Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 endless source of entertainment. The latest Dem Pres candidate-- "The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children."--Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio), The Progressive, November 2002 "Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. . . . I think the way that you do it is continue to use sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow."--presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, "Meet the Press," Feb. 23, 2003 Just covering all the bases right Dennis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 And we love you too Kilmer :kiss: Since I don't have the context of these quotes its impossible to evaluate them fairly. Its entirely possible that quote#1 refers to economic sanctions - clearly it seems to - and quote #2 refers to military sanctions "which thwart his efforts to grow". But assuming this is a complete flipflop, name a politician. Any politician. Name you favorite. I guarantee you, given a little time, I can find two apparently contradictory quotes on any public figure you name. Were your title "I love politicians", with the point being that ALL politicians change positions and furthermore all politicians tell the crowd what it wants to hear, we would be in agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Jimbo, We're not talking about 20 years to find a flip flop on an issue. Here we see a man who said one thing in November. Then, three to four months later says something ENTIRELY different. Further, we don't have any military sanctions against Iraq. We only have economic sanctions. We have military rules against Iraq that allow specific flying rules and engagement procedures. But the only sanctions this idiot can be talking about are the sanctions we have that limit the amount of money that comes into Iraq which in turn causes Saddam to keep it for himself and not give it to his people. I think you know this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Art, Didnt the US Security counsel impose sanctions (like spring of last year) to block all military purpose goods being imported into Iraq? This has resulted in companies in countries like France and Russia getting po'ed at the US because of goods that they (companines in France and Russia) felt were legit civilian goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Kilmer.....shhhhhhh......we want Kucinich and Dean to succeed...........it'll make the job so much easier....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Well, I got the transcript from Meet the Press. The relevant passage in context is: "Oh, Saddam Hussein should be removed from power...But not by military force...I think the way that you do it is continue to use sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow. We’ve contained him. He doesn’t have nuclear weapons. We do not know if he has biological and chemical weapons. That’s going to be up to the U.N. inspectors to be able to determine if they’re usable. The idea of Saddam Hussein continuing in power is something that I think most Americans support—can be removed. The question is: What is the most effective way to thwart Hussein? And I don’t believe the most effective way is war. I think that will only make him a martyr and will cause the United States to be a target of terrorist attacks." There's more, but no additional light is shed. His use of "military force" seems to mean war, which he opposes. There's no reference at all to economics, only the word 'sanctions' which in the context of the entire paragraph is a stretch to put the words "economic sanctions" in his mouth. In fact, my problem with this is its a stretch to assign any meaning at all. He's in favor of some nebulous 'containment' policy without explaining how this will be accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 "He's in favor of some nebulous 'containment' policy without explaining how this will be accomplished." That's what we've come to know and love about the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 I think the key here is the meaning of the word "is". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 just out of curiousity...what in Dean's background qualifies him to speak authoritatively on foreign policy? by that I mean either prior experience or access to information........I wasn't aware that this was a core specialty for governors from Vermont...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 just out of curiousity...what in Dean's background qualifies him to speak authoritatively on foreign policy? He once dated a French Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 TEG, All trade with Iraq is run through the Oil for Food program in which Iraq can sell oil and the proceeds go into an account of which 72 cents on the dollar can be used by Iraq to buy "food" though almost anything can be imported or bought save for military equipment. This has been in place for far longer than this past spring if I'm not mistaken. It's been running this way essentially since the Gulf War I'm almost certain. But, the sanctions spoken of are not different sanctions. They are the sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Quick search found this- guess it was the UN security counsel, not the US. My bad. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june02/mideast_5-14.html It speaks of sanctions, which could be labeled military (i.e. restricting imports that could be viewed as aiding military forces). Don't know if these actions are in place now...but this was what was lobbied around the UN last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 TEG, the recent move by the U.N. expanded the subject imports to include "dual use" equipment and materials, that is materials and equipment that could be bought under civilian pretexts (brewing, pharmaceuticals, civilian nuclear research, etc.) but then used for weapons production or other military purposes. That's the loophole that the Germans and French had been using throughout the post-Gulf War era to get rich off of Saddam, and it's part of the reason why they're so PO'd now about us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Thanks Redman. Do you think that this type of sanctioning (not allowing certain imports in - that could potentially be used as military tools) could be seen as a military sanction - which was what I was originally trying to throw out for discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Thanks Redman. Do you think that this type of sanctioning (not allowing certain imports in - that could potentially be used as military tools) could be seen as a military sanction - which was what I was originally trying to throw out for discussion? Well, I don't think so because I've never heard anyone call it that, and you'll note that Kucinich didn't make the distinction either. I don't have it out for Kucinich, however I just don't think he's got an excuse here. He took two diametrically opposed positions on the same issue only 2 1/2 months apart when nothing changed about either our policy or the U.N.'s stance toward Iraq. The only reason for it is that he's now posturing to become a leader amongst the declared Democrat candidates for President, and he seems to be latching on to what he perceives to be the public sentiment for peace. He's not the first and he certainly won't be the last to do this kind of thing. But I fault him as I do all others who do this - yes, Republicans too - because it makes me disbelieve the sincerity of their stated "convictions". However inarticulate or dumb or disagreeable you think Bush is, most Americans believe that he doesn't tend to do that. And that's why most Americans are giving him the benefit of the doubt on Iraq despite a lot of different misgivings about use of military force in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 In the strictest sense, it is a "military" sanction because only Saddam's importing of "military" equipment is supposed to be effected. But, the sanctions we're talking about here aren't military sanctions. They are THE sanctions. The result of which causes Saddam to develop dual use items into weapons internally since he can't have them shipped in. He does this at the expense of the citizenry. You can't be against sanctions in November and then for them four months later and be saying you are talking about something else. The lengths the left goes to defend its own is astounding. Is it so hard to say, TEG, "Damn, that was stupid of him." It was. We know it. You can say it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Not too hard, most every time you post I say..."damn that was stupid of him". Much like I am sure you do when I post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Perhaps, TEG. But, only one of us can be right and the other remains dumb. And I'm right . Again though, you are so strictly in bed with any liberal message you won't even allow yourself to call a spade a spade here because it involves a liberal. That would make any similar statement by me toward you even more right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 "....put another dime in the jukebox baby...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 "....put another dime in the jukebox baby...." :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Fan Since 62, You asked what in Dean's resume qualifies him to speak on foreign policy? Just curious, did you vote for Bush? Would that be the same Bush that couldn't identify many of the heads of state in the Middle East and Asia during the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Gbear, I guess it's a good thing then that the President has the state department and the department of defense to help guide his foreign policy, as well as sensitive intelligence not available to any but a small handful of people in the nation to compensate for a lack of foreign policy experience. No person running for President has the experience in this arena that the President does. No person running for President has the resources to rely on in this area than the President does. But, Dean's problem is he doesn't stand for anything and will be dumb enough to make directly contradictory comments months apart in an effort to gain political favor. No amount of help is going to improve his ability to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Actually....Gbear...since you ask....Bush had Daddy to fall back on for advice......youi know....same way you prpobably talk to your old man for advice on a number of things......Dean has nothing in his background....and by all appearances doesn't have too much to say that is either interesting or coherent......which is why I encourage his candidacy!!!!! Middle America will never vote for someone like Dean as long as security is front and center......and we already know the South won't go for a Northernor...especially one frm a state as remote politically frm the rest of the country as Vermont...... I fully intend to vote for Dean as a cross-over, where possible, in the primaries!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 No person has the qualifications to be President until they actually become President. Dean has the advantage (like all Governors) of not having to go on the record on national issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 I dont know guys, I think Colin Powell is already qualified. So was John McCain, IMHO. I am sure there are others that I cant think of of the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.