John Kerry & Saudia Arabia

[Viking]

Kerry may have pissed off ONE country, but that still gives Dubya a headstart in the three-digit range.
Some of you obviously haven't got it yet: If GWB is re-elected (Or to be precise: properly elected for the first time ), the USA's image in the rest of the world will be down the gutter for a long, long time.
The majority over here sees his first 'election' as an accident. But as everybody should know, accidents can happen - Once. If the same accident happens twice, it's just foolishness.
We have a saying over here: 'Every country has the gouvernment it deserves. But a second term for Bush & his cronies would be too tough a punishment

 

[Elwood Blues]

So does that mean you'll stop coming over to WDW for a long time too?

 

[kbeverina]

To be fair, I believe wvrevy's "Vote Republican--it's easier than thinking" was the first such signature. I do believe it was there way before we3luvdisney's signature because the first time I saw we3luvdisney's, I wondered for a second if it was in response to wvrevy's. I didn't see any objection to wvrevy's, may have missed it, though. It's a little hypocritical to get indignant about one and not the other.

 

[kbeverina]

I find the whole Saudi issue very curious. It seems to be a serious concern ever since F9/11. The Saudis have always been cozy with every administration. They were just as cozy with the Clinton administration. It's not an indicator of anything, no matter what it's tried to be spun into. Kerry's top foreign policy advisor is on the Saudi payroll--is there no concern about that? Odd that there's not if it's such a thing to be so worried about.

So what's the deal? Maybe someone could lay out specific concerns about the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by Viking
Kerry may have pissed off ONE country, but that still gives Dubya a headstart in the three-digit range.
Some of you obviously haven't got it yet: If GWB is re-elected (Or to be precise: properly elected for the first time ), the USA's image in the rest of the world will be down the gutter for a long, long time.
The majority over here sees his first 'election' as an accident. But as everybody should know, accidents can happen - Once. If the same accident happens twice, it's just foolishness.
We have a saying over here: 'Every country has the gouvernment it deserves. But a second term for Bush & his cronies would be too tough a punishment

President Bush was elected "properly" in 2000. Any suggestion to the contrary is, quite simply, false.

As for the US's image abroad, the same was said when Ronald Reagan was in office. Now I'm not saying President Bush is in any way comparable to Ronald Reagan. What I am saying is we shouldn't base our votes on what we think the rest of the world will think of us. As long as I'm confident we're doing the right thing, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. That'll get sorted out in the long run.

 

[Robinrs]

Originally posted by kbeverina
To be fair, I believe wvrevy's "Vote Republican--it's easier than thinking" was the first such signature. I do believe it was there way before we3luvdisney's signature because the first time I saw we3luvdisney's, I wondered for a second if it was in response to wvrevy's. I didn't see any objection to wvrevy's, may have missed it, though. It's a little hypocritical to get indignant about one and not the other.

Who cares who was first? They're BOTH insulting and wrong. I cannot believe adults conduct themselves in such a way.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by Robinrs
Who cares who was first? They're BOTH insulting and wrong. I cannot believe adults conduct themselves in such a way. [/B]

Listen, that wasn't a "you did it first, nah nah nah" post.

The same people who objected on this post, I believe, saw wvrevy's and said nothing. Did you see wvrevy's signature "Vote Republican--it's easier than thinking"? Would you have directed a post to him objecting to that? If not, why not?

I personally just ignore them all. The point of my post was a reality check on the indignation.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Viking
Some of you obviously haven't got it yet: If GWB is re-elected (Or to be precise: properly elected for the first time ), the USA's image in the rest of the world will be down the gutter for a long, long time.
The majority over here sees his first 'election' as an accident. But as everybody should know, accidents can happen - Once. If the same accident happens twice, it's just foolishness.

Then apparently it's the majority over there which hasn't gotten it yet.

 

[WillyJ]

Good point Robin. . .

Here's a link to the speech Barack Obama gave last week. . . Click Here

I thought it was flat-out the best messege of what our country is and could be and I for one will make a point of re-reading it everytime I get the urge to rip into to someone who says something political I disagree with.

 

[jennyanydots]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Then apparently it's the majority over there which hasn't gotten it yet.

sorry, teejay, but if we expect to continue to be a global power, we had better turn ourselves around and start respecting the opinions of our allies instead of demeaning them..and changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" if they don't agree with us. unless you think the US should bully the rest of the world into following our lead.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
sorry, teejay, but if we expect to continue to be a global power, we had better turn ourselves around and start respecting the opinions of our allies instead of demeaning them..and changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" if they don't agree with us. unless you think the US should bully the rest of the world into following our lead.

Do you believe John Kerry would have been more successful at getting France on board, given the continuing evidence coming to light regarding France's role in Food-for-Oil and other deals in violation of UN sanctions? Is it really about our diplomacy or is it more about what France had to hide? Is it really that we didnt try hard enough to get France on our side or is the reality that France was never going to vote yes because of their own personal financial interests?

Now France is blocking sanctions against Sudan and all indications point to their financial interests being the root of it as well.

I think people think John Kerry will come into office and all of a sudden the world will be happy with us again. Is that worth it if it means we're going to turn the other way in countries like Sudan, just so we can have the world happy with us again? I just don't buy that it's all about us.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Listen, that wasn't a "you did it first, nah nah nah" post.

The same people who objected on this post, I believe, saw wvrevy's and said nothing. Did you see wvrevy's signature "Vote Republican--it's easier than thinking"? Would you have directed a post to him objecting to that? If not, why not?

I personally just ignore them all. The point of my post was a reality check on the indignation.

I just did a search for wvrevy's posts and he has two quotes in his siggie, one by Roosevelt, and the other by Al Gore.

Maybe he just got tired of being called unAmerican, especially since he already served his country. He seems like a really good guy, don't scare him away!

 

[ByTheSea]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Good point Robin. . .

Here's a link to the speech Barack Obama gave last week. . . Click Here

I thought it was flat-out the best messege of what our country is and could be and I for one will make a point of re-reading it everytime I get the urge to rip into to someone who says something political I disagree with.

Thank you for posting that link, I had missed that speech and heard (correctly after reading it now) it was a good one.

and welcome back

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I just did a search for wvrevy's posts and he has two quotes in his siggie, one by Roosevelt, and the other by Al Gore.

And your point is? Once you change your signature, it changes in all your prior posts as well.

Maybe he just got tired of being called unAmerican, especially since he already served his country. He seems like a really good guy, don't scare him away!

What are you talking about?

Hey, wvrevy can go at it with the best of them and he can hold his own. I wish he would debate with me because I think he's very challenging.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by kbeverina
And your point is? Once you change your signature, it changes in all your prior posts as well.

What are you talking about?

Hey, wvrevy can go at it with the best of them and he can hold his own. I wish he would debate with me because I think he's very challenging.

Oh, I didn't see that one in his siggie. Must have been awhile ago. Yes, you two debating would make for some very interesting reading.

I thought that you meant that you were offended by him, or something......sowry....

 

[peachgirl]

It's a little hypocritical to get indignant about one and not the other.

Actually the only reason the subject was brought up was that the poster was complaining about Kerry being insulting yet her very own posts were insulting every time she put one up....that's the very definition of hypocrisy.

I don't recall wrevy's signature line, but if that's what he had up I'm sure it insulted many Republicans. If it did, they should say so. I figure they can take care of themselves. It's really not my responsibility to worry about what does or does not insult others as long as I'm not doing the insulting.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Oh, I didn't see that one in his siggie. Must have been awhile ago. Yes, you two debating would make for some very interesting reading.

I thought that you meant that you were offended by him, or something......sowry....

Not at all--as I stated in the post you quoted, I ignore it. And maybe roll my eyes in the privacy of my own home.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Actually the only reason the subject was brought up was that the poster was complaining about Kerry being insulting yet her very own posts were insulting every time she put one up....that's the very definition of hypocrisy.

No, the complaint was not that Kerry was insulting. If the objection was purely about not liking insults, you would have a point.

The objection was to the inconsistencies in what Kerry says--he says he would be a better diplomat than Bush. The Saudi reaction to Kerry's words are in contradiction to that.

What Kerry said might be absolutely true. But what we're talking about here are Kerry's assertions regarding his superior diplomatic skills.

I don't recall wrevy's signature line, but if that's what he had up I'm sure it insulted many Republicans. If it did, they should say so. I figure they can take care of themselves. It's really not my responsibility to worry about what does or does not insult others as long as I'm not doing the insulting.

Well, earlier you said if you found a signature insulting an entire group of people based on their party affiliation you would find it just as offensive.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by kbeverina
No, the complaint was not that Kerry was insulting. If the objection was purely about not liking insults, you would have a point.

The objection was to the inconsistencies in what Kerry says--he says he would be a better diplomat than Bush. The Saudi reaction to Kerry's words are in contradiction to that.

What Kerry said might be absolutely true. But what we're talking about here are Kerry's assertions regarding his superior diplomatic skills.

Well, earlier you said if you found a signature insulting an entire group of people based on their party affiliation you would find it just as offensive.

Let me be clearer...If someone insults someone other than me, I can still see that it's offensive even though it's not directed at me. In that case, I don't feel the need to call the person who did the offending on it though. I figure those who are offended can do it for themselves. That, of course, applies to this forum. In another setting I might well speak up.

No, actually the original post was regarding Kerry alienating the Saudi's by insulting them.

The first sentence of the original post...

He hasn't been voted President and he's already alienating other countries! If he's going to piss off Saudia Arabia....

If you'll go back and read the entire post, the op said nothing about Kerry's supposed inconsistencies.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Let me be clearer...If someone insults someone other than me, I can still see that it's offensive even though it's not directed at me. In that case, I don't feel the need to call the person who did the offending on it though. I figure those who are offended can do it for themselves. That, of course, applies to this forum. In another setting I might well speak up.

Okay...but I'm still of the opinion that calling one person out for an insulting signature and not another because you happen to like the second signature is hypocritical if you're trying to make the point that it's not very nice to have a signature like that.

No, actually the original post was regarding Kerry alienating the Saudi's by insulting them.

The first sentence of the original post...



If you'll go back and read the entire post, the op said nothing about Kerry's supposed inconsistencies.

I went back and read the whole first page--that's the point that was made. One of Kerry's biggest critiques of the current administration is its handling of our foreign relations, right? Kerry says he'll be different than the current administration in that he won't alienate our allies, right?

The post was not criticizing him for using insults--the post specifically agreed with the idea Kerry was putting forth, there wasn't criticism of the substance of what he said. The criticism was about the diplomatic fallout. And it's a particularly important point when Kerry touts this as his biggest strength over Bush.