Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

John Kerry to be Nominated for Secretary of State


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 16 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Great pick IMO.

#2 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Fuck. That means we'll probably see Scott Brown's stupid motherfucking truck again or that smarmy bigoted motherfucker with a shit eating grin, Sean Bielat.

Thanks a bunch Obama!

#3 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:18 PM

Going from one person to the next who voted for and supported the invasion of Iraq, putting them virtually in charge of foreign policy and relations.

Sounds like a great plan.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:47 AM

John F Kerry reporting for duty!

Seriously this is his dream job and he's well qualified for it. If the rumors are true on Hagel that's another solid pick.

#5 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:45 PM

Well, this is all true unless Kerry changes his mind... :P

#6 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:31 PM

I'd prefer Chuck Hagel but w/e
There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Gentleman's League Record:
Season 1: 7-9 Missed Playoffs
Season 2: 18-1 Superbowl Champs

#7 eldergamer

eldergamer

    Gold Star For Robot Boy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:18 PM

So, what's wrong with Ms. Clinton?

MC-2SD-Out.png<


#8 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

She bumped her head.

Actually, she said in 2011 that she did not plan to return to the SoS position, should Obama be re-elected.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#9 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

she's just done, no desire to do it anymore
There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Gentleman's League Record:
Season 1: 7-9 Missed Playoffs
Season 2: 18-1 Superbowl Champs

#10 eldergamer

eldergamer

    Gold Star For Robot Boy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

Yeah, but why?

MC-2SD-Out.png<


#11 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 18 December 2012 - 06:03 PM

Tough, stressful job with long hours and tons of travel. Imagine it would wear on anyone after 4 years.

#12 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

Huntsman would be another fine choice.
Contact Friend Code - 1675-8841-8262
Tetris DS - 152435-004214
XBL - Nasum2

#13 dmaul1114

dmaul1114

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

Huntsman would be another fine choice.


He's said he may run again in 2016, so no way he'd take a job in the Obama cabinet. Just being ambassador to China hurt him some as the average Republican voter doesn't want to support anyone who had anything to do with Obama.

#14 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:23 PM

John Kerry. Yes, let's see some more spineless.
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#15 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:29 PM

Here's a necessary blast from the past!

Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave this infamous (around the world, not here of course) answer to 60 Minutes.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

http://fair.org/extr...ce-is-worth-it/

Pure scum and evil. Evil rationalized. That's a rep of a "liberal" president. Tells you mountains about the state of our nations.

#16 Calipso

Calipso

    Der Metzgermeister

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:52 AM

Fuck. That means we'll probably see Scott Brown's stupid motherfucking truck again or that smarmy bigoted motherfucker with a shit eating grin, Sean Bielat.

Thanks a bunch Obama!


Are you high or just stupid?

You probably voted for Elizabeth Warren so I can't take you seriously as a human being.
Currently playing:
:pc: - Red Orchestra 2
:pc: - Killing Floor
:pc: - SimCity 4
:360: - Uno
:360: - Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare

#17 KingBroly

KingBroly

    CAG Club Nintendo

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:23 AM

He's definitely changed a lot since 2004. This is a good pick in my opinion.
Completed Games: 2011 | 2012
CAG Club Nintendo Thread
Posted Image

#18 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:43 AM

We let kids in NK starve, where is the outrage there?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#19 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:35 AM

Are you high or just stupid?

You probably voted for Elizabeth Warren so I can't take you seriously as a human being.

But as the only candidate with a vagina she was the only one who could represent women and their 2 or 3 interests. At least according to her.

#20 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:41 AM

I'd prefer Chuck Hagel but w/e

Hagel is up for Secretary of Defense, he's a solid choice. He's actually been to war, was one of the only Republicans to stand up to Bush on Iraq and the Patriot Act. Hopefully the smear campaign against him doesn't work.

#21 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:55 AM

Hagel is up for Secretary of Defense, he's a solid choice. He's actually been to war, was one of the only Republicans to stand up to Bush on Iraq and the Patriot Act. Hopefully the smear campaign against him doesn't work.


After voting for both of them.

Eh not sig diff from Kerry in that regard, I don't see Kerry standing up in a significant way to the Patriot Act.

Totally depise the smear campaign though.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#22 Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 03:09 AM

Here's a necessary blast from the past!

Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave this infamous (around the world, not here of course) answer to 60 Minutes.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

http://fair.org/extr...ce-is-worth-it/

Pure scum and evil. Evil rationalized. That's a rep of a "liberal" president. Tells you mountains about the state of our nations.


That's why I'm glad Susan Rice won't be Sec. of State. She's an Albright acolyte. Kerry isn't a whole lot better, but I digress.
Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

#23 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:29 AM

Not sure I entirely understand the criticism... If you opposed Clinton's largely successful containment of Iraq and also opposed GW's invasion of Iraq, what is your solution to the problem of a belligerent expansionist state that threatens a resource you're utterly dependent on? Would you now lift sanctions on North Korea and Iran? At what point does the responsibility for those deaths shift to Saddam for not complying with UN resolutions?

I don't think you can logically argue against the sanctions without defending Bush's invasion as the preferable, more humanitarian alternative.

#24 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:33 AM

Not sure I entirely understand the criticism... If you opposed Clinton's largely successful containment of Iraq and also opposed GW's invasion of Iraq, what is your solution to the problem of a belligerent expansionist state that threatens a resource you're utterly dependent on? Would you now lift sanctions on North Korea and Iran? At what point does the responsibility for those deaths shift to Saddam for not complying with UN resolutions?

I don't think you can logically argue against the sanctions without defending Bush's invasion as the preferable, more humanitarian alternative.


Better late than never... I guess.
There was nothing to contain. They were hardly expansionist. Saddam was not about to start a campaign of invading other nations. Yes, he did invade Kuwait (never his intention to hold it) but had been given the greenlight by the US ambassador to Iraq. You are likely unaware of the reasons for their invasion, right? Bush I feigned surprise that he invaded Kuwait but it was a ruse. Further, Saddam presented a full offer withdrawal but the US wanted to have an excuse to display their post-Cold War military necessity by manufacturing a threat which most Americans accepted. All kinds of propaganda was thrown at the US public to support military force. The now infamous accounts of Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators were staged by the PR firm of Hill & Knowlton. We love us some manufacturing reasons to invade and attack other nations.

The sanctions were not UN sanctions but US sanctions. All initial supporters of the sanctions reversed support after it became evident it was murdering children not hurting Saddam. The US is the one who insisted on keeping them in place as the lovely witch Albright had gleefully stated. And surprisingly, they made certain the sanctions could never be lifted. The initial excuse was WMD disarmament. UNSCOM members resigned in disgust when it became clear what the US was trying to do. As key inspector Scott Ritter (a US marine and card-carrying Republican) has attested, Iraq was fundamentally disarmed. And he repeated this up until the fabricated WMD lies of the Bush II admin. This did not matter at any of those times. The US needs an excuse to feed the beast of the military-industrial complex. Let's all keep in mind that Saddam was the US' ally in the region through all those lovely human rights abuses we mentioned in the 2nd war. Our state department lied and blamed the gassing of the Kurds on Iran!

IF you want an accurate understanding of this, I highly recommend reading William Blum's account on the first Gulf War from Killing Hope: US Interventions in the Third World since World War II. It is available here for free (citations and all): http://www.thirdworl...um/Iraq_KH.html

http://www.thirdworl...lliam_Blum.html
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#25 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:57 AM

William Blum is a literary Michael Moore whose only claim to fame is that his polemical assault on post-WW2 America was embraced by Bin Laden. If you believe his stuff I have some loose change to sell you.

Iraq owed Kuwait a substantial amount of money it had borrowed to finance the war with Iran. Kuwait was also contributing to the oil glut of the 80s by keeping production high, depressing oil prices.

I don't suppose that his annexation of Kuwait as the 19th province of Iraq, or his occupation of Kuwait for 5 months prior to Desert Storm, would give you any indication of his intentions to hold it. And once he had conquered Kuwait he was in a position where he could attack Saudi oil fields and take control of most of the world's oil reserves.

All of Saddam's proposals to exit Kuwait included substantial concessions for Iraq which ranged from oil fields to linkage with Israel's occupation of Palestine and Syria's occupation of Lebanon. He was given an ultimatum to leave by a certain date and he didn't.

To say that Saddam was induced by the US to invade Kuwait as a pretext for a US attack is seriously out there. Tinfoil hat, bunker in the woods out there. The "evidence" offered to support this is simply a reflection of the US underestimating his willingness and ability to invade the entire country. They weren't going to get involved in what they saw as a way to leverage Kuwait into debt forgiveness and other concessions, or at worst a minor border skirmish.

Edited by dafoomie, 18 January 2013 - 03:43 AM.


#26 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:58 PM

William Blum is a literary Michael Moore whose only claim to fame is that his polemical assault on post-WW2 America was embraced by Bin Laden. If you believe his stuff I have some loose change to sell you.

Iraq owed Kuwait a substantial amount of money it had borrowed to finance the war with Iran. Kuwait was also contributing to the oil glut of the 80s by keeping production high, depressing oil prices.

I don't suppose that his annexation of Kuwait as the 19th province of Iraq, or his occupation of Kuwait for 5 months prior to Desert Storm, would give you any indication of his intentions to hold it. And once he had conquered Kuwait he was in a position where he could attack Saudi oil fields and take control of most of the world's oil reserves.

All of Saddam's proposals to exit Kuwait included substantial concessions for Iraq which ranged from oil fields to linkage with Israel's occupation of Palestine and Syria's occupation of Lebanon. He was given an ultimatum to leave by a certain date and he didn't.

To say that Saddam was induced by the US to invade Kuwait as a pretext for a US attack is seriously out there. Tinfoil hat, bunker in the woods out there. The "evidence" offered to support this is simply a reflection of the US underestimating his willingness and ability to invade the entire country. They weren't going to get involved in what they saw as a way to leverage Kuwait into debt forgiveness and other concessions, or at worst a minor border skirmish.


So, lets see… attack the messenger (I listed plenty of other sources) instead of the message. Did they teach that to you in debate club? Oh no, bin Laden agreed with Blum's very well cited accounting. Yup, then it must be clearly false. I guess numerous State Dept, CIA, etc reports (which are never seen by the general public and obviously YOU) are false, “tin-foil” accounts simply because other Muslims agree with them, e.g. (paraphrasing OFFICIAL US reports) “there is anger against the USA in the Arab world because of the perception that we overthrow their governments and destabilize them to secure our interests… and they are correct.”

You obviously don’t understand international affairs. If you bothered to read anything on the subject then you wouldn't make up the excuses you are. The Blum account is very well put together and succinct. I figured even a layperson could follow that. His key facts come from very mainstream publishing and gov’t sources. It’s all there on the link I provided. If you don’t want to read something because the idiot box told you not too and all you got is that OBL praised his book, then you need to go back and tune in to Faux News or whatever crap you go to to lap up “information.”

Iraq owed Kuwait a substantial amount of money it had borrowed to finance the war with Iran. Kuwait was also contributing to the oil glut of the 80s by keeping production high, depressing oil prices.


Your leader said any action by OPEC to protest the 2003 Iraq Illegal Invasion as an “act of war.” A tad hypocritical aren’t we? Typical. You obviously are clueless on slant-drilling… Typical. The invasion, right or wrong, the issue here is that the US WANTED their ALLY Iraq to invade. He asked the US for PERMISSION.

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

You obviously don’t understand international affairs.

And from, OH NO! Blum's book! Follow the CITATIONS. If you need instructions on how to, let me know. I'm sure anyone here with brain cell can.

"We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country. That is clear. ... We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes or on internal OPEC deliberations." Rep. Lee Hamilton asked if it would be correct to say that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the United States did "not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to engage U.S. forces" there. "That is correct," Kelly responded.


And surprise, surprise!!!! Kuwaiti memorandum on meeting with CIA director:

“We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level.”


You do realize that we don’t and Iraq didn’t back then have teleportation device (although I’m sure the US would claim it to invade the nation if they could get away with it). It actually takes time to build up troops on a border… and people can see this via satellite… people like some country who has these toys… So, despite the shock Bushie displayed publicly when oh my! Iraq invaded, he knew. They had so many warnings… this is verifiable through many sources… if you could bother to do any research.

Nope, follow the formula… attack the messenger (especially with simple-minded crap said on the idiot box) and then bring out the big bad word… CONSPIRACY!!!!! Oh no! :-# You got me with that AMAZING rebuttal. I guess, there are no conspiracies… NEVER! No Iran Contra Conspiracy, no WMD lies to invade Iraq CONSPIRACY (no “fixing of facts and intel around US policy”), no CIA covert ops (CONSPIRACY) (all verified by the tin-foil wearing CIA FOIA site) to covertly overthrow democratically elected gov’t, no, no conspiracies at all.

If you just don’t want to read anything outside of your narrow and limited brainwashed belief system then JUST SAY SO and GTFO of here and play some COD.

EDIT: And, oh no! "Michael Moore"!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#27 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 07:03 PM

Scott Brown isn't running in the special election. I guess we'll see him in 2014. Can we say Governor Scott Brown? Suck it moonbats!:lol:

#28 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:56 AM

tl;dr

Somebody didn't like that I called their binky a polemicist.

#29 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:36 PM

Somebody didn't like that I called their binky a polemicist.


Oh dear dog! A polemicist!!!! (Good to see the conditioning works with these trigger words.) Would help if you read but I know, asking too much.

EDIT:
Note quote below...
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell