadaffi, dictator of Lybia, has cancelled his WMD programs, after watching Saddam being pulled out of a rathole like the true bitch that he is. You think peace comes free. It doesn't. It is free for you because 228 years ago someone else fought away oppression. It is free for you because in 1865 someone else fought away slavery and to unite this country. It is free for you because in 1945 someone else fought away fascism that had spread all over Europe and was headed here. Just as children in Iraq and Afghanistan and hopefully the rest of the Middle East someday will enjoy a piece of the freedom pie that everyone under the age of 25 shits on everyday in America. I don't think the U.S. is always "right" and other countries are "evil." I also don't think the way to rid evil is by putting a gun in one's mouth and pulling the trigger. I believe that's the logic that was taught in those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. But hey, I guess people with sickening ignorance need something like that to belive in.
8 Comments:
If you pasted Kerry's head over Bush's and the bullhorn was Jaque Chirac's crotch you'd have the DNC's foreign policy plan pretty much outlined.
*teehee* 8-)
What ties does the Democratic Nation Convention foreign policy have to Jacque Chirac? I can't think of any.
John Kerry's position as of late is that as president he would first seek the U.N.'s approval and that of our "allies" before taking military action. So in theory if we needed to use military force for something - like the fight against worldwide Islamo-fascist terrorism - and France or Germany or Russia said "no" for whatever reason, then that might limit our prospects of preventing future attacks in the U.S. or abroad. In other words Kerry could quickly become the U.N's bitch. And the fact that Kim Jhong Il supports Kerry as president is just creepy.
Besides it was a joke.
Is getting approval from a coalition of countries formed to prevent a future world war bad. I applaude him for seeking approval from the UN, when Bush didnt do that is when I started to dislike him. Is iraq linked to terrorism as much as other countries like Iran...no Did the CIA lie about iraqs ties to Al-quedda...yes. Did they admit they stretched the truth...yes. Did it force George Tenet to quit...yes Iran let prisoners free when Reagan became president, does that make him bad? I like Reagan, I dont know about you.
i know it was a joke, it just made no sense.
Right on. I wish I knew who posted that above.
Yes the U.N.'s job is to protect the world from "evil". So where was the U.N. in the Sudan when in a three month period 10 million innocents were slaughtered in genocide? What did the brilliant head of the U.N. Kofi Annan do then? Nothing. What about the oil-for-food scandal, top U.N. officials guilty of taking billions from dictaors, namely Saddam Hussein. Relying on the U.N. to do anything after 9-11 is absurd. Yeah it just so happens the Islamic-fascist blowing themselves up around the world are brown. What does that have to do with anything? Hitler was white as were his SS troops but we had to stop him too. So don't even fucking try that "We're doing it because they're not white bullshit." As a side note, it is interesting to hear people discredit Bush for not going to the U.N. He actually did, and tried to convince them that Saddam must go. Given that Bush, John Kerry and John Edwards believed Saddam had nuclear capability and could easily sell that to terrorists how can you blame them (Kerry and Edwards did vote for the war resolution passed in the senate) for acting on the CIA info that they had. Oh yea, and where was the outrage when Clinton rejected the U.N. and sent the U.S. to war - alone - to fight another country's civil war in Serbia? It was a just cause to do so then as it is a just cause to finally rid the Middle East of Saddam Hussein and give the most oppressed men, and especially women, in the world to have a start at democracy. What's happened since 9-11? I'll tell you. For the first time ever Afghanistan will be holding democratic elections. Already almost 50% of the population there is registered to vote, about 46% of those registered are women. Since 9-11 Mommar Quadaffi, dictator of Lybia, has cancelled his WMD programs, after watching Saddam being pulled out of a rathole like the true bitch that he is. You think peace comes free. It doesn't. It is free for you because 228 years ago someone else fought away oppression. It is free for you because in 1865 someone else fought away slavery and to unite this country. It is free for you because in 1945 someone else fought away fascism that had spread all over Europe and was headed here. Just as children in Iraq and Afghanistan and hopefully the rest of the Middle East someday will enjoy a piece of the freedom pie that everyone under the age of 25 shits on everyday in America. I don't think the U.S. is always "right" and other countries are "evil." I also don't think the way to rid evil is by putting a gun in one's mouth and pulling the trigger. I believe that's the logic that was taught in those terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. But hey, I guess people with sickening ignorance need something like that to belive in.
Damn dude you dont need to write an essay
I can't help it. I'm a dork.
Post a Comment
<< Home