• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Kerry's Quote

Help Support CattleToday:

greenpasture78

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
334
Reaction score
0
90 % of the time I don't approve Kerry's views on various things but he made an interesting quote today: "America should never go to war because we want to. We should go to war because we have to". Sound like something JFK had said. Anyways, Kerry made a ood point.....Iraq War was an "want to" war but Afghanistan is a "have to" war... Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia should be the battleground of the "have-to" wars...
 

la4angus

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
5,063
Reaction score
0
Location
South La
greenpasture78":31lpvofs said:
90 % of the time I don't approve Kerry's views on various things but he made an interesting quote today: "America should never go to war because we want to. We should go to war because we have to". Sound like something JFK had said. Anyways, Kerry made a ood point.....Iraq War was an "want to" war but Afghanistan is a "have to" war... Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia should be the battleground of the "have-to" wars...
But' "Iraq wasn't a have to War"
Smart oreo. :p :p :p :p
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
There aren't any "have to wars". You can just roll over and learn a new language and culture! Instead of being citizens you become subjects!!!!

dun
 

Craig-TX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
What a stupid thing for somebody to say, especially if they’re running for president. I can’t think of a single decent American who WANTS to go to war. For crying out loud, it’s not about half the country getting their jollies in a war.

Come to think of it, that does sound like something Kerry would say. That blow-hard senator can flap his jaws for ten minutes and he still won’t get out ten words of truth, relevance or substance.

Craig-TX
 

Running Arrow Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas Panhandle On US 83
dun":i5urcegw said:
There aren't any "have to wars". You can just roll over and learn a new language and culture! Instead of being citizens you become subjects!!!!

dun

Have to disagree Dun! :) Think the American Revolution was a "have to" war...can't imagine what the USA would be like under British rule...Kings, Queens, Misfits, Fairies, Powdered Wigs, and taxes being to support the frivilous luxuries of the British Crown... Then, there was WWII.... Don't forget the Civil War (freed slaves..., and, kept Yankees from making us all eat bagels, fish and chips ...lol).

Just had to put my 2 cents worth in on this one, Dun ... :roll:
 

Craig-TX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
Running Arrow Bill":2ye8ilfz said:
dun":2ye8ilfz said:
There aren't any "have to wars". You can just roll over and learn a new language and culture! Instead of being citizens you become subjects!!!!

dun

Have to disagree Dun! :) Think the American Revolution was a "have to" war...can't imagine what the USA would be like under British rule...Kings, Queens, Misfits, Fairies, Powdered Wigs, and taxes being to support the frivilous luxuries of the British Crown... Then, there was WWII.... Don't forget the Civil War (freed slaves..., and, kept Yankees from making us all eat bagels, fish and chips ...lol).

Just had to put my 2 cents worth in on this one, Dun ... :roll:

Bill, you missed his point. I believe what he meant was that we don’t “have to” do anything except live ‘till we die and die. Paying taxes doesn’t count any more – at least for lots of folks. We didn’t “have to” fight for freedom in 1776, we don’t “have to” now.

We chose freedom then. Hopefully we will continue to choose it. It seems like the hard choice, especially when the whiners try to paint noble sacrifice and honorable action in such depressing colors. But slavery and submission are much harder choices. Give me liberty or give me death.

Craig-TX
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
Running Arrow Bill":2zvtt5jh said:
dun":2zvtt5jh said:
There aren't any "have to wars". You can just roll over and learn a new language and culture! Instead of being citizens you become subjects!!!!

dun

Have to disagree Dun! :) Think the American Revolution was a "have to" war...can't imagine what the USA would be like under British rule...Kings, Queens, Misfits, Fairies, Powdered Wigs, and taxes being to support the frivilous luxuries of the British Crown... Then, there was WWII.... Don't forget the Civil War (freed slaves..., and, kept Yankees from making us all eat bagels, fish and chips ...lol).

Just had to put my 2 cents worth in on this one, Dun ... :roll:

Read it again carefully!
One of the problems with this form of communication is that the inuendo or sarcasm doesn't alwasy come through clearly

dun
 

Jake

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
5
Location
North Central Kansas
I can understand Kerry's thinkin on goin into a few of those countries but what the heck is with the diaper dopers and thinkin we need to be in Sudan??? 20 plus year war where nothing has been done and isn't gunna be, everybody is out of the country and in the U.S. they are safe the only ones left are the morons fighting, let them kill each other off and ship the refugees back and secure a new government. that is not a "have to war" they say the Iraq war is pointless Sudan would be worse by far.
 

dcara

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
968
Reaction score
0
Location
East of Dallas Texas
I disagree. Its up to the challenger to define the issues of the campaign and obviously if he picks issues where the people are either most divided, or unpleased with the incumbents performance on then the more "buy-in" and acceptance he can get from the public. Iraq is obviously one of the biggest issues the country is involved in and SHOULD be viewed and discussed from every possible perspective. Kerry is right in making it a campaign issue. I believe war to be a thoroughly nasty business and only entered into when there is eminent threat to our country or an ally with which we have defense agreements. Kerry did not say those exact words, but I think that is what Kerry meant by "have to". The Iraq war DID NOT meet those criteria. Going into Iraq is what Bush wanted to do because daddy didn't finish the job and Hussein actually made an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. when he visited Kuwait in '92. Its a matter of record that BUSH Jr. said "find me a way to do this" (go into Iraq) and the CIA obliged with the WMD scenario.

Having said all that, Hussein did need to be removed, but there are certainly other ways that could have been done.

To be honest, I really haven't started researching Kerry's proposed platform enough yet to have an informed opinion of him. But I do feel Bush flat out lied to the country to take us to war and I resent it. I know politicians lie all the time, but Bush's Iraq lie is costing many brave men and women their lives.

IMHO (In my humble opinion)
 

la4angus

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
5,063
Reaction score
0
Location
South La
dcara":tqb3ggoo said:
Going into Iraq is what Bush wanted to do because daddy didn't finish the job and Hussein actually made an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. when he visited Kuwait in '92. Its a matter of record that BUSH Jr. said "find me a way to do this" (go into Iraq) and the CIA obliged with the WMD scenario.

Having said all that, Hussein did need to be removed, but there are certainly other ways that could have been done.

To be honest, I really haven't started researching Kerry's proposed platform enough yet to have an informed opinion of him. But I do feel Bush flat out lied to the country to take us to war and I resent it. I know politicians lie all the time, but Bush's Iraq lie is costing many brave men and women their lives.

IMHO (In my humble opinion)


Forked tongues

It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (read through to the bottom!)


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
dcara":aye8ouko said:
..........Its a matter of record that BUSH Jr. said "find me a way to do this" (go into Iraq) and the CIA obliged with the WMD scenario........

Doug, don't just pitch it out there without being willing to document your sources. Let's have it!


dcara":aye8ouko said:
But I do feel Bush flat out lied to the country to take us to war

Since you qualified this as a "feeling" of your's, I can't really dispute it. I mean, its hard to argue with a touchy, feely position. I disagree that he "flat out lied to the country." Burden of proof seems to be on you again! Do it!
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
la4angus":2nc390ea said:
dun":2nc390ea said:
la4

Good post!

dun

Give credit to Michelle Pankonien.
She's the one that sent it to me.

I had recvd it several times by e-mail just never thought about posting it here.

dun
 

WORANCH

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
0
YES VERY GOOD POST ..


But you know how democraps are. they say it ,but dont mean it....
 

dcara

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
968
Reaction score
0
Location
East of Dallas Texas
This really isn’t that complicated unless one is so biased that they cannot objectively review ALL the facts. Carefully and knowingly selecting only facts that supports one’s view is the same as omission of a known truth. A technique used by politicians, lawyers and the like. I prefer the whole, brutal, and sometimes painful truth myself.

The simple fact is they have not found any WMDs. And anyone with any experience with our intelligence gathering capabilities and community could not possibly believe they will ever find any.

Since the main premise given for going to war was the WMD issue; and, they haven’t found WMDs it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out we were lied to. Since I was not part of the Bush inner circle I certainly can’t state that I ‘knew’ we were lied to. And unlike some, I know the difference between facts and beliefs. ‘Feel’ is synonymous with belief. Hence, my choice of words were appropriate and conclusion logical. A “burden of proof” is not relevant to a logical conclusion based on facts in evidence.

Regarding the various quotes from mostly politicians, who cares. If they said Hussein had WMDs and he didn’t then they were wrong. Its just that simple. Believe it or not, politicians produce sound bites for mainly political purposes. Seldom are they quotable purveyors of truth, although, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger are somewhat more believable.

In fact the fragment I quoted was on Frontline from Sandy Berger. All Frontline shows are transcripted so it shouldn’t be to difficult to find.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
dcara":3voewdsf said:
........If they said Hussein had WMDs and he didn’t then they were wrong. Its just that simple..............Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger are somewhat more believable.

In fact the fragment I quoted was on Frontline from Sandy Berger. All Frontline shows are transcripted so it shouldn’t be to difficult to find.

Okay, Doug. Let me see if I get it now. If your pals Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger said it, they were wrong. If President Bush said the same thing, he lied.

Alright. Well then, if Sandy Berger was "wrong" once, is it possible he was "wrong" again on Frontline? Or was that a lie? I don't see how you differentiate. Maybe its a simple Republicans lie/Democrats are only wrong standard?

Still would like for you to post that transcript for us since you are more familiar with your source. But if Madeline Albright meets your standard for credibility, never mind!
 

MULDOON

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
673
Reaction score
0
Location
Where the Stars & Stripes ,, And the Eagle fli
there is a other post , dealing with if WMD were found or not, it could of been brought from some where else blah ,blah , blah!!

Everytime I read this stuff saying that , well it's not really WMD that they found!
This is what it reminds me of!
----------------------------------------------------You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.


What do you do?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think?
What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Conservative Answer:

BANG!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click....

(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips
 

dcara

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
968
Reaction score
0
Location
East of Dallas Texas
First, there is this quirky little thing called time here that kind of keeps everything from happening at once. One of the funny things about time is that something that might have been “believed” to be true one minute, day, year etc., may be found to be untrue in the next instant. If you review the quotes you will note that Albright’s and Berger’s quotes were made in 98 and 99. Hence it is certainly possible that they believed what they said when they said it. Since both of them have served under Republican AND Democratic administrations I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt albeit with a jauntis eye. It seems that when they make statements that support your view you call them republicans and when they don’t you call them democrats. This appears to be a double standard as further evidenced by your request for me to post copy of the actual source data from my quote yet you made no such request for all the other quotes.

I think the basic test to differentiate between someone lying or just saying something wrong is usually a matter of what they truly “believe” the truth is. However, if someone refuses to accept new facts/truths that disprove previously held beliefs because the facts/truths don’t support their agenda then this crosses the line. As I said before, omission of a known and relevant truth is the same as a lie.

It is certainly possible Berger lied on Frontline but I don’t “believe” he did just because as you pointed out he is my friend. Just kidding. Berger doesn’t know me from Adam.

BTW, I’m partial to the conservative’s response to the guy with the knife as there was imminent danger. The sad thing is that the conservative would probably end up doing time for it instead of being given commendation. But he certainly could not take the same action against a guy on the other side of the street that is jumping up and down, cussing, and just being a pain in the rear.
 

Latest posts

Top