| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Kerry Speech from 2002 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2004, 06:40 PM (196 Views) | |
| Wichita | Apr 11 2004, 06:40 PM Post #1 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...kerry-iraq.html |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 11 2004, 06:52 PM Post #2 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Good catch, Wichita! Yeah, I'm one of the many Dems who originally supported Bush in the Iraq situation. Seeing the intelligence that was presented to the people, hearing the arguments made, and understanding that militarilyit would be an easy "kill", I supported it. Now with the lack of WMD, the evidence of "stove-piped" evidence (evidence that only supports one view), and the climbing number of deaths for guerilla attacks, I wish I hadn't. I also think I let my (post 9/11) emotions carry me away as I think happened to most of the public. Now it's a few regional militaries (UK, Japan, Australia), a list of nations who gave their vocal support (but not much else), and us. I wish we had thought this out more. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 11 2004, 07:31 PM Post #3 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
I also have posted this previously, although it seems to belong here as well: Here is a speech I gave at undergrad in January 2002: - Supporters of the UN should advocate an invasion of Iraq because of 1. The Saddam Regime’s use and obvious ownership of chemical weapons, 2. The Saddam Regime’s continuing violation of human rights, 3. The Saddam Regime’s violation of trade embargos, 4. The Saddam Regime’s refusal to admit Un inspectors, and 5. The Saddam Regime’s encouragement of terrorist activities, all of which violate UN resolutions and most of which are grounds for a UN-backed invasion of Iraq - Democracy advocates should hate the Saddam Regime for completely controlling elections and giving no citizens any voice – and hardly any rights - Anti-anti Semitics should hate the Saddam Regime for his desire to kill all Jews and his history of sending Scuds into Israel - Anti-terror advocates should hate the Saddam Regime for supporting Al Qaeda terrorists as well as sponsoring, harboring, and leading its own army of terrorists in activities against Iran, Kuwait, Israel, and the Western Powers - Humanitarians should hate the Saddam Regime for permitting the torture of its over 600 Kuwaiti, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, Omani, and American, yes American prisoners - Anti-Capital punishment advocates should hate the Saddam Regime for at least 1,500 political executions - Environmentalists should hate the Saddam Regime for its ecoterror activities including dumping millions of barrels – that’s barrels not gallons – of oil into the Persian Gulf and the lighting of Kuwaiti oil pumps on fire burning millions more unrefined gallons of oil, not to mention its use of chemical warfare and obvious attempts to obtain biological and nuclear capabilities - Minority rights activists should hate the Saddam Regime for not just its suppression of the Kurdish minority but the outright genocide Saddam has attempted to commit in Kurdistan - Human Rights activists should hate the Saddam Regime for using chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds in an attempt at genocide - Women’s Rights activists should hate the Saddam Regime for allowing women to be raped and murdered in front of their husbands as some sick form of punishment - Children’s Rights advocates should hate the Saddam Regime the forced labor of children, the conscription of children as young as 10-years old into the military against those childrens’ wills, and endorsing the rapes and murders of children in front of their parents as some sick, twisted form of punishment End Speech I also recommend the following website: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/black-sheep/uday-hussein/ Caution - it is not for the faint of heart - it describes some of the stuff Saddam's son Uday did - simple ghastly. The ONLY one you/Kerry have a problem with is part 1 of point 1? And considering EVERYONE in the UN admitted he had chemical weapons - Hans Blix, Chirac, etc. - I don't know how you can complain. Clinton admitted he had them, Dems admitted he had them. I'm not sure ANYONE thought Saddam didn't have them prior to May 2002. Can you still argue against the war? If so, I'd appreciate you'd argue all the points, not just the one that you find convenient or weakest, as I believe ALL of these are justification for war, save the environmental one. For example, if you were to argue that global warming exists I'd say this past winter's record lows in the NE would be proof positive global warming doesn't exist. You might come back with loads of statistics. I would say "but you haven't addressed the record lows in the NE yet." One factual anomaly does not an argument make ... or break, particularly considering that: 1. Hindsight is 20/20 and no one thought the WMDs didn't exist prior to the invasion, and; 2. WMDs are one small factor in a slew of others, each of which is enough for war. ONLY if ALL are proven wrong should the war not happen. Understood? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 11 2004, 08:02 PM Post #4 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I think that text makes him out to be the flip flopper that he's always been. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 12 2004, 10:07 PM Post #5 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Guys, I never said Sadaam was a nice guy; he wasn't. And his kids were nuts, too. And yes, he had chemical weapons that he was perfectly willing to use. But, as the old Russian saying goes, I'd rather have the wolf at my door than at my throat. Before Gulf War 2, we had some ships in the area and did overflights enforcing the no fly zone. Occasionally Sadaam would flip on one of his anti air batteries and we'd zap it. Now we've got a guerilla war. It costs huge amounts of money we really don't have. It kills, wounds, and maims our soldiers. It breaks down our relations with other nations. It damages our economy. Just because an action can be justified dosen't necissarily mean we should do it. Just because we can do a thing does not mean it should be done. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 13 2004, 03:38 AM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
Just outside Russia? Seriously, I didn't know that that was an old Russian saying. I thought you were imitating P. Chekov for a moment.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 13 2004, 11:28 AM Post #7 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Here are a couple of Russian sayings that disagree with your Russian saying. If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a "peace conference," you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes. If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 13 2004, 03:23 PM Post #8 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Um, why not? You said,
Sounds like we SHOULD have done something, even by your own words. In addition,
Actually, we don't. What we had were a series of minor skirmishes, followed by an attempt at an uprising that is being slapped down pretty handily. Right now we have F-15s dropping Mk-82s on Fallujah. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 13 2004, 03:33 PM Post #9 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
It's nice to see that someone with your viewpoint is willing to defend their position, rather than selectively attack and disappear. Accolades to Adrian. "It costs huge amounts of money we really don't have." We will have a balanced budget by 2009 (new info released this weekend). All thanks to Bush. If he's going to revive the economy doesn't he get credit? Anyway, this is a far morally superior cause to spend our money on than cow flatulence studies or putting crucifixes in jars. Furthermore, see below: "It kills, wounds, and maims our soldiers." First of all, liberals and Democrats have been the primary warmongers of the US. US involvement in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Somalia are all thanks to Dems. They have allowed our forces to be thrown into useless wars (Vietnam and Somalia are obvious, in Kosovo Slobodan Milisavich was acquitted!) of a morally questionable nature (Democratic support of the South during the Civil War, Vietnam again, Somalia, Kosovo, one might also question our participation in World War I), and often lose (Civil War, Vietnam, Somalia - Kosovo and Korea are on the fence as far as "winning" goes). Republicans withhold their support for morally superior wars that are winnable, and indeed won. The Gulf War, World War II, and the North during the Civil War. Why question us now when you've always been wrong when we've always been right? Oh well, I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I'm such a nice guy ; ) As far as the money issue goes, you've wasted billions as part of your party, and you didn't even win your causes most of the time! Additionally, how can you consider saving people from genocide a waste of money, when the other option of that use of money would be spend on the richest country in the world that is experiencing record economic growth? Anyway, just because you've always been wrong and we've always been right isn't an excuse. Neither is the fact that you have no standing to argue your position (from the legal sense of the word standing) an excuse. Nor do I have the excuse to argue it's our turn to send our troops into battle, as you always get to for bad reasons and it's our turn to send them in for the right reasons. None of these are an excuse that will get me out of refuting your point. They're just fun to mention. But what does defeat your argument is quite simple - that's what they're there for; they aren't drafted, they know their job, and it is up to us as a society to determine if the harms way we place them in is morally justified. It certainly is, given the significant LACK of deaths in Iraq. Service in the Gulf War was actually safer for members of the military than being on base in the US! More people are murdered in US cities than soldiers killed in Iraq. And US cities have substantially smaller populations than Iraq! To say that this war is all that bas is a joke. It’s gone wildly better than anyone’s expectations. The Iraqi government is set to take control in 211 days followed by a removal of most of our troops. It couldn’t have gone better, and the last few big pushes by the opposition will be over in a matter of months. We won man, get over it – the Republicans were right. "It damages our economy." I just said we're experiencing record economic growth. What part of that didn't you understand ; ) Anyway, war is a massive boon to the economy in most cases. Take the Civil War and the subsequent Reconstruction, World War I and the Roaring 20s, World War II which got us out of the Great Depression into a wonderful period, the Gulf War which got us out of a short depression into the Clinton years of excess. Your argument is indefensible if you have any economic expertise (it's one of my undergrad majors), and it simply fails to acknowledge past precedent. "It breaks down our relations with other nations." Like what nations? The ones that already hated us and used this event to act like they’ve changed their minds from what it’s always been? The countries that don’t like us because their government leaders are busy being bribed by Saddam. I mean, world leaders, bribed by Saddam, and they propose to act as a moral compass to us?!!?! That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! In fact, this war is bringing US together with its allies, and flushing out those that pretend to be allies but are in fact morally questionable. It’s done more than we could have hoped. I didn’t even realize how great this war is to our country until I have to think things through herein. “Just because an action can be justified dosen't necissarily mean we should do it. Just because we can do a thing does not mean it should be done.” Tell that to the South, or those that fought during Vietnam or in Somalia or Kosovo. Anyway, I agree with that statement, although each of my 15 points warrant an invasion of Iraq alone. Like I wrote above I believe you need to defeat each and every one of my arguments from a moral standpoint to win your argument. Each one morally obligates us to invade Iraq. Your economic issues are laughable, and although it is your prerogative to make them, you must convince others that taking a little cash from this rich, economically vibrant nation is not worth the upright and justifiable convictions I have presented, again, one by one. Hopefully I haven’t scared you away. It seems my opposition likes to take pot shots at the one or two parts of my argument they find the weakest and leave the rest alone. They also fail to return and defend themselves once I again defeat them. This kind of shows a lack of resolve, very defining of Kerry’s side I think, and part of the arguments others have made (the flip-flopping Dwayne mentioned). Can we get someone that doesn’t flip-flop or run from adversity to defend their position? Adrian seems the closest I’ve found yet. Again, this isn’t a personal attack on you Adrian, just debating the merits of your arguments. You’re doing a wonderful job – keep it up. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 14 2004, 12:52 AM Post #10 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
Bill, The general in charge has called the insurgents' tactics as "classic guerilla warfare". Upon that, and a description of the insurgents attacking and then melding in with the populace, I based the conflict as a guerilla war. A nation should go to war only as a choice of last resort when its vital interests are threatened. Otherwise, the nation's tresure, people, resources and reputation could be drained away. This war doesn't qualify. Yes we had the moral authority as he was a bad man, but remember John Quincy Adams' declaration that, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own."? Anon, Your assertion that we will have a blanced budget in 2009 is optomistic, to say the least. As an economist you should know that the further out a forecast goes, the harder it is to pinpoint. It must also take for granted a "happy ending" in Iraq; I am not so sure. My comment that "It kills, wounds, and maims our soldiers." is true of all wars; I was merely pointing out that we are risking our soldiers for a questionable venture. No offense, but your assertions about who got into what war are irrelevant (as well as innacurate). The question is whether or not we should've gone into Iraq and what do we do now, not each party's stand on every conflict from now back to the Civil War. As for economic indicators they are shakey at best right now. The economic recovery is so far jobless (I believe it's 3 Million jobs lost so far). The deficit is huge (the largest on record). The same could be said for private debt. Remember the good old days when we were economically disciplined and had a surplus? What ever happened to that? And while war did boost us out of the Great Depression (because of the massive mobilization of industry that hasn't been seen since), generally wars are bad on economies. Even when we fight on foreign battlefields, the uncertainty war breeds creates havoc in the markets, causes more peopple to save rather than spend, and only pumps up a few select industries. At the outsett of the war the assertion that Iraq's oil production could make up for the war expenditures has proven false. Estimates are that it will take years to get up to the pre-war level of production (if sabotage does not interfere). As for the goodwill of other nations, we need it if we ever run into a problem that transends borders. International cyber-crime, international terrorism, epidemics, enviromental matters, international trade, and immigration are just a few that leap to mind. If we are veiwed as an international leader instead of a rogue superpower all of these problems are easier to find solutions. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 14 2004, 02:07 AM Post #11 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
"Your assertion that we will have a blanced budget in 2009 is optomistic, to say the least." Indeed I would consider it pessimistic, or conservative at the very least. It assumes the same economic growth as now, whereas economic growth tends to be exponential. And it’s not even my assertion. "As an economist you should know that the further out a forecast goes, the harder it is to pinpoint." That is true, although it does not defeat, or even contend with, my point. "It must also take for granted a "happy ending" in Iraq; I am not so sure." It does not. It assumes an increase in government expenses of greater than inflation. "My comment that "It kills, wounds, and maims our soldiers." is true of all wars; I was merely pointing out that we are risking our soldiers for a questionable venture." We are risking them hardly more than if they were not at war - that is my contention and I have presented the facts to back it up. It is killing our soldiers little more than if they were in the US. As far as questionable venture, I have presented 15 exemplary reasons, none of which you have even attempted to refute. Questionable indeed. “No offense, but your assertions about who got into what war are irrelevant (as well as innacurate). The question is whether or not we should've gone into Iraq and what do we do now, not each party's stand on every conflict from now back to the Civil War” I was merely explaining the hypocracy of the Democrats’ argument. I was merely stating it to display their hypocrisy, I never even implied it had anything to with the moral implications of Iraq, just the lack of standing the Democratic party has. I clearly stated so. As far as inaccurate: Civil War began when the Democratic South seceded We entered World War I under President Wilson with a Democratic Senate We entered World War II under President Roosevelt with a Democratic Senate We entered Korea under President Truman with a Democratic Senate JFK and LBJ got us into Vietnam unconstitutionally, and Nixon pulled us out. Clinton got us into Kosovo and Somalia without Senate support. Where’s the inaccuracy? “As for economic indicators they are shakey at best right now. The economic recovery is so far jobless (I believe it's 3 Million jobs lost so far).” And 3.5 million gained. Net 5 million gained. That’s huge for our employable population. “The deficit is huge (the largest on record).” I take it you are using nominal numbers. Anyone who understands inflation realizes only real numbers should be used in this respect. Our deficit is relatively low in real numbers. And like I said, balanced budget by 2009. “The same could be said for private debt.” Retention of private debt is not in itself a bad thing. It is a strong indicator of the improvement of our society’s use of consumption smoothing curves. A good thing. “Remember the good old days when we were economically disciplined and had a surplus? What ever happened to that?” 9/11. Duh. I mean, come on! “And while war did boost us out of the Great Depression (because of the massive mobilization of industry that hasn't been seen since), generally wars are bad on economies.” Tell that to the Reconstruction, 20s, 50s, 90s. I mean, again, you have to say why, not just make statements and never support them. “Even when we fight on foreign battlefields, the uncertainty war breeds creates havoc in the markets, causes more peopple to save rather than spend, and only pumps up a few select industries.” Our nation saves about 2% of its income. This is lower than almost all nations (remember the personal debt thing?) Saving slows the economy in the short run but actually improves it in the long run. And the facts of past wars prove it is good for the economy. Your reason is flawed and you failed to refute the past precedent I mentioned earlier. “At the outsett of the war the assertion that Iraq's oil production could make up for the war expenditures has proven false.” I’m not sure this was a contention of the Bush Administration. Indeed oil never came into any of my reasons for going to war. Why concern yourself over it? Again, it’s a balance of the morals versus the money. I gave you 15 morals, so now tell me the money’s not worth it. “Estimates are that it will take years to get up to the pre-war level of production (if sabotage does not interfere).” Who cares? Who needs it? “As for the goodwill of other nations, we need it if we ever run into a problem that transends borders.” Like when a nation, say Iraq, were to invade Iran or Kuwait? Or breach the Geneva Convention by torturing and holding US prisoners (and those of other nations). Or violate the Oil for Food Convention? Or violate the no-fly-zones? These other countries didn’t help us before. That’s why I said the war brought out our true allies and those just pretending. They failed to follow the obligations they had imposed on themselves. Rather than merely attacking in general, please do as I do and take specific points and argue them on the merits. Otherwise you are either remaking the same argument after it has been refuted (happy ending in Iraq, soldier deaths in Iraq, purpose of bringing forward who began what war, and international comeraderie – I refuted them all in my last post), or ignoring my assertions and bringing up unrelated arguments (my assertions is the 15 point list you have not even attempted to crack; your unrelated arguments seem to be primarily money based ie how our economy is doing). It seems as though you are merely acknowledging my correctness by never arguing against me. You instead seem you bring up more and more irrelevant side arguments that seem irrelevant. For example, what does your discussion of the economy have to do with the Iraq situation? I have already stated you need to make your arguments on the merits. This means balancing out the 15 moral points to your economic concerns. I have done so by showing how little cost this war has relative to the unbelievable moral positives of invading. You haven’t even tried to refute this. I doubt it is a concession, but like I mentioned before, your side seems to fail to defend its points, merely moving onto different methods of attack when you lose your argument. This indicates a lack of ability to defend your arguments, and a lack of moral or logical righteousness. It also has a tendency to move away from the discussion at hand – sort of a red herring method. All of these methods of assertion are a crutch for an inadequate argument. I hope you will pay closer attention to these posts in the future to avoid this. I even predicted and warned against these occurrences prior to these erroneous proceedings! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


Seriously, I didn't know that that was an old Russian saying. I thought you were imitating P. Chekov for a moment.

2:13 PM Jul 11