.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail





Sunday, October 03, 2004

Take the Kerry Global Test

You want to strike a country preemptively? Uh uh - first ya have to take the Global Test here. Good luck.

If you don't like that test, here's another:

Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

posted by Francis Lynn | 6:28 PM

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your test sure sounds like the one Bush used. But you failed to include the most important one:

Will going to war create an issue George Bush can benefit from personally to get re-elected?

5:52 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Now - how could Bush have know it would have benefited him when he went to war? It could have equally been the opposite. Dumb statement by you.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By an analysis of history and human tendency. People do not usually like change. Smart statement by me. Dumb one by you.

12:31 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

People don't usually like change? All the more for Bush to know that the war would not help him - yet you claim he went to war for election advantage. Ah - your analysis of history & human nature brought you to these conclusions. Duh huh - still stupid answers from you.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, People do like a change of President during a war. They even re-elected Johnson during Vietnam. Gave Nixon two terms. Roosevelt had three terms - after Congress made a special provision to the constitution.

How about giving up the name calling and debate. I'll be happy to trade questions and answers with you.

4:16 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Huh?? You say people do like a change in time of war, then you cite 3 Presidents who were re-elected - no change. Seems a contradiction here.
If you'd like a debate, then start by responding to the posts about Kerry & Iran, Iraq, Global test, Korea, etc, etc. Challenge my assertions about Kerry.

11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry. I was little too fast to post. correct it to read:

Yes, People don't like a change of President during a war. They even re-elected Johnson during Vietnam. Gave Nixon two terms. Roosevelt had three terms - after Congress made a special provision to the constitution.

But I'm glad you changed your mind and now agree with me.

And I'll take you on topic item by topic item. Post one here. In the meantime I have been replying to your posts. All I usually get from you is "I'm right" or "Your a Libnut". How about something meaningful? How about some answers to my questions?

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No weapons of mass destruction. And what do the Iraquis think of this? What do you think this will mean to the attempt to democrafy Iraq?

BAGHDAD, Oct. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- A US report on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which cleared Iraq of possession of such arms, triggered fiery condemnation among the Iraqis on Thursday.

The report, prepared after 1,200 inspectors headed by American chief weapon inspector Charles Dolfer conducted a 18-month search campaign, said that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before the US occupation of the oil-rich Arab country.

The report virtually overturned the US pretext for invading Iraqin March 2003, igniting angry emotions among Iraqis, who also harbored hatred toward the occupation forces for the war andensuing chaos, destruction and bloodshed.

Many Iraqi believed that the report would not change anything in reality, rather it might even worsen the situation.

"The results of the report confirm that there was no justification for invading and destroying Iraq the way they did,and the report would only increase hatred of Iraqis against America and gives the resistance more enthusiasm and justification to escalate the resistance campaign against occupation," said Mohamed Hussein, a writer.

"It is time now that the world would say to America 'that'senough, stop what you're doing to Iraq and its people," said Mohamed Al Imam, a cloths shop owner.

"Saddam was a tyrant, but we didn't see in his era this killing and destruction," he added.

"Leave Iraq, for you had enough hatred of the Arabs and Muslims against the American administration," he said.

Although those who opposed the former regime of Saddam Hussein saw the US-led multinational forces as liberating Iraq from a dictator regime, the men of law argued that no country had theright to invade another country and topple its regime for mere suspicions.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Are you that simple-minded to quote some unsubtantiated article which then uses the quotes of 2-3 supposed Iraqis out of 27 million? Are you that easily taken in by someone who may have an ax to grind or with their own agenda? Look deeper - try checking out the Iraqi bloggers to get a taste of Iraqi opinion. These inane paste & clip articles mean zero to me. Geesh.

4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not so inane (or is it insane) as to think that the Iraquis appreciate being invaded because, as Bush gave as a flipflopped reason yesterday - Iraq was circumventing the embargo.

Don't look at a couple of Blogs - read the Arab newspapers. They will give you a true picture.

4:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source