Ohhhhh......how cute

SharpLS-96 · 01-12-05, 02:15 PM

I see his Vietnam story effected some young soul in this World.
What an honor.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...rry_dam104.jpg]

The 13-year-old Syrian Mustafa al-Nabulsi approaches the U.S. former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, a democrat from Massachusetts, to give him a drawing in which al-Nabulsi portrayed Kerry in his military uniform when he was a soldier in Vietnam on Saturday, Jan. 8, 2004 in Damascus following his talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the U.S.-Syria strained bilateral relations. Kerry, who arrived in Damascus on Friday, met earlier in the day with Syrian President Bashar Assad. (AP Photo/ Bassem Tellawi).

videcormeum · 01-12-05, 04:15 PM

Ha ... election's over Sharp - give it up man.

Politics = Pretense

That goes for all sides.

M.

mikeloc24 · 01-12-05, 04:42 PM

Why do you guys follow the activities of this person if you despise him so much? I ingore those who I don't like...and rarely speak on them at all...why bother, I don't like them remember? Oh well....

SharpLS-96 · 01-12-05, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeloc24

Why do you guys follow the activities of this person if you despise him so much? I ingore those who I don't like...and rarely speak on them at all...why bother, I don't like them remember? Oh well....

You always have to keep a close eye on your enemy otherwise he might stab you in your back.

He's done it once to this country!

Matters · 01-13-05, 06:55 AM

The dude volunteered to fight. I might or might not agree with his politics and what he did afterwards but I personally respect his contribution as a Vietnam veteran. President Bush has said that he respects Senator Kerry's contribution as a Vietnam veteran. The president is leading by example by being respectful to all verterans whether they be Vietnam, Gulf I or Gulf II vets. I''m not saying you can't call Senator Kerry a traitor or an enemy about eveything else (freedom dictates that you can say things like that) but I still reckon we should all folllow the president's lead and actually respect Senator Kerry's contribution as a Vietnam veteran. So I gotta say that this post kind of angered me.

SC400-V8 · 01-13-05, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpLS-96

You always have to keep a close eye on your enemy otherwise he might stab you in your back.

He's done it once to this country!

Yes, but at least he attacked the RIGHT country, the RIGHT enemy, and of course, has a talent which is speaking with good grammar and in complete sentences.

"A war that is costing us over a billion dollars every week and has virtually no end in sight."

SharpLS-96 · 01-13-05, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC400-V8

Yes, but at least he attacked the RIGHT country, the RIGHT enemy

Shall we go down this road again?!
Oh we did attack the right country !!!!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Co...ide.hlarge.jpg
Search for truth: Iraqis search through rows of corpses recovered from one of the Saddam government's mass graves.

Here's some news you like.
Don't worry now, Saddam is getting some good legal defense from a former U.S. attorney-general and left-wing activist Ramsey Clark.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6523

mikeloc24 · 01-13-05, 11:37 AM

This is not a rhetorical question, I want an answer, a correct one hopefully: If we did attack the "right country" then why was Iraq considered more of an immediate threat than N. Korea or Iran? Why did our focus of finding and capturing/killing OBL shift to getting Saddam out of power? It just seems like we've said, "ok, this Osama dude is too hard to find...let's just go after someone more visible instead." Why haven't we gone after Kim Jong II yet?

videcormeum · 01-13-05, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeloc24

This is not a rhetorical question, I want an answer, a correct one hopefully: If we did attack the "right country" then why was Iraq considered more of an immediate threat than N. Korea or Iran? Why did our focus of finding and capturing/killing OBL shift to getting Saddam out of power? It just seems like we've said, "ok, this Osama dude is too hard to find...let's just go after someone more visible instead." Why haven't we gone after Kim Jong II yet?

N. Korea - so far - seems, at least ostensibly, to be responding positively to diplomacy. Another reason N. Korea may be more of an immediate security threat technically (in terms of capability) - but less one in reality - is due to the fact that it's not in anyone's best interest for Korea to nuke any part of the world. If America blows up - Japan's economy dries up - and you better believe that China's does the same thing (visited Walmart lately?? EVERYTHING is made in China). In other words - they've got that, generally, under control regionally w/ diplomacy and regional watchdogs.

Iran is a more complicated story and I don't necessarily have the "right" answer as it were. But this is how I see it. Although the U.N. Security Council didn't cooperate in initiating the war in Iraq - Iraq had, for some time, been uncooperative as well - in this case, of course, with U.N. weapons inspectors lead by Blix. It seemed that every three months for almost 6 years we'd hear something about how Iraq prevented inspectors from reaching their targeted inspection areas. So what was occuring during that time? Well, given Saddam's past history of having both the capability and intention of deploying chemical and biological weapons and his apparent intention to eventually acquire nuclear capability - the answer was obviously alarming for those whom we employ to ensure our security. I think one possibility, as reasoning, for our invading Iraq rather than Iran is that the Bush administration wrongly assumed early in planning that, given the numerous Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions, perhaps the security council would sanction and become involved in the war effort. Of course, when we didn't get approval, we still prosecuted the war. Perhaps undertaking the war virtually alone (though with a few notable partners ... with whom I'm sure you're familiar) was a mistake, however.

Now for the switch of focus from OBL to Saddam. I think what you mentioned is certainly part of the answer. We can't find OBL - but we did find Saddam and so that gets the press. But I'd stop short of saying our efforts to capture OBL have concluded. My guess is that many, many CIA agents and special forces personnel remain in that hunt; eventually we'll get him.

M.

WhiteTiger · 01-13-05, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeloc24

.... then why was Iraq considered more of an immediate threat than N. Korea or Iran? ....... Why haven't we gone after Kim Jong II yet?

I think part of the reason is because N. Korea didn't host terrorist's training camps for insurgents and radical Muslim groups. They're more of a nuclear threat.

mikeloc24 · 01-13-05, 03:54 PM

Mike and Ed thanks, that helps me a lot. I'm getting a better understanding of things.

I have another question now: If the UN inspectors had been halted by Saddam that many times over the course of 6 years, what was his reasoning for stopping them if he had nothing to hide? Meaning, why did the UN continue to play this game with him where he could bar them from seeing certain area? Certainly once they saw clearly that he was stalling why didn't Annan or whoever was in charge just say, "look, we gave you a deadline and that's that, we're coming in peacefully or we're coming in with force. But one way or another we WILL inspect those areas"

videcormeum · 01-13-05, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeloc24

Mike and Ed thanks, that helps me a lot. I'm getting a better understanding of things.

I have another question now: If the UN inspectors had been halted by Saddam that many times over the course of 6 years, what was his reasoning for stopping them if he had nothing to hide? Meaning, why did the UN continue to play this game with him where he could bar them from seeing certain area? Certainly once they saw clearly that he was stalling why didn't Annan or whoever was in charge just say, "look, we gave you a deadline and that's that, we're coming in peacefully or we're coming in with force. But one way or another we WILL inspect those areas"

You've just described the biggest problem the U.N. has - enforcing its own resolutions.

Nothing was done when they couldn't enter a facility. It was reported, the U.N. responded after a while and a warning or, in some cases, another resolution was drafted requiring cooperation.

There have been several books written about U.N. corruption. You've probably heard on the news about the oil-for-food scandal that has France blushing. I'm not well-read here, however, nor have I consulted with people who do know what's going on for sure - so I won't pretend to know. But the U.N. has, largely, been ineffective at enforcing policy.

M.

RobSoVIP · 01-13-05, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whipimpin

You've just described the biggest problem the U.N. has - enforcing its own resolutions.

Nothing was done when they couldn't enter a facility. It was reported, the U.N. responded after a while and a warning or, in some cases, another resolution was drafted requiring cooperation.

There have been several books written about U.N. corruption. You've probably heard on the news about the oil-for-food scandal that has France blushing. I'm not well-read here, however, nor have I consulted with people who do know what's going on for sure - so I won't pretend to know. But the U.N. has, largely, been ineffective at enforcing policy.

M.

That is exactly right, and it just highlights the difficulties that multi-national authoritative organizations have when attempting to be a regulatory agency. How we solve this is another issue that I can't even begin to fathom.

mikeloc24 · 01-14-05, 12:49 PM

Thank you, I like this type of discussion...I'm learning....

Lil4X · 01-14-05, 03:40 PM

We in the US particularly seem to make a great deal of fuss over corrupt business practices. The UN simply focuses those practices. Whether you call it a kick-back, payoff, mordida, or baksheesh, in most cultures, paying a "gratuity" for business is the norm. Perhaps it's the Protestant ethic that causes us to look down on those accepting such "gifts" as morally deficient. We think it is wrong - but we may find ourselves in the minority.

Large corporations doing business overseas have dealt with this fact for years - particularly in the third world. Payoffs for business done under the table are expected, and it is accomplished by many US firms on a regular basis. Without it, we could follow our high moral principles straight to the poorhouse. It's odd that on one hand we demand that our business dealings with other countries conform to our lofty principles, yet on the other hand, stockholders are ready to tar and feather executives that lose a lucrative overseas contract - simply for trying to enforce these principles on the rest of the world.

For me, the big problem is that of escalation. As my old sales manager (who had experience in these matters) once said, "Last year you gave them a bottle of whiskey, this year you gave them a shotgun, whattaya gonna do next year, buy 'em a new pickup? The best solution is never to start buying your business!"

I'd like to think I could hold to my principles - but it's fortunate that it is unlikely I'll ever be so tested. Of course, I may be sufficiently naive to have already missed a client's subtle suggestion for a gift. That's OK, I didn't get the business and he got stiffed anyway - fair trade.