News: Swift Boat Vets are liars and Bush tools

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong[/quote]

That's the mindset I hate.. if someone disagrees with you, they obviously support the other party. I hate what the Republicans have done.
I hate what the Democrats have done. I disdain partisan politics.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I vote my conscience every election, and so far, neither of the candidates seem like a person I'd like to put in charge of the country.

If a Republican candidate did the exact same thing, I'd dislike it just as much. I have plenty of issues with Bush, but that doesn't change that what Kerry (or those handling him) is doing is disingenuous at best, and duplicitous at worst.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']He needed the medals to take on Nixon.

He needed those medals to show the media and people that he was what he said he was, it was a sort of damage control when another leading anti-war veteran lied about his rank and what medals he had earned.[/quote]

So you wave your medals in front of the government, tell them that they can take them back, tell people that you've given back your medals, and then 20-30 years later pull them out of a drawer and proclaim yourself a war hero if it will benefit your bid for the presidency?
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo[/quote]

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?[/quote]


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out[/quote]

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?[/quote]

Do you know how many innocent IRAQ CIVILIANS died in this war? We killed 1,000 of innocent people. So don't tell me that we made things better for the people of Iraq.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong[/quote]

It's auctually quite easy, espically when you have evidence.

Kerry voted for many of the things he is now critizing Bush for. The war in Iraq and the Patriot Act being only two.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4356093/ for more.[/quote]

Remember that Bush had intelligence about Iraq that he did not provide to Congress. He refused to provide congress the information he had. He just said "Trust us they have weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda". Of course both of those things have been proven false. Bush used 9/11 as his chance to get back at his father's arch enemy plain and simple.
 
dont try and make it seem like Bush himself had the info and was keeping it from people. The CIA were the ones that had info that said Saddam had WMD, also the British said they had info that Saddam had WMD.


and something i still dont understand is that.. Kerry was in Vietnam. He was against the war. He doesnt think it should have been fought. He protested against it. And he talks bad about Bush b/c Bush went into the National Guard instead of fighting in Vietnam? I'm still not understanding this argument.
 
[quote name='helava']There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.[/quote]

Nice try, but those of us who know our history know that it was Bill Clinton who appeased the North Koreans with nuclear power plants and is responsible for the mess that is the Korean situation today. Bush has made little progress, but after all Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework did to further North Korea's nuclear ambitions, that cannot be too surprising. And why are you saying Bush isn't negotiating with them when he is? The "sunshine" policy was a huge failure, evidenced by North Korea's continued clandestine nuclear program the entire time it was being attempted, and thus was rightly abandoned as a mistake.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney']It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.[/quote]

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.[/quote]

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...[/quote]

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.[/quote]

What about the atrocities he soon afterwards described himself as committing, and his fellow soldiers also?
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney']It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.[/quote]

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.[/quote]

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...[/quote]

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.[/quote]

What about the atrocities he soon afterwards described himself as committing, and his fellow soldiers also?[/quote]

Below is the FULL text of John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee that is featured in the new "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad (as well as a link to PBS documenting the testimony). Please do notice that John Kerry is merely relaying the actual testimony of 150 former Vietnam Veterns given at a meeting in Detroit. He is not making allegations that all veterans committed these atrocities. As for Senator Kerry's remarks on the Dick Cavet show in the now famous debate between him and John O'Neil, Kerry spoke of standard battlefield tactics that took place in Vietnam, sanctioned by higher ranking officers, and that occurred during the fog of war. I fully appreciate robust political discussion, however, merely parrotting dishonest talking points without investigating the claim yourself is not debate. As a closing comment I would like to stress that this is a very important election and I encourage everyone to register, become informed voters, and then vote for the candidate that you feel will be best for our nation. Political parties shouldn't be treated like the baseball pennant race or the videogame system wars because a "win" for your side can result in a loss for the rest of the nation. We are at a crossroads and this election isn't about the repubs vs. the dems or the liberals vs. the conservatives, it's about the future of this nation. Without further adieu, here's the actual full quote from Sen. Kerry's testimony:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/j_kerry_s.html
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Quackzilla']He needed the medals to take on Nixon.

He needed those medals to show the media and people that he was what he said he was, it was a sort of damage control when another leading anti-war veteran lied about his rank and what medals he had earned.[/quote]

So you wave your medals in front of the government, tell them that they can take them back, tell people that you've given back your medals, and then 20-30 years later pull them out of a drawer and proclaim yourself a war hero if it will benefit your bid for the presidency?[/quote]

Do you know what it was like then?
Do you know what Kerry was up against?
Have you heard the Nixon tapes?

AND HE NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE THROWN AWAY HIS MEDALS, HE SAID HE THREW AWAY HIS RIBBONS AND A FREINDS MEDALS. HIS FREIND, WHO WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND (most likely in a hospital at the time) REQUESTED THAT KERRY THROW HIS MEDAL FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS DISGUSTED WITH THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

TAKE A fuckING HISTORY LESSON!

YOU HAVE JUST THROWN AWAY ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY BY MAKING THAT SHIT UP.

I really hate you ignorant people who come out here like you know everything and start making stuff up. Its disgusting.
 
Actually, he did say that he threw away his medals (what, you don't remember that little fiasco from a few months ago? He's said in the past that he threw away his medals, then when it was found out that he didn't, he claimed that he considers the medals and the ribbons to be the same thing, and that the only reason that he didn't throw the medals was that they weren't available at the time.) So even if we buy his own explaination, he did throw away his medals, in his own mind, at least.

Personally, though, I don't see a problem with all of that. When he returned from Vietnam, he was angry at the way that the military had treated him and all the other soldiers, as nothing more than pawns to be thrown away on doomed missions done for political reasons. He was far from alone in that feeling.

The fact that he and (and is, I would think) angry about an unjust war doesn't mean that he shouldn't be proud of his own accomplishments during that time. He may not have thought about it at the time (hey, he was young), but he's had plenty of time to think things over. Just like the current situation in Iraq, no matter what you think of the war, you have to respect the soldiers who are fighting it. You CAN differentiate between the war and the soldiers - something that Bush doesn't seem to understand.
 
Do you know what it was like then?
Do you know what Kerry was up against?
Have you heard the Nixon tapes?

I don't fault him for what he did... Sometimes it's harder to stand up for your conscience than to do anything else. But to resurect the medals that you stated earlier than you got rid of or returned the government due to your difference in thought and distaste for the reason you were presented them just because you think it will help your political aspirations in the here and now is pure crap.

AND HE NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE THROWN AWAY HIS MEDALS, HE SAID HE THREW AWAY HIS RIBBONS AND A FREINDS MEDALS. HIS FREIND, WHO WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND (most likely in a hospital at the time) REQUESTED THAT KERRY THROW HIS MEDAL FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WAS DISGUSTED WITH THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION.

Calling it a "phony controversy" instigated by the Republican party, Kerry said on Good Morning America today that he has always accurately said what took place. "I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals. It is very simple."

He also said he — and the military — didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons. "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through," he said.

And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

It's kind of hard to dispute what he did and didn't say when he is on the public record saying it. He's splitting hairs, since both the ribbon and medal are part of the same award, to say that you tossed away one in distaste, and are now using the other to boster your image with a demographic of voters is just crazy.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

TAKE A shaq-fuing HISTORY LESSON!

YOU HAVE JUST THROWN AWAY ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY BY MAKING THAT SHIT UP.

I have that link to verify my claim that he keeps bouncing around his stance on his awards. I'm not trying to take anything away from his service record. To all reports, he served valiantly.When he came home, he stood up for his conscience and said horrible things happened and tried to work with the government to make changes. That's fine.

It just seems to be that there is a certain dishonesty is using your awards and commendations in a certain way when it suits you, and then in the complete opposite way when it suits you.

I really hate you ignorant people who come out here like you know everything and start making stuff up. Its disgusting

I have a link from a credible news organization that backs up what I'm saying and shows on the public record where Kerry refused his award.
I hardly call that making things up.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Actually, he did say that he threw away his medals (what, you don't remember that little fiasco from a few months ago? He's said in the past that he threw away his medals, then when it was found out that he didn't, he claimed that he considers the medals and the ribbons to be the same thing, and that the only reason that he didn't throw the medals was that they weren't available at the time.) So even if we buy his own explaination, he did throw away his medals, in his own mind, at least.

Personally, though, I don't see a problem with all of that. When he returned from Vietnam, he was angry at the way that the military had treated him and all the other soldiers, as nothing more than pawns to be thrown away on doomed missions done for political reasons. He was far from alone in that feeling.

The fact that he and (and is, I would think) angry about an unjust war doesn't mean that he shouldn't be proud of his own accomplishments during that time. He may not have thought about it at the time (hey, he was young), but he's had plenty of time to think things over. Just like the current situation in Iraq, no matter what you think of the war, you have to respect the soldiers who are fighting it. You CAN differentiate between the war and the soldiers - something that Bush doesn't seem to understand.[/quote]

I guess it all depends how you frame it.

Perhaps his ire cooled with time.
Perhaps it's others in his campaign that tried to build up the "War Hero" image because they saw weakness in Bush's service record.

I don't dispute that he should be sticking up for himself and being protective of his accomplishments... but his medals are not his accomplishments.

He should dispute with every fiber of his being the claims that he never earned those medals. That talks to his actions during the war, and the actions that he took in defense of others. That's a good and honorable thing, and worth defending.

But to argue just as fiercly about not throwing them away as a display of distaste for policy, when you are on record stating that you did, is just silly.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='helava']There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.[/quote]

Nice try, but those of us who know our history know that it was Bill Clinton who appeased the North Koreans with nuclear power plants and is responsible for the mess that is the Korean situation today. Bush has made little progress, but after all Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework did to further North Korea's nuclear ambitions, that cannot be too surprising. And why are you saying Bush isn't negotiating with them when he is? The "sunshine" policy was a huge failure, evidenced by North Korea's continued clandestine nuclear program the entire time it was being attempted, and thus was rightly abandoned as a mistake.[/quote]


Typical. Bush messes something up and it becomes Clinton's fault. Progress was being made with North Korea until Bush came into office. Bush decided to break off all negotiations with N Korea. When they saw that, they said hey, let's get our asses in gear and get us some nukes so we can stop Bush from coming in here. Now Bush realizes he screwed up and is now trying to continue the same policy that Clinton followed.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='helava']There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.[/quote]

Nice try, but those of us who know our history know that it was Bill Clinton who appeased the North Koreans with nuclear power plants and is responsible for the mess that is the Korean situation today. Bush has made little progress, but after all Clinton's 1994 Agreed Framework did to further North Korea's nuclear ambitions, that cannot be too surprising. And why are you saying Bush isn't negotiating with them when he is? The "sunshine" policy was a huge failure, evidenced by North Korea's continued clandestine nuclear program the entire time it was being attempted, and thus was rightly abandoned as a mistake.[/quote]


Typical. Bush messes something up and it becomes Clinton's fault. Progress was being made with North Korea until Bush came into office. Bush decided to break off all negotiations with N Korea. When they saw that, they said hey, let's get our asses in gear and get us some nukes so we can stop Bush from coming in here. Now Bush realizes he screwed up and is now trying to continue the same policy that Clinton followed.[/quote]

Rewriting history just doesn't work when the people you're talking to know what they're talking about. Soon after the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which Clinton agreed to give economic assistance (including oil and building nuclear power plants) to North Korea, North Korea secretly restarted (if they ever stopped) their nuclear weapons program. All Clinton's "progress" did was to prop up the regime while they attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, tested missiles, and oppressed/starved their populace. Basically Bush hasn't made any big strides with North Korea or anything, but Clinton's policy was a disaster. Or I guess we could just keep helping them while they continue to move towards being a nuclear power, great "progress" there.
 
He went on Good Morning America saying that he didn't throw his medals over the fense, he throw someone elses (like that makes it better) while on the other half of the screen it had the guy from 30 years ago talking to Kerry and then he throw his medals over the fense when Kerry of today was denying it. Great fun. :)


And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.
 
[quote name='David85']He went on Good Morning America saying that he didn't throw his medals over the fense, he throw someone elses (like that makes it better) while on the other half of the screen it had the guy from 30 years ago talking to Kerry and then he throw his medals over the fense when Kerry of today was denying it. Great fun. :)


And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.[/quote]

Yeah and to be honest I don't want to go fight but if Bush ends up with a war between North and South Korea I WILL be there to defend South Korea. Yes I believe in Democracy like that.
 
It doesn't mattter what Kerry threw over the fence. That and his 'winter soldier' campaign' demonstrates that Kerry was ashamed of his service in Vietnam. Now, suprisingly, he is proud of his service. He once thought that the fighting in Vietnam was wrong, now he claims he defended his country as a young man and he will defend it as president. But back in the 70's he thought the millitary action wasn't defending anybody and we should have pulled out the troops. It's almost exactly what he believes about Iraq today. He never says HOW he'll defend us now, we're just supposed to assume he'll do the right thing because he's a war hero. Yet, he doesn't even believe he is a hero.

Just another example that Kerry is a walking contradiction.
 
I forgot the inconsistencies about the medal throwing too. First he claimed he threw his medals over the fence. Then he claimed he only threw the ribbons. Then he said the medals and ribbons were the same thing. Then he said he threw another soldiers medals. Which is the truth? We'll never know with this guy. He's not even endearing when he's lying like Clinton was...
 
So what you're saying is that any and all military action can be justified as defending our country? Regardless of who you invade, its OK because its in defense of our country?

Vietnam was not a war fought to defend the US. It was, ultimately, a war fought because certain individuals got into a pissing contest and couldn't bear to back down because they were afraid they'd look weak. It was a war doomed to fail, fought against an enemy that posed no threat to us. Despite the fact that we fought the war and (for all intents and purposes) LOST, nothing 'bad' happened to the US. All that was really accomplished was the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

The Vietnam war had nothing at all to do with defending the US. The Iraq war - you can sorta make a case for it, though not a very strong one. Realistically, all we've probably done is create a few thousand new terrorists.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It doesn't mattter what Kerry threw over the fence. That and his 'winter soldier' campaign' demonstrates that Kerry was ashamed of his service in Vietnam. Now, suprisingly, he is proud of his service. He once thought that the fighting in Vietnam was wrong, now he claims he defended his country as a young man and he will defend it as president. But back in the 70's he thought the millitary action wasn't defending anybody and we should have pulled out the troops. It's almost exactly what he believes about Iraq today. He never says HOW he'll defend us now, we're just supposed to assume he'll do the right thing because he's a war hero. Yet, he doesn't even believe he is a hero.

Just another example that Kerry is a walking contradiction.[/quote]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but it is your parents, not Santa Claus, who puts the presents under the tree.
 
[quote name='David85']And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.[/quote]

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.[/quote]

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.[/quote]

Yes, appeasement has been a failure in North Korea as it achieved none of its goals while helping our enemies (yes enemieS, since North Korea went on to share its knowledge with the likes of Iran). And agree or disagree with Bush's policy, he hasn't given nuclear power plants to the North Koreans like Clinton. We do still give them food aid and I believe oil to keep the death toll to a minimum, even though the despicable "dear leader" just uses it for the military while people are literally cannibalizing each other in the streets of Pyongyang (watch the History Channel if you don't believe me).
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.[/quote]

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.[/quote]

Yes, appeasement has been a failure in North Korea as it achieved none of its goals while helping our enemies (yes enemieS, since North Korea went on to share its knowledge with the likes of Iran). And agree or disagree with Bush's policy, he hasn't given nuclear power plants to the North Koreans like Clinton. We do still give them food aid and I believe oil to keep the death toll to a minimum, even though the despicable "dear leader" just uses it for the military while people are literally cannibalizing each other in the streets of Pyongyang (watch the History Channel if you don't believe me).[/quote]

I had that history channel program on TV while doing homework, didn't it also say that the US never delivered on the power plants?
 
[quote name='Drocket']So what you're saying is that any and all military action can be justified as defending our country? Regardless of who you invade, its OK because its in defense of our country?
[/quote]

No, I'M not saying that, Kerry is. Kerry turns his renouncement of the Vietnam war into a 'proud' moment in defence of our country. It's contradictory. [/quote]
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth[/quote]

FOX NEWS, CNN, ABC are conservative news networks.

CBS, NBC are neutral.

That covers the big media outlets.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='David85']And the NK thing, they have always had nukes and just hide them until now. You really don't want to have an other war in Korea and with this time nukes.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Nobody wants to have a war in Korea, especially a potential nuclear war, that's for sure. At least nobody outside of North Korea. They've been working on nuclear weapons for a long time, Clinton attempted appeasement and failed -- that was the thrust of my post.[/quote]

If "appeasement" is a failure, why is that the course Bush is following now? Instead in the beginning of his term, he decided that if Clinton did it, it was bad. So now we have a host of problems that have gotten worse under Bush. I do have to admit, Bush was correct when he said he would run the govt like he ran his companies. He ran all his companies into the ground.[/quote]

Yes, appeasement has been a failure in North Korea as it achieved none of its goals while helping our enemies (yes enemieS, since North Korea went on to share its knowledge with the likes of Iran). And agree or disagree with Bush's policy, he hasn't given nuclear power plants to the North Koreans like Clinton. We do still give them food aid and I believe oil to keep the death toll to a minimum, even though the despicable "dear leader" just uses it for the military while people are literally cannibalizing each other in the streets of Pyongyang (watch the History Channel if you don't believe me).[/quote]

I had that history channel program on TV while doing homework, didn't it also say that the US never delivered on the power plants?[/quote]

IIRC we only had barely started when they started getting more belligerent and we stopped building them, although we continued our other stuff. I'd have to read more about what actually went through and what dates, but I do know that they were promised.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth[/quote]

FOX NEWS, CNN, ABC are conservative news networks.
[/quote]

CNN??!! :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']Even as Sen. John Kerry and his cheerleaders in Big Media try to associate President Bush with the modestly funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth[/quote]

FOX NEWS, CNN, ABC are conservative news networks.
[/quote]

CNN??!! :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:[/quote]

CNN is mostly neutral but Wolf Blitzer throws it a little off balance to the right.

Watch his Daily Show interview where Jon Stewart is trying to make a joke and Wolf takes it seriously and starts defending Bush like a FOX News reporter.
 
Yes, because we all know that john stuart is a completely objective, fair and balanced comedian.....

...and CNN is mostly neutral...
 
He's an imbalanced comedian... what else is new?
:)

... at least it's not chemically. Guys like Sam Kinison never quite seem to make it to advanced agaes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top