Kerry Dismantling Coalition

[LisaZoe]

Kendra, I did read the Australian and other articles from your links. No where did I see any reference to Kerry supporting the candidate running against John Howard, the current PM. Just because Kerry may not agree with decisions made by Howard does not mean one can assume Kerry is supporting the opposition.

Do you dispute, Kendra, that Australia's support of the war in Iraq has made them more of a target for terrorists than they'd be if they were not in support? I think many, if not most, people would agree that it is likely Australia is facing more of a threat. I have no doubt the terrorists would use any opportunity to do what they can to discourage further support.

I certainly don't see from these articles that Kerry is dismantling the coalition as your thread title indicates. In fact, Kendra, it appears he plans to broaden the coalition.

As for other comments within the last two linked articles, since they are obviously biased against Kerry, I would not accept what they say on face value. This is what confused me, Kendra, about your seemingly dichotomous approach to the media since you do seem to accept as factual all the statements in these articles but chide "liberals" for the same sort "blind acceptance" of what the media says. I however, have seen enough evidence of misinformation in the media about both sides (Dan Rather and Fox News are 2 examples mentioned in several threads on this board) that I view all news with a sceptical eye.

As for supporting Kerry, Kendra much of my support is because he has shown he is willing to publicly admit he made a mistake, as in giving such broad power to the President to wage this war. I don't see this as a "flip-flop" nor as wavering but rather an indication that he will not "stay the course" when new evidence has come to light showing that the course was taken based on incorrect or incomplete information. To me, Bush is the one wearing the "blinkers" as he seems to refuse to acknowledge that anything has changed related to his justifications for the war.

 

[LisaZoe]

Originally posted by MinnieMouse51
Sorry I forgot you liberal types don't have a sense of humor...oops

So it is a joke when you say something that might be considered "rude and nasty" and it's not possible a statement made by someone in opposition to your view is also said as a joke? I certainly read LoraJ's comment as a humorous way to express her opinion. I guess because you included "hahahahaha" after your comments that makes it all OK?

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by LoraJ
I pray for our country that Bush is sent back to the ranch!

If President Bush is not re-elected, you may not have a ranch to go home to.

 

[CRB#33]

Like a country is going to listen and make a decision based on what the sister of a Presidential candidate says anyway.

Jeesh.

And like they didn't know that siding with the US was going to make them an enemy of terrorists.

That's just common sense.

Horrors of horrors, someone put it into words

 

[disney4us2002]

I believe if elected Kerry will pull out troops within 6 months. He'll give it a go for a little while but the deaths will continue, the country will continue to be divided and the current coalition will cease to exist. France (what army?), Germany, and Russia are no go's so Kerry will decide it is unwinnable and pull out. From that point, I have no real guess other than chaos will ensue. God help us all.

Just mho, of course.

 

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by JPN4265
If President Bush is not re-elected, you may not have a ranch to go home to.

Says who Cheney? I hear people say it is because we have not had another attack on American soil since 9/11 so all is hunky dorey. But keep in mind, there was 8 years between the first WTC attack and the second.

Let's be honest. Terrorists are going to come after us no matter who is in office. Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. Living in an area that has a big bullseye on us, I do not trust this administration. Distracting from the War on Terror to go into Iraq does not make me feel any safer. Right now, terrorist attacks are on the rise around the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by LisaZoe
Kendra, I did read the Australian and other articles from your links. No where did I see any reference to Kerry supporting the candidate running against John Howard, the current PM. Just because Kerry may not agree with decisions made by Howard does not mean one can assume Kerry is supporting the opposition.

Diana Kerry = Americans Overseas for Kerry = the Kerry campaign. Saying, in the press, that Australia is less safe today because of its support of the US in Iraq is cheap pandering for American Democratic votes in Australia. At the very least. He's smart enough to know that this would be at the expense of John Howard, who took enough flak from his opposition for going to Iraq in the first place, and who Kerry will be working with next month if he's elected.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Diana Kerry = Americans Overseas for Kerry = the Kerry campaign. Saying, in the press, that Australia is less safe today because of its support of the US in Iraq is cheap pandering for American Democratic votes in Australia. At the very least. He's smart enough to know that this would be at the expense of John Howard, who took enough flak from his opposition for going to Iraq in the first place, and who Kerry will be working with next month if he's elected.

Thank you Teejay32.

 

[LisaZoe]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Diana Kerry = Americans Overseas for Kerry = the Kerry campaign. Saying, in the press, that Australia is less safe today because of its support of the US in Iraq is cheap pandering for American Democratic votes in Australia. At the very least. He's smart enough to know that this would be at the expense of John Howard, who took enough flak from his opposition for going to Iraq in the first place, and who Kerry will be working with next month if he's elected.

So how is this different from much of the campaign propaganda from both sides? Each candidate and his respective party will not hesitate to predict "gloom and doom" if the other candidate wins. So it is OK for the Republicans to express concern about the fate of the US if Kerry wins but it is "pandering" for Kerry's side to say the Australians face more danger as a result of supporting the US?

 

[MinnieMouse51]

Vote for Bush!!!!!

 

[LisaZoe]

Hahahaha, MinnieMouse51. There you go with the jokes again!

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by LisaZoe
So how is this different from much of the campaign propaganda from both sides? Each candidate and his respective party will not hesitate to predict "gloom and doom" if the other candidate wins. So it is OK for the Republicans to express concern about the fate of the US if Kerry wins but it is "pandering" for Kerry's side to say the Australians face more danger as a result of supporting the US?

Makes no difference which side does it IMO, it's fearmongering. Both sides use it effectively. But this thread is more about our alliances in the world at present, and less about who's safe and who's not.

 

[LisaZoe]

Originally posted by Teejay32
... this thread is more about our alliances in the world at present, and less about who's safe and who's not.

Actually, I see this thread as more about "can you believe what Kerry did this time" than about the coalition.

The assumption seems to be that if Kerry (or one of his campaign representatives) says something that does not support PM Howard that Kerry is, then, in support of the opposition. This sounds too much like Bush's "you're either with us or against us" statements before the war or others' assumption that if I do not support the war then I do not support the troops. One does not automatically imply the other.

 

[MinnieMouse51]

911 really happened, no matter how much you want to forget it, and the terrorists types who did that would love to do it again, it does not matter if terrorists are found in Afghanistan, Iraq , Iran ,Buffalo New York or Florida......a terrorist is a terrorist.....bottom line...Bush is doing something about it.....Clinton did nothing.....and Kerry would be the same if not less, setting us up again......you tell me thats fear mongering and I tell you its FACT......

 

[Teejay32]

originally posted by LisaZoe
Actually, I see this thread as more about "can you believe what Kerry did this time" than about the coalition.

well we're not running short of political sniping threads, for sure...but this was something I brought up myself in a different thread days ago. I forget where. And I realize you don't know me from a Freeper/dittohead so it may not make a difference anyway. That said:

Kerry has been insisting all along that "our allies" have been slighted, the world has turned against us, etc...this is supposedly just good electioneering, (although I don't know why that is so important here. He couldn't coast along on domestic issues?) but it might have greater consequences. We're not supposed to notice or think much of the support of Denmark and Italy; instead we need to focus on the hurt feelings of France and Germany. Forget the British - they've only been with us for every action taken against Saddam since '90. I wonder if Kerry can even mention Poland with a straight face.

It looks like evidence of something - "Old Europe" vs. New Europe", or some EU-related political struggle, or something...or pure snobbery. I have no idea. Whatever, the constant moaning about "allies" that are clearly not with us here, and shabby treatment of those who are, really bothers me.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by MinnieMouse51
911 really happened, no matter how much you want to forget it, (snipped) MinnieMo

Oh geeeez, another one.

Same ****, different day.

 

[MinnieMouse51]

Lets hope Americans are as smart as the Aussies and re elect a great leader just as they did!!!! Howard won in a landslide....now its our turn to stand up for Our President too...Vote Bush!!!!

 

[tonyswife]

Does it matter who he (Kerry) supports? Whether she was campaigning in an "official" capacity or not she did not succeed. The Austrailian people are more than capable of deciding who they want to lead them. To be honest , I know very little about Austrailian politics. There could very well be domestic issues that were far more important to them and THAT is how they decided to vote.

 

[MinnieMouse51]

Yes that works as well, they are very intelligent! I only hope we are as intelligent! I think we are. President Bush has turned things around since 911......he is helping middle income folks and small business, if Kerry is elected we are in deep doodoo. and I believe people are smart enough to see through his rediculous retoric.........especially since he and his billionair wife only paid 12.8% tax.....well hell you and I paid in more than that in taxes....who are they kidding???Just the blind and ignorant, and those who absolutely refuse to "believe" in a good man!