babble: Is Kerry against Missle Defence

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » current events » international news and politics » Is Kerry against Missle Defence

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Is Kerry against Missle Defence

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 04 October 2004 09:17 PM

Well? Is he?

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 04 October 2004 10:09 PM

According to Bush, he is. But according to The Democrats (click on the misleader link), he's for a system that will work.

From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001 | IP: Logged

ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 October 2004 11:04 PM

Well since the science so far has pretty much unanimously said none of the systems work, what does it all mean?

From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged

sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 05 October 2004 03:10 PM

Kerry voted for the National Missile Defence Act of 1999, which stated that it was the aim of the US to deploy a system to defend the US against a limited ballistic missile attack. Edwards voted for it as well. Only three Senators--all Democrats--voted against this measure: Wellstone (Minn), Leahy (Vermont), and Durbin (Illinois).

Kerry did vote in 1996 to reduce the amount of funding requested by the president for NMD research. That amendment to the National Defence Authorization Act failed. Also, in 2000, Kerry voted not to table (i.e. remove from consideration) an amendment put forward by Sen. Durbin to require operationally realistic testing of NMD.

I haven't checked for any more votes but these, but these few examples could suggest he is not an enthusiastic supporter of NMD.

Some interesting information is

here.

Warning! Procrastination Trap!

From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2004 04:35 PM

Tell me again why the left in the states is so desperate to get this guy elected? Somebody on this board said that when they think of Bush they see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. If John Kerry supports the same missile defense shield that George W. does, doesn't that mean he would be just as likely to cause World War III? Am I missing something?

[ 05 October 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 05 October 2004 05:30 PM

I think the only difference is with Bush, Americans can see the "ugly American" and they are forced to attempt to see how the rest of the world looks at themm, and for once in their history they have to admit that maybe, just maybe some of the hatred directed at them is justified . . . with Kerry, they can once agains burry their heads in the sand and ask themselves "why do they hate us" and not have to worry about coming up with an answer that might implicate themselves!!

From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 October 2004 07:58 PM

Come on, there must be a few more differences between Between the two of them. Think man!

[ 05 October 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 October 2004 10:07 PM

For me its a systemic problem. I think a look at the Clinton adminstration is constructive. The three things that Clinton tried to do that might have had real positive impact for Americans and the world (Kyoto, the ICC, and Meidcare) were all killed, on the other hand things like bombing Serbia and continuing sanctions against Iraq were allowed.

So, I look at it this way. Bush will invade Iran sometime in the next two years. Kerry will not, but he will be forced to set the scene, through sanctions and other diplomatic preassure. When the next Republican govenrment gets in, in 2008, then they will invade Iran.

Do you see what I am saying. There may be small differences in approach but the overall agenda will be maintained. Therefore, Americans, seriously interested in tranforming the country and its long term agends must find concrete way to impact the political process. Voting is pointless.

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 October 2004 01:11 PM

quote:
Do you see what I am saying. There may be small differences in approach but the overall agenda will be maintained. Therefore, Americans, seriously interested in tranforming the country and its long term agends must find concrete way to impact the political process. Voting is pointless.

I do see what your getting at. I may not agree with your opinions on voting, but your argument does have some truth in it.
Poor Iran. They are so close to becoming a democracy. The bombing of there country will destroy whatever democratic forms Iranian activists may have made since the Ayatollah Khomeini's death.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: